(This is part of a list of bad arguments I heard at the Texas Freethought Convention.)
I save the worst for last: the pro-choice (Matt Dillahunty) vs. “pro-life” (Kristine Kruszelnicki) debate on Saturday. Poor Ms Kruszelnicki, a recently declared atheist who opposes abortion, was hopelessly outclassed and outgunned at every point, and relied entirely on bad arguments.
Dillahunty went first, and he staked out a clear and narrowly focused position: that the personhood or “human” status of the embryo/fetus were totally irrelevant to his argument, and that he was building his case entirely on the right to bodily autonomy of the woman. Even if the fetus was judged entirely deserving of consideration as a person (a point he personally does not accept), it would not matter: a woman must retain the right to control her own body.
So what does Kruszelnicki do? Announce right at the beginning that her entire argument was that the embryo is fully human from the instant of conception, and therefore abortion is wrong. She made it clear that she opposes a whole gamut of basic rights: birth control methods that prevent implantation are wrong, because that’s just like strangling or starving a baby; no abortion in cases of rape or incest, because the baby doesn’t deserve punishment; she did allow for abortion in cases that threaten the life of the mother at times before fetal viability, simply because in that case two fully human lives would be lost.
So right from the beginning she was building an argument that entirely ignored anything Dillahunty would say, while Dillahunty would spend the next hour and a half directly refuting the relevance of her case. It was a humiliating rout.
What made it worse, though, was the quality of Kruszelnicki’s arguments. Would you believe that at one point she showed us a grisly video of the outcomes of abortions? Bloody severed body parts, slack gooey limp bodies, puddles of blood with twitching bits of flesh, that sort of thing. There were several different reactions from people I talked to afterwards. Many were just repulsed, and had closed their eyes or walked out of the room when it was shown (oh, yeah, that was an effective tactic in a debate: disgust the audience). Everyone was appalled that such a blatant and logically irrelevant emotional appeal was being made; that’s another brilliant move, insult the intelligence of the audience by assuming that they won’t be able to detect the patent emotional manipulation being practiced.
I had a somewhat different response. I’ve seen surgeries (and done surgeries on animals), and let me tell you, they are unspeakably violent: bodies being cut into and violated, bones broken and cut, torsos cracked and wrenched open — from a naive perspective, every surgery, no matter how benevolent, is terrifyingly brutal. I was unimpressed by a movie that showed the reality of our biological condition. We are full of blood and slime and squirming guts and twitchy tissues, and you aren’t going to sway me by telling me that an invasive surgical procedure is messy and gross.
But the part that really annoyed me is that she repeatedly announced that SCIENCE had declared the conceptus at the moment of fertilization to be fully human. To demonstrate this, she cited several familiar names: O’Rahilly and Moore, for instance. These are people who have authored descriptive embryological texts that take a phenomenological approach, describing the different stages of development. They are not sources that are good for understanding mechanisms or processes, and they definitely do not represent a deep modern understanding of the progressive and emergent properties of development. What she was relying on is that these kinds of texts will state simple facts, like that fertilization produces a zygote with the complete human genetic complement, which they’ll summarize with some shorthand statement that it is a human embryo (rather than a mouse, or a frog, or a fish). From this, the anti-choicers have spun out unwarranted extensions of reductionist statements to claim that they are making definitive statements about personhood or that they’re discussing something as complex as humanity rather than a minimalist statement about genetics.
And they’ve been doing this for decades. That Kruszelnicki is an atheist does not change the fact that she’s using a ridiculous canard that has similarly been used by religious anti-abortionist zealots; she was basically lying about what deveopmental biologists say, and trying to use an unfounded argument from authority as the basis of her debate performance. Bad move.
I actually got to ask her about that. I told her that she was using old descriptive sources and inappropriately extending the implications; I asked her if she had more modern sources with a little more depth, and she waffled and told me that she had lots of recent papers on the subject and that embryologists all agreed on this point (obviously, no they don’t) and she waved a few papers in my direction.
I went up to her after the debate and asked if I could see those sources she waved at me. Suddenly, she couldn’t find them any more. She mumbled something about a “white paper” by an author whose name was unclear, and that she’d find it for me later. She never did, although she and I were both there at the conference for at least 3 more hours. I also mentioned that a “white paper” is not the same thing as a scientific reference; it would be an advocacy statement from an organization with an agenda, and would have very little weight with me.
Here’s the truth: SCIENCE does not make a definitive statement about the moment at which personhood is acquired. It is a product of a complex process with multiple inputs and interactions and no sharply defined transitions that can be pinned to anything as difficult to define as consciousness, identity, and independence. All we can say is that none of those things are there at conception, and all of them are there are sometime after birth, and that anyone who tries to tell you that they are all there unambiguously at some discrete instant in development is lying to you.
481 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
elronxenu
21 October 2012 at 8:56 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I hope the talk was videoed. I’d like to hear Dillahunty’s arguments. He is phenomenally effective against theists.
elronxenu
21 October 2012 at 8:57 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
talk, shmalk. Debate.
Aratina Cage
21 October 2012 at 9:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Heck, you don’t even have to go that far. According to Kruszelnicki’s line of thought, births themselves shouldn’t happen because they can be repulsive and scary.
Rey Fox
21 October 2012 at 9:11 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Sigh. There are so many worthy causes that one can champion and devote energy to, there are so many things that can and should be saved. More mouths to feed should not be your crusade.
Kausik Datta
21 October 2012 at 9:14 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I really, really don’t get this part of the anti-choice argument. Even if the zygote has the full complement of genetic material, so what? Is that all that defines a person to the anti-choicers?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
21 October 2012 at 9:18 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Aratina cage beat me to it! Watching a live birth where everything goes well is terrifying– I’d hate to see one where something goes wrong. It can’t be any worse that the anti-abortion propaganda, in any case.
michaeld
21 October 2012 at 9:20 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I wonder what would happen if you took a video of a different operation appendectomy or something and said it was an abortion how people would react….
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
21 October 2012 at 9:46 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
This disgusts me:
A friend of mine who is 5½ months pregnant has just found out that her fetus has heterotaxia– basically the major organs in the abdominal cavity are malformed. The causes are unknown and there is no cure or therapy. The experts that she has talked to don’t think she’ll carry to viability and if she does, her baby’s life span will be measured in months and that is only with extensive surgeries.
One of her options is to have a D&X– should she be denied the opportunity to terminate her pregnancy to save her (potential) baby from having a short, painful life and to save herself from being emotionally wrecked waiting around to either have a stillbirth or a baby who is doomed to die because some fucking jackass feels squicky about late abortion? Fuck that.
kosk11348
21 October 2012 at 9:59 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Heck, you could probably just throw up a photo of a normal birth and half the audience look away.
Patricia, OM
21 October 2012 at 10:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
For fucks sake. Where do these people come from? One of my nieces had a pregnancy with a child that had no brain stem developing. The child was planned and wanted, we all cried for days. But in the end, how the hell could she, and the family continue the pregnancy knowing it was doomed?
This would have caused me to stand up and shout at the dumbass. There are good reasons for abortions. Nobody does it just for fun. *grrrr*
willow2054
21 October 2012 at 10:11 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Like Patricia, above, says, nobody does it just for fun. I personally think that the number of abortions should be minimized because they’re often a source of emotional strain for the woman (in part because so many members of society say abortion is wrong). I think the most reasonable method of decreasing the number of abortions is to require students to learn comprehensive sex education. In many other states, we teach abstinence-only sex ed. If you want fewer abortions, then work toward fewer pregnancies! Why does it always seem that those who want to ban a woman’s right to choose abortion also want to ban comprehensive education about preventing unwanted pregnancies?! *Sigh*
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
21 October 2012 at 10:12 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
But Patricia, think of the valuable life lessons that the mother could have gotten if she gave birth to a baby lacking a brain stem.
There are times when sarcasm really is the most vile tasting thing.
Except there are people who seriously espouse what I just said with great bitterness.
gallussapien
21 October 2012 at 10:20 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I still felt bad watching her. I understand her perspective to an extent. If she really believes CHILDREN are being murdered en mass, then showing the fruits of those “killings” is meant to “wake people up” to what she sees as the reality. I think that those of us who are pro-choice should see this kind of thing so we/they know what the grisly bussiness of the whole ordeal is.
*zips flame suit*
Okay burn me.
Ysanne
21 October 2012 at 10:25 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley,
incredibly, I’ve heard a theologian specialising in ethics and a couple of other academics working on medical ethics endorse exactly this: Denying not only a late-term abortion in such a cases, but also earlier ones, and actually even the checking IVF embryos before implantation for such conditions.
Their basic assumption was that any non-zero length of life, no matter how short and miserable, is better than one not begun. When this was successfully challenged, their argument turned into “this suffering is necessary to help us healthy people develop our conscience and compassion for our less fortunate fellow humans”. They failed to understand the cruelty and selfishness of this (or at least the irony) even when it was pointed out to them.
I wish your friend all the best!
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
21 October 2012 at 10:26 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Get down off that cross, gallussapien. It is so fucking tiring when someone “offers” them self up to abuse.
You do know that showing those pictures is highly inaccurate. Most abortions do not have all of those body parts.
Get your facts straight.
(Refuses to light a match for the person who thought that gasoline was on their body.)
TriffidPruner
21 October 2012 at 10:38 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
What do those who insist on personhood from conception say to the fact that at least a third of conceptions either fail to implant or spontaneously abort, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant? (summary and refs)
When the advocate is religious, this seems a perfect counter: if they were human, would god let 1/3 of them die? In this case the advocate claims to be an atheist, yet the point must still have some force. Clearly “nature” nor “evolution” places any high value on conceptions; why should we?
gallussapien
21 October 2012 at 10:41 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
“Get down off that cross, gallussapien. It is so fucking tiring when someone “offers” them self up to abuse”
Fair enough. I haven’t done this in a while.
“You do know that showing those pictures is highly inaccurate. Most abortions do not have all of those body parts.”
Well the really horrible videos looked like late term, which is something in my infinite ignorance I am against so far. I’m also not saying what she did was right. I am saying I understand why she did it.
“Get your facts straight.”
I dont think much of what I said even pertains to “facts”. I gave a perspective and an opinion. Nothing was anti-fact. I also wasnt crucifying myself. I was just preparing for what I expected to be some very sharp responses.
andrew
21 October 2012 at 10:47 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You’re right, this is the same dumb ol’ crap we get from the religious “pro” “life”-ers. Science can’t show that a fertilized egg is a human being because the definition of human being is ambiguous. We know that at the beginning of the process (sperm and egg), we are not dealing with a human being. We know that at the end of the process (birth, let’s say), we usually are. But the in-between is a process of assembly that happens by degrees, and there is no consensus at what degree we should declare that “here is a human being and not before”; indeed, there are no particularly clear lines in the process at all. It’s a qualitative question rather than a quantitative one.
kristinc is writing a book called "50 Shades of STFU"
21 October 2012 at 10:48 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
gallussapien, everyone with a brain in their head can think of the fact that surgical procedures are gory. We don’t make a practice of ‘educating’ ourselves on what wisdom tooth removal looks like, or heart surgery, or even the simple lancing of a boil. Why are we obligated to be informed about what this one surgical procedure/family of surgical procedures looks like? Oh, right, because it’s controversial, and therefore we have to give lip service to accommodating the controversy.
Fuck that. How’s that for a sharp reply?
Charlie Foxtrot
21 October 2012 at 10:52 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Random thought – do scientologists say “Get out of that volcano!”?
Scarina
21 October 2012 at 10:56 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@5 Kausik Datta: I’ve never understood that argument. By their logic, my fingernail clippings are people. I mean, they have all of my genes in them. I don’t see anyone marching to save my nails.
kirikasena
21 October 2012 at 10:56 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
“Clearly ‘nature’ nor ‘evolution’ places any high value on conceptions; why should we?”
TriffidPruner:
Wouldn’t this point be based on the naturalistic fallacy? Couldn’t the same thing be said about human life? 100% of humans die, nature doesn’t care, so why should we care if humans die?
Obviously, I’m not arguing against abortion (hell no), but your point doesn’t seem to work, unless I’m confused (which is possible, as it’s late).
ibyea
21 October 2012 at 10:57 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@galussapien
Well, your comment was whatever until that last sentence where you think we should see those kind of things. While I myself don’t think much of watching surgeries and I think they are kind of cool, many people don’t like it. Why should people be obligated to watch something when they are used as stupid emotional manipulation tactics and you know, many people don’t like seeing organs and stuff? So people should be advised to watch heart surgeries just so they know how grisly it all is before it is performed on them or someone they love? That’s stupid, and you deserve the sharp responses.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
21 October 2012 at 11:03 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Someone needs to meet the goblins of Discworld.
Scarina
21 October 2012 at 11:05 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
ema
21 October 2012 at 11:06 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@ gallussapien
How many spontaneous/operative deliveries should we see so we/they 1) know what the grisly business of the whole ordeal is, and 2) magnanimously permit pregnant patients to make their own medical decisions?
And if you really want to see POC pathological specimens, as Janine: Hallucinating Liar points out, as a rule, those pics/videos are performance art, not actual specimens. You need to find a reality-based source (not an easy task, of course, because of HIPAA).
Scarina
21 October 2012 at 11:07 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Apologies for the blockquote failure. My last post was @24 Janine.
ema
21 October 2012 at 11:18 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Well the really horrible videos looked like late term, which is something in my infinite ignorance I am against so far.
I haven’t seen the videos and, while a quick description of what you saw would be enough to orient me, I don’t know if you’d want to do that or if others here would want to read it. So, let’s approach it a different way.
What do you mean by “late term” and what exactly are you against (the indication, the technique, etc.)?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
21 October 2012 at 11:21 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Yes, Scarina, that was a Terry Pratchett reference. Goblins save every bodily secretion.
Most of the members of the Horde are Discworld fans. Lots of references are made. Just one of the many odd things about this blog.
gmacs
21 October 2012 at 11:38 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
So, if a complete and unique genome, I always wonder what that line of thought entails. It’s even on the Iowa Republican party’s platform. Does this mean they’re going to make it the legal basis for identity? If these kind of people are allowed their way, are we going to have to register our genomes at birth? What about monozygotic twins? does that make them each technically one half of a person? Or are we counting possible epigenetic aspects as part of “personhood” as well?
bad Jim
22 October 2012 at 12:02 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
How about tumors with their unique but unmistakably human genetic identity? Where is the love for tumors?
cactuswren
22 October 2012 at 12:09 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audrey #8: I’m a veteran of years on the old Usenet talk.abortion newsfroup so have dealt fairly extensively with pro-liars. They’d refer to forcing your friend (to whom all sympathies) to give birth to a child that could only survive for a few weeks or months as “giving the baby a chance”. Another pro-lie convention is “The doctors TOLD me I HAD to have an abortion but THE DOCTORS WERE WRONG!” (On whatever planet it is these people inhabit, doctors routinely command pregnant women to abort based on the results of a single test which invariably is proven false.) And of course there’s describing an eighteen-week neonate, surviving for a few hours in the ICU, with such phrases as “But the baby lived didn’t she?” (Meaning she didn’t die instantly, but took several hours to die.)
Patricia, OM
22 October 2012 at 12:17 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
gallussapien -
I think you have no idea of what you are talking about. Have you ever worked in the veterinary business? I did for 13 years. Do you know how we conduct horse and cow autopsies? Axes and chainsaws. Do you seriously think the owners of the animals should see that? I puked for the first few years I worked in the trade. So don’t tell me that people should have to watch horror shows made just to sicken them.
Women don’t choose abortions for fun! Get the fuck over yourself.
Josh, Official SpokesGay
22 October 2012 at 12:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Even if women did “choose abortions for fun,” it doesn’t matter. There’s nothing morally wrong with terminating a fetus (yes, no matter how “far along”).
Patricia, OM
22 October 2012 at 12:40 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
This topic really burns me up. I am childless by choice. When I got married in 1975 my husband & I took a few years (5) to decide for good that we wouldn’t have children. We took full advantage of birth control methods. After five years of reflection and consideration of whether we would be good parents, we decided hell no. So he got a vasectomy. Guess what folks – atheists can be monogamous. For the 35 years that he survived we had no children & we were fine.
But this doesn’t work for everyone! If my birth control methods had failed I would have been the first one in line at the abortion clinic. And to hell with every damned christian that says childbirth is my curse as a woman.
Patricia, OM
22 October 2012 at 12:58 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
When PZ is talking about surgeries on animals being grafic he’s not kidding.
You wanna see something ugly – watch a spaying of a cat that has six kittens in her, and the owner swears he didn’t know she was old enough to get pregnant.
How about a hit-by-car dog that has a broken back, and it’s colon out a foot beyond it’s anus?
Thanks jesus.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 1:39 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ysanne and cactuswren:
It never fails to amaze me how fucking ghoulish people can be.
Going back to the OP:
If it were to be accepted that blastocyst = person, not only would everything that a pregnant woman does be subject to legal scrutiny, but so would everything that any sexually active woman of childbearing age does. Virtually every woman would have her rights curtailed, no matter how careful she was about birth control. Everything from what a woman eats and drinks, to the drugs (legal or otherwise) she uses and activities she engages in are suddenly all weighed against the fact that she could be pregnant at any time. That’s a hell of a scary rabbit hole to go down.
I have still yet to have this question answered: Under the assumption that an embryo/fetus is a person, is a pregnant woman committing sexual abuse if she masturbates or has sex?
Patricia, OM
22 October 2012 at 1:55 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley – I love you for how you are able to be objective. It is a marvel to me.
clastum3
22 October 2012 at 3:03 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
As I understand it, this is not the teaching of Roe & Wade. It defined limits to a woman’s “absolute autonomy over her own body” in the case of late-term abortions. If this had been made clear, it might have disarmed many of the objections of the anti-brigade.
Taking ideological stances shouldn’t be the hallmark of the atheist.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 3:27 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Dillahunty:
clastum3:
zoebrain
22 October 2012 at 3:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
1. Identical twins – may even (rarely) be of different sexes, yet gentically identical.
2. Chimeras – whose bodies include 2 or rarely more cell lines from different conceptions
3. Foetiform Teeratomas – cancers rarely resulting from conceptions, though most are congenital.
So a single conception may result in 0, 1/2, 1, or 2 (rarely more) people.
Maureen Brian
22 October 2012 at 3:56 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
gallussapien,
When I see an article from an archaeological dig I get a measuring rod, in centimetres or inches, in the photo and later, in the museum, a reference or a caption which gets me to where, when, why it was found and often by whom. This holds whether it’s the most amazing piece of Anglo-Saxon cloisonne ever or one of 200 cowrie shells found in grave 47.
The scientist treats me with respect. The anti-abortionist does not.
If people are determined to wave gory pictures at me – pretty pointless as I’m not very squeamish – then I should be able to insist on the measuring device i.e. not a 2 cm object blown up to enormous, plus confirmation that it is human and the circumstances under which it came to be like that.
If the poster waver will not tell me whether this bloody mess is a spontaneous abortion at 10 weeks, the surgical removal of an anencephalic foetus or a foetus already dead after getting stuck in the birth canal at term which was extracted in pieces for speed and to save the mother’s life, then why the hell should I take seriously anything that person says?
People who use your potential squeamishness against you are manipulative bastards without a case. People who do the same to me as a woman are trying to control me. Don’t, please, play into their hands.
rorschach
22 October 2012 at 4:14 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Not so long ago I was called to a pregnant woman having a spontaneous miscarriage, or abortion, at 16 weeks gestation. Lots of bleeding, lots of crying people, lots of pain and blood clots, a little thing with arms and legs eventually being expulsed, but the placenta wouldn’t come out, so the lady had to undergo emergency surgery on top of all that.
The one thing that I would always like the religious pro-life wankers to explain to me in a situation like that is why exactly they think their god decided to kill this “person”(while trying his best to kill the mother at the same time, by the way).
The other thing is, as mentioned above, the emotional blackmail these fuckers attempt everytime they show off their gory pictures.
I am not quite clear on what mental gymnastics this person who is described as an atheist by PZ would have to go through to arrive at the position she is said to be taking. The mind somewhat boggles.
Maureen Brian
22 October 2012 at 4:35 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
clastum3 @ 39,
No. Roe vs Wade is much more subtle than you seem capable of being this morning.
Here is what the relevant section says …
Source is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html
Note the “State cannot override that right” notion in the first paragraph. The State may have an opinion and set standards but it can only insist that its interests are brought into play, along with everything else, after viability.
How come so few people know what it actually says? It’s been there for 40 years plus, fergawdsake!
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 4:38 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ysanne
Was this person on any kind of medication at the time? In order to be compassionate, we have to deliberately inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on others? Couldn’t we just run over a hobo or kick a toddler? Wouldn’t that amount to the same thing?
Why isn’t the suffering of these “less fortunate fellow humans” enough to inspire compassion on its own? And if their suffering doesn’t do the trick, why would you think that creating more suffering would?
If you meet this person again, feel free to knee him in the balls. If he complains, simply say that you’ve been lacking in compassion lately and you felt that his suffering would help you get it back.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 5:53 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
A perfect example of the self-sabotaging pronouncement.
Ysanne
22 October 2012 at 6:48 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
LykeX,
they didn’t think they were inflicting the suffering, only letting nature/god have its way in teaching humanity a valuable lesson. Yes, it’s a disgusting combination of callousness, hypocrisy and cowardice, not to speak about the dehumanisation of said “less fortunate” people by reducing them from individuals whose well-being matters to inspirations for compassion…
Since we’re talking about panelists at a semi-public debate organised by a reputable academic foundation, they probably weren’t high, and there was no opportunity for ball-kicking either (also, one of them was female). It was an extremely frustrating experience to feel like the only one who dared to point out the callous BS for what it was, and it’s scary to know that it’s these people who are called upon as “experts” for decisions involving bioethics.
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 6:53 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
What does a court ruling in the US have to do with the morality and ethics of abortion ?
Koshka
22 October 2012 at 7:07 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
My son died just over 2 years ago at 7 weeks old. He was by all appearances perfectly healthy one day and dead the next. For 3 months my partner and I were complete wrecks. For 6 months our 5 year daughter had to deal with parents who often in tears. We struggled to interact with anyone else, and were often shut out of social circles because we tended to drag the mood down.
It would have been better if my son was never born. I regularly am triggered by things to remember that most horrible day. I still feel a sense of guilt when I feel happy.
The suffering my family went through was not necessary. The suffering I have experienced has not made me more compassionate. It has made me wary of people.
To knowingly force a person to go through this is a monstrous act.
Koshka
22 October 2012 at 7:20 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Willow2054 #11
Have you considered that you are in fact joining with society to say abortion is wrong by saying you personally think that the number of abortions should be minimized? Have you considered your personal feelings mean fuck all to a women who wants an abortion?
Josh #34
Yes. The only reason a woman should need to have an abortion is that she wants one.
terryg
22 October 2012 at 7:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Koshka #49 *hugs*
I’ve been avoiding people for that reason. Its been exactly one month since my darling Ruth died, and I see no end in sight for the crying. I made myself go to our family reunion this weekend, and was pleased to see just how much my cousins care about me. I was also disappointed to find out my brother is a waste of perfectly viable organs. fucking empathy, how does that work? couldn’t have got through it without the hugs. OT, but I ended up writing a blog post about it, and de-anonymising myself:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/10/11/guest-post-ruths-story/
Koshka #49, Josh #34 – you’re dead fucking right. pun intentional. turns out these asshats are raising their thought-free heads her in little ole new Zealand too *sigh*
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 7:42 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I don’t like the “minimizing the number of abortions” track. It’s too close to the abortion is bad territory.
Does anyone ever talk about minimizing the number of heart surgeries? No, we recognize those as beneficial. What we want to minimize are heart diseases.
yankonamac
22 October 2012 at 7:52 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@45 LykeX,
I think Mother Theresa would have gotten behind that–as someone who seemed to relish in the suffering of the sick, the starving and the impoverished, who’s personal style of “compassion” was to encourage them to ask for help from a sky fairy, remind them of the evils of contraception and divorce, and stand by mumbling about god’s plan when a woman endures an agonizing childbirth (or dies from it) I’m confident that in her universe suffering is a Good thing. Not only in itself, but especially if you have the ability to ameliorate it but you don’t. Sure, you could end and prevent a great deal of suffering if you allowed people to prevent unwanted, dangerous or excessive pregnancies, escape abusive spouses, and stand up against tyrannical regimes, but if you actually Avoided suffering, what place would the church have in society?
They should really team up with Philip Morris to strengthen their corporate development strategies–locking in new customers when they’re young and impressionable, hiding from lawsuits when the product causes visible harm, and above all, maintaining the socioeconomic, educational and governance systems that allow the product to remain prevalent and appear beneficial.
dianne
22 October 2012 at 7:57 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Quite apart from the sheer lunacy of the blastulocyte=person argument, if we accept that it is a person and then the “pro-life” argument boils down to the argument that it is acceptable for one person to use another person’s body against their will if the first person will die without that intervention. That argument takes us all sorts of places that I doubt the “pro-life” movement wants to go. The most obvious is compulsory organ and tissue donation, but one could take it further than that. Murder one person for their organs and you can save 6+ lives (2 kidneys, 1 heart, 1 liver, 2 lungs, unspecified amount of marrow and blood) and improve the quality of 2+ more lives (cornea, intestines, pancreas, etc). According to the most radical form of the “pro-life” argument, this would be absolutely fine. Pushing one person on the train track to avoid killing the 5 already on it, and so on. Does anyone really want the society implied in the “pro-life” argument? I doubt it, but legal precedents are legal precedents and I don’t see any way to stop the above from being allowed if one accepts and codifies into law the basic premise that one person is allowed to use another’s body.
Koshka
22 October 2012 at 7:59 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
terryg,
I remember reading your story recently. It made me cry. It has also made seriously consider donating my body when I am dead.
In both our circumstances I feel forced birthers have devalued the life of people we have lost.
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 8:07 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I just don’t know.
I mean, on the one hand, it seems pretty clear you can’t force someone to risk their life for another. Abortion for medical necessity seems a total given, no matter the stage of pregnancy.
And on the other hand, it seems pretty damn clear that the distinction of moral significance is between a subject that can think and feel and be aware, and an object that is just, well… stuff. (You can damage an object, but you can’t hurt an object.) And a blastocyst just is not aware on any level whatsoever. I mean, it seems that 20 weeks or so is the earliest one could argue that a fetus is aware of something even as basic as pain. Abortion before that can’t possibly be argued to be hurting a person. A potential person at most… and potential persons only have potential rights.
But legally, nobody has absolute autonomy over their own bodies. Or even over things like property – if you find a trespasser on your land you can’t kill them; indeed, you have a legal obligation to protect them at least to the extent of warning them from any dangers around.
‘Slippery slope’ arguments are usually bad ones… but we do have a long history of people deciding other people aren’t human and don’t count. (E.g. women, slaves, etc.) We can prove there’s no person there before 20 weeks; until we crack the consciousness problem I don’t see how we can be sure there’s ‘nobody home’ after 20 weeks. (Except for something like anencephaly, obviously.) (And it probably varies a lot and there’s no sharp dividing line. It’s like night and day – twilight is arguable, but there are definitely some times we can unambiguously label ‘night’ or ‘day’.) It seems that we ought to be careful about the ‘nonhuman’ classification.
I find it hard to muster up objections to a regime like “Unrestricted abortion up to 20 weeks, then abortion when medically indicated.” Very few women aren’t aware they’re pregnant before five months – the vast majority of present abortions happen before that point already. And it would seem the large majority of the ones after that point do indeed happen because of medical problems.
(And yes, certainly, the best way to deal with abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Comprehensive sex education is a big first step. Better birth control options would be nice, too.)
dianne
22 October 2012 at 8:16 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Does anyone ever talk about minimizing the number of heart surgeries?
Well, maybe interventional cardiologists. They make their money stealing patients from the surgeons and doing less invasive but (sometimes) just as effective stenting instead. But when the situation isn’t right for that, if they have any ethics at all, they send the patient to the cardiothoracic surgeon.
I’m all for prevention and stealing patients from the surgeons-surgery really is barbaric, if often necessary-but only when the situation is medically appropriate. If the surgeon doesn’t get the case because of some social problem-say, laws preventing that surgery from occurring or lack of insurance-that’s a major problem. Lives are lost and damaged that way. Forcing women to carry to term damages their lives and, sometimes, kills them. IUDs and condoms for everyone who wants them so the abortion rate goes down? Great! Limit access to abortion so the abortion rate goes down? Bad.
dianne
22 October 2012 at 8:19 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Abortion for medical necessity seems a total given, no matter the stage of pregnancy.
What do you mean by “medical necessity”? How high does the risk need to be before you’ll allow a woman to end a life threatening pregnancy? What about a pregnancy that’s as dangerous as having a plane ticket dated “9/11/01″ on 9/10/01? Is that a pregnancy that can be acceptably ended?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 8:20 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Oh come on, dianne, you’re ruining my heart disease analogy. ;)
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 8:24 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I just don’t know. – Ray Ingles
That’s abundantly obvious.
Which, since abortion is safer than continuing the pregnancy at all points, means abortion on demand is the only acceptable policy.
What “problem” would that be? Levels of oxygen perfusion pre-birth are always below what is compatible with consciousness.
Then you’re clearly indifferent if not hostile to women’s bodily autonomy.
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 8:36 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
dianne –
Threat to life, or permanent injury to the mother, or nonviable pregnancy. Basically, a doctor’s signoff that the abortion’s medically indicated. (I imagine there’d be some (mostly Christian) doctors that would refuse to sign any, and others that would sign any paper put in front of them.)
If a woman can’t convince any doctor that there’s a medical problem, then maybe there isn’t one. Sure, no profession’s perfect, least of all the medical profession. But we still require prescriptions for a wide range of drugs, even for less-than-life-threatening conditions.
Koshka
22 October 2012 at 8:37 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I can only assume that because you think we need to ‘deal with abortion’, you have a problem with it. I find your comments judgemental.
Better birth controls includes access to abortion. Condoms, the pill and similar birth control are not 100% effective and to ensure birth control is available to all women, abortions will always be required.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 8:39 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Funny, I see it the other way around. What I want to “deal with” are unwanted pregnancies.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 8:41 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Women aren’t total idiots.
(I just wanted to throw that in there, since we’re now obviously going to discuss how and why a woman might desire a late term abortion)
Koshka
22 October 2012 at 8:43 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You appear to think that all women have an option of going to another doctor to get another opinion. You also give the impression that you think there are women who are getting late term abortions for no good reason.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 8:46 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
This. Abortions aren’t a problem. They just indicate that there is a problem; unwanted pregnancies. Focusing on the abortion itself is very much like focusing on the heart surgery instead of the heart disease.
It doesn’t matter whether there’s anybody home. It’s completely irrelevant. We wouldn’t allow a fully grown human to make that kind of demand on another person’s body, so why should we allow it for fetuses?
A blood transfusion, if properly done, is completely harmless to the donor. Yet, we don’t forcibly take people’s blood, even if it could save someone’s life.
Banning abortions doesn’t give fetuses the same rights as adults, it gives them more rights than adults.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 8:48 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Doesn’t every woman have an abortion on a whim (TM) every now and then?
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 8:49 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Nick Gotts (formerly KG) –
Shooting all intruders is safer than fleeing, too.
We don’t know exactly what consciousness is yet. We don’t know some of the necessary but not all of the sufficient conditions for it. (That’s okay, though. We don’t need to postulate a soul, any more than it made sense to say before the 1700′s that lightning was caused by Thor or Seth or the Thunderbirds or God.) Once we have a good handle on consciousness, then it’ll probably be obvious when or if preterm infants are aware of anything. Right now, I don’t see how that can be rule out.
Do you lose your ‘right to life’ when sleeping? Or anesthetized? (BTW, where can I learn more about that?)
“Indifferent” and “not thinking bodily autonomy is absolute” are not coextensive.
dianne
22 October 2012 at 8:49 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Threat to life, or permanent injury to the mother, or nonviable pregnancy.
That doesn’t answer the question: How severe does the threat have to be? Not every high risk pregnancy will end in death. For example, some babies born after exposure to thalidomide were perfectly normal in every way. Does that mean that it’s perfectly acceptable to use thalidomide in pregnancy because the risk of birth defects is not 100%? Where are you drawing the line? Because you should realize that every pregnancy threatens the mother’s life and health. A pregnancy can become “non-viable” (i.e. the fetus die) during delivery. If you’re going to argue for any restriction other than the desire of the person who is pregnant, you’ll have to draw a line somewhere. Where is yours?
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 8:54 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You know the best ways of reducing late term abortions ?
1. Make it easier to get abortions.
2. Improve sex education.
3. Improve the nutrition of women who want to become pregnant.
4. Ensure timely access to pre-natal screenings.
5. Ensure measures to support women at high-risk are available. If appropriate, admit the woman to hospital for the last months of the pregnancy.
6. Continue medical research to improve screening.
7. Ensure funds are available for all of above, so that ability to pay is not an issue.
melissamccurley
22 October 2012 at 8:54 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I was a witness to the debate & was frustrated as were most of you that she kept repeating herself & failing to rebut any of Matt’s arguments.
I personally was not bothered in the least by her pictures. I have had an abortion & it did not incite any type of guilt in me.
I am going to look into her background a bit, because her value for the ‘sanctity of human life’ (not a term she used, but one that well describes her views) appears to be like that of religous people.
Josh, Official SpokesGay
22 October 2012 at 8:55 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
What part of “a woman’s body is her own and no other being, regardless of the level of sentience, is entitled to occupy it, draw from it, or endanger its well-being” do you not understand, Ray? Seriously? Answer the question of why you think a fetus should have this right when an adult (think of the violinist analogy) doesn’t. Stop avoiding that.
dianne
22 October 2012 at 8:55 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If a woman can’t convince any doctor that there’s a medical problem, then maybe there isn’t one.
Excuse me, I had to take a moment to get over the hysterical laughter at the naivety implied in this statement. Sorry, I’m better now.
In many places, there is a shortage of obstetricians and even fewer OBs who will perform abortions. So the woman in question may have no more than one person to whom she can go for an abortion and if s/he doesn’t agree, is simply out of luck, no matter what the risk or reason. Not to mention that there have been the occasional cases in history of women’s problems getting ignored or blown off my doctors who thought that they knew women’s bodies better than the women themselves did.
Josh, Official SpokesGay
22 October 2012 at 8:57 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Matt, at #70—it’s so weird. All those actions seem to contemplate and further the well-being of an actual woman. It’s almost as if that were the thing that was actually important.
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 8:57 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Well, it’s an indication that there’s either an unwanted pregnancy, or else a medical problem. To that extent, yes, there’s a problem. I wish heart surgeries and traumatic amputations and radical hemispherectomies weren’t necessary either. Presumably we’ll develop better medical techniques, even nanotechnology, to deal with those problems, too, eventually.
Sure. I (a) explicitly wished for even better birth control options, and (b) think most women who find that their birth control failed can probably arrange an abortion before the sixth month of pregnancy.
(I’ve also taken advantage of a more permanent form of birth control myself to ensure I and my wife don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancy.)
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie
22 October 2012 at 9:00 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
That argument…it sounds so familiar.
“They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them have come to see it, others are content merely to know it is there. They all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery.” – Ursula K LeGuin
Pretty sure that story wasn’t meant as an instruction manual.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 9:02 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Anyone remember that story from a couple of weeks back about an acquaintance of mine who was told that the fetus was severely disfigured and abortion was advised, but when she went before the commission (because her pregnancy had advanced over the limit where she could just ask for an abortion) she was suddenly told that what her doctor had said (and was confirmed by a second opinion) was a mistake and the fetus was fine? And then she had a stillborn.
Didn’t sound like a coincidence then and it still doesn’t. But yeah, doctors aren’t biased at all and will totally grant a woman the right to abort if she really needs it. Right.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 9:05 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
…and fuck the rest.
Koshka
22 October 2012 at 9:08 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I don’t get your point. By ‘can probably arrange an abortion before the sixth month of pregnancy’ you must realise that in some instances there are some that can’t. What about them?
I still can only read your comments to imply that there are women getting late term aborting on a whim.
Have a cookie.
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 9:09 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
LykeX –
If you can see the transfusion coming for five months, and don’t take steps before then to head it off, then maybe consent can be presumed.
It’s okay, I’m used to the abuse. The anti-abortion types hate the idea because I don’t agree a zygote is a human being and I don’t think all, or even most, abortions should be restricted. The pro-choice types hate the idea because I think a small fraction of abortions should require medical signoff. Sorry if it seems to me they are both partially right and both partially wrong.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 9:10 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Are you seriously suggesting that that’s a reasonable comparison? If so, I’d love to hear you explain it in more detail.
First of all, it’s not clear to me that shooting the intruder is necessarily safer than running away and calling the police from the neighbors’ house. In fact, unless the intruder is in the path of escape, I’d say running was probably the safer option.
More to the point, the situations are completely different. Fleeing doesn’t require us to accept the very personal and ongoing violation of bodily autonomy. In no way is “running away” equivalent to “carry a child within your body for nine months, with all the resulting physical changes and risks.”
A better (but still lacking) comparison would be “shoot or be raped.” In such a case, I don’t think I’d blame a woman for pulling the trigger. It would reasonably fall under the category of self-defense.
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 9:13 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
dianne –
Severe enough in the judgment of a doctor. That’s the standard we use for other surgeries, isn’t it?
Just like the ultimate ‘solution to abortion’ is preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, wouldn’t the solution to the above problems be insuring better medical care for everyone?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 9:15 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
*hands Ray Ingles a stepladder so that he can get off that cross*
And take those fake nails from your palms, you look ridiculous!
(I’ll let someone else link the obligatory xkcd)
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 9:16 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
It also needs to be noted that women are are poor or black are more likely to have late abortions than the general population.
http://www.livescience.com/17529-trimester-abortions.html
dianne
22 October 2012 at 9:17 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If you can see the transfusion coming for five months, and don’t take steps before then to head it off, then maybe consent can be presumed.
Because nothing ever changes in five months and a plan to donate blood made five months before is always reasonable. Never mind that you were in a car accident a month ago and now have a hemoglobin of 7. (Normal about 12-15 for women, 14-16 for men.)
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 9:19 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Some more data on why women have late abortions.
http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0543.htm
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 9:22 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray Ingles
Take your fence-sitting, self-pitying crap and shove it. I don’t care. Stick to the point.
1) Consent can be presumed? For a person who’s right there, fully conscious, completely sane and saying “no”, you think consent can be presumed?
I’ll just let that stand for a second.
2) Are you saying that if you know that a person has to get regular blood transfusions and you’ve once consented to give a transfusion, you’re now obligated by law to continue transfusions for as long as they need them?
You have to say no the first time, or you’re in for the duration? If you’ve once given permission, you can’t ever retract it? No matter how the circumstances may change, once you’ve said yes, your consent is “presumed”?
dianne
22 October 2012 at 9:22 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Severe enough in the judgment of a doctor. That’s the standard we use for other surgeries, isn’t it?
Not really. In fact, not at all. The standard for most medical decisions is what the patient wants. But perhaps that part of the statement was a “it goes without saying” moment for you and you meant that it is a decision best left to the doctor and patient. In that case, no further laws are needed with regard to abortion except those already in place to prevent or redress malpractice. I agree. Thank you for your support.
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 9:24 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 9:25 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Koshka –
The anti-abortion types claim that. Like you, I doubt it’s anything like what they allege. But people are weird. Seems likely there are some.
The good news is, if we’re right, then requiring a doctor’s signoff after 20 weeks won’t have any appreciable effect on the number of late-term abortions.
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 9:27 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Matt Penfold –
Um… at which point, the doctor signs off and they get an abortion. Before 20 weeks, no restrictions at all.
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 9:28 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Abortions are not DIY procedures. To be safe they require the supervision of a doctor no matter what stage the pregnancy is at.
So your talk of a doctor’s “signoff” is just silly.
nms
22 October 2012 at 9:31 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I really don’t understand this position at all. “Abortion is usually fine but we should still have a rule that will massively inconvenience a tiny minority of people who want abortions”. It seems like some kind of concession, but I’m not sure to whom or why.
Nepenthe
22 October 2012 at 9:31 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Are you living on a planet where a significant number of USian women find it difficult to access birth control because of doctors’ and pharmacists’ refusal to provide appropriate medical care? Where rape victims are denied emergency contraception? Where a significant proportion of hospitals are explicitly Catholic? Because this is the only explanation I can find for your naive assumption that doctors and hospital administrators won’t railroad women into risky births on a regular basis.
Must be nice there.
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 9:32 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Beatrice –
Nah, just saying I only care about the arguments. The point is, the abuse doesn’t cause any suffering. It doesn’t make an argument any stronger, though.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 9:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
So… doctors will always do what is right, but women are callous idiots.
(It’s not like there have been cases of anti-abortionist doctors denying a woman abortion even when she was dying)
nms
22 October 2012 at 9:34 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If I were 20 weeks pregnant and I needed an abortion for some reason, and I couldn’t get a doctor to “sign-off” on it, I would call that an appreciable effect.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 9:34 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
So why do it, other than to give fundy doctors a chance to say no? There’s already a problem with a lack of clinics in certain areas of the US. While abortions are legal, nobody performs them.
Sure this could be solved by having abortions widely and easily available, but that’s not even remotely the case right now. A demand for a doctor’s signature would effectively be a ban in some areas.
And of course, this is not limited to health risks. Economy, home situation, marital status… a lot of things can happen in nine months, any of which are a good reason for a woman to change her mind about having a baby.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 9:36 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/north_dakota.html
dianne
22 October 2012 at 9:37 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
How is “a doctor signed off on it” different from “a doctor discussed the options with the patient who decided, after listening to the options and recommendation, to have a D and X for severe pre-eclampsia at 20 weeks, and the doctor then performed the procedure as agreed”? Are you looking for a second doctor’s agreement? Why? We don’t demand a second opinion for every mastectomy or orchiectomy performed, for example. Why should abortion be different?
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 9:37 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
dianne –
Medical necessity. And therefore…
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 9:40 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You can look state by state here: link
And if an unfortunate woman living in one of those places with no abortion access finally finds some place to get an abortion, but it’s already too late to get it “on a whim”… oh well, fuck her.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 9:42 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles
It was you who said that “it seems pretty clear you can’t force someone to risk their life for another”. Then, when I point out that this means abortion on demand is the only valid option, you want to row back from it. Which makes it completely clear that you are not arguing in good faith.
Because oxygen perfusion is at a level incompatible with consciousness, as I’ve already explained.
Again, it’s quite clear you are not arguing in good faith. It was you who implied it was important whether the fetus is conscious; when given evidence that it isn’t, you move the goalposts. The difference, of course, is that the fetus has never been conscious, and hence has never had any preference for remaining alive.
You said you find it “hard to muster up objections” to forced pregnancy after 20 weeks; but if you had the slightest concern for women’s bodily autonomy, that obvious objection would immediately have come to mind.
Notice that three times, I have had to restore the context of my points – the statements by you that they were responses to, and which you had omitted – so that it can be seen what I was responding to, and hence, how dishonest your replies are.
Climb down off that cross, Jesus, or someone might actually nail you to it.
nms
22 October 2012 at 9:42 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
And therefore what? Have you read these posts?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
22 October 2012 at 9:43 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Are you a medical doctor? If not, your OPINION doesn’t matter.
mythbri
22 October 2012 at 9:43 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
*Tenderly and lovingly gathers thorns and brambles and weaves them into crowns for people like Willow and Ray Ingles and gallusssapien*
Here you go, you brave, brave souls who would dare to speak up against the women who are exercising their right to self-determination and bodily autonomy. Are your crosses uncomfortable? Feeling sufficiently noble, are we? Hmm? Good.
Abortion is exactly as moral as the pregnant person in question believes it to be. It is her decision, full stop. It has nothing to do with the potential for fetal consciousness. It has nothing to do with potential fetal personhood. It has nothing to do with anything outside what the woman wants and the recommendations of her physician.
…
You know what concerns about fetal consciousness result in when you try to legislate them? Dead and/or deformed women, and dead fetuses or babies (if the woman was forced to give birth to a baby with severe and life-ending medical problems).
You know what concerns about fetal personhood result in when you try to legislate them? Reduced access to healthcare for women, including contraception, screening tests, and information that women have the right to know, so that they can make informed decisions about their own bodies.
I don’t want to have children. I take precautions to guard against unwanted pregnancy (which, just because I consent to sex does not mean I consent to a blastocyst taking up residence inside me. If I could hang a “No Trespassing” sign in my womb that was legible to blastocysts, I would), but I’m also VERY aware that any of those precautions could fail at any moment. Should the situation ever arise, I will not be carrying that pregnancy.
That’s my right. You are morally repugnant if you think you can take it away from me.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 9:44 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I just thought this should be repeated.
—
Can anyone remind me… Does Canada have a plague of cases where women wait the whole pregnancy just for the delight of having an abortion a week before term? No? How strange.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 9:44 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Whereas advocating forced pregnancy, as you are doing, undoubtedly does cause immense suffering. But clearly, you don’t give a shit about that.
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 9:45 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Here in the UK (except Northern Ireland) ALL abortions require two doctors to agree that one is necessary. Up until 24 weeks this can be on the grounds that continuing with the pregnancy would be detrimental to the women or her family.
In effect, this allows for abortion on demand. Most abortions are carried out before 12 weeks (87% in 2004). 95% of all abortions are carried out under this provision (2004).
For cases where there is a risk of significant harm to the women, or there is a significant abnormality with the foetus there is no time limit. In effect, the upper limit is around 28 weeks since after that it starts becoming feasible to deliver early. Only 1.6% of abortions in 2004 took place after 20 weeks.
Ingles is getting all upset over a non-issue. Women simply don’t have late abortions simply because they do not want to be pregnant.
raven
22 October 2012 at 9:47 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
This is wrong. You could say the same thing about eggs, sperm, cancers, or a plate of WI-38 diploid fibroblasts.
It would be a win win if this woman went back to the christofascists. She isn’t going to make a good atheist. She isn’t even going to make a good human being.
It’s not even in the bible. Babies are considered human one month after birth. This BTW, is common in primitive societies and even some today. The chance of a neonate dying was so high, they wouldn’t name it until it had lived a few months.
dianne
22 October 2012 at 9:48 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I’d like to see the following changes to abortion law occur:
1. Birth control including “plan B” would be 100% covered by all insurance plans. Increased access to birth control is proven to reduce the incidence of abortion. Get it out there!
2. All ob/gyn residents would be required to learn how to perform all accepted abortion techniques. They may not include abortion in their practice when they complete residency, but they need to know how to perform abortions. An OB not willing to perform an abortion makes as much sense as a Jehovah’s witness blood bank specialist. If you aren’t willing to go there, go into something else where you won’t be required to do so.
3. All family practice residents would be trained in basic abortion techniques. FPs may be the only doctor for miles around in some rural areas. They need to know what to do in emergencies. Again, there are other options for medical specialty if you are unwilling to ever be involved in an abortion.
4. Get rid of the idiotic laws restricting specific techniques. The technique used should be the safest and most effective one. Regardless of how “icky” some idiot legislator thinks it sounds.
5. No “counseling”, “waiting periods”, required ultrasounds or other barriers beyond those necessary for the safety of the patient. Routine counseling into the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure should, of course, be given. In the case of an elective abortion, the alternatives listed should include giving birth and what might happen next (i.e. adoption or raising the baby.) It should be explicitly mentioned that giving birth is at at least 10x more dangerous than having an abortion and that giving a baby up for adoption usually, perhaps always, poses a grave risk to the mother’s mental health.
In short, let’s treat abortion like any other medical procedure. If the laws covering consent aren’t adequate for abortion then they’re not adequate for any other procedure and the problem is far bigger than abortion. If they are adequate then what’s the problem? Either way, specific legislation for a single procedure seems silly and counterproductive.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 9:51 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray Inlges
Maybe it would be helpful if you described a situation in which a woman desiring an abortion should not be allowed to have one. What criteria would you go by? What would, to you, justify this course of action?
You’re very busy describing all the instances where a woman would be allowed to get an abortion and pointing out how little you would really want to change.
Do us the favor of explaining when you would say to a woman: “No, you can’t get an abortion, you have to carry the baby to term and give birth, whether you like it or not.”
Bonus points if you can describe a situation that’s halfway realistic.
nms
22 October 2012 at 9:51 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
(We’re just laying low until the Conservatives lose their majority. But don’t tell them I said that.)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 9:52 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Thank you, Beatrice. Now I am flashing back to jim and his argument that women might give birth to a baby and have the baby killed while still attached to the cord, making it an abortion because of .
What a bloody stupid git.
Gregory Greenwood
22 October 2012 at 9:55 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles @ 56;
Setting the bar for abortion at ‘medical necessity’ is problematic. Firstly, because the term itself is too vague – does medical necessity only mean when the woman’s life is in danger? What level of risk to life is sufficient? What about permanent injury? If so, what level of injury? What about psychological trauma caused where the pregnancy is the product of rape or incest? Should women be forced to give birth when the risk of physical harm may be relatively small, but the psychological damage will be vast? What about the state of the foetus? What if, when the born, the child will have a severly foreshortened or pain afflicted life? Should the prospective mother still be forced to undertake the risks associated with birth? What should the threshold be there?
Secondly, bodily autonomy is a far broader concept than simply the right not to have one’s life or health imperiled – bodily autonomy deals with the fundamental concept that one has final authority over one’s own flesh. That no one else can claim rights in your body. It is a fundamental component of a person’s humanity, and the denial of a woman’s bodily autonomy in the name of preventing the abortion of a foetus amounts to the outright denial of her personhood. If the bodily autonomy of women is a right that can be causally abrogated when they become pregnant, then society is effectively saying that women are ambulatory incubators rather than people. It is nothing less than a declaration of procreative slavery for half our species.
Actually, whether or not the foetus can feel is not the ‘distinction of moral significance’ – even when dealing with a fully conscious person, nobody can claim rights in another person’s flesh. Even if the alternative is certain death, no one can demand that another person donates an organ, or even gives blood. Why should a foetus be given rights far beyond those of unambiguously conscious people?
Your equivalency here is false – your body is not simply another class of property, like a car or a house. Bodily autonomy is not like ownership of an object. As an example, while you cannot simply kill an intruder on your property, even when they endanger it, you are entitled to defend you life (which in practical terms means your body) with lethal force. You can be separated from you property, and while this may harm your interests, the damage will be limited. The same cannot be said of your body.
Even if I accepted the idea that the possibility of foetal consciousness should be granted equal or greater weight than the certainty of the consciousnes of the woman (and, for the record, I don’t), this is still no more than a side issue. Again, the notional ‘personhood’ of a foetus is not relevant to the discussion – no one can claim rights in the flesh of another person for any reason, even if the alternative is their death. Why should a foetus be granted such an extraordinary right that goes so far beyond the rights afforded to everyone else?
Don’t you see that by engaging in idle philosophising about the danger of not recognising the notional personhood of foetuses, and relating that back to the historical failures to recognise the humanity of dienfranchised groups including women, you are contributing to the ongoing denial of the humanity of women today? In your rush to defend the peronhood of the foetus, you are dismissing women – who we know to be conscious – as nothing more than a delivery vector undeserving of the fundamental and inalienable right to bodily autonomy enjoyed by men.
Why should any woman be denied her bodily autonomy after an arbitrary cut off point? Her body remains her own at all times, whether two weeks, twenty weeks or two minutes before birth – she still has the right to end the pregnancy, it is just the methodology that may change where the easiest and safest way to end the pregnancy in the very late stage may be by caesarean section or another form of induced delivery rather than abortion – the prime concern must remain the woman’s health and wellbeing. Twenty weeks is a point well before the foetus is capable of realistic survival outside the womb. Thus it is a parasite, and it is unreasonable to demand that a woman continue to bear it against her will simply because she happened to miss an arbitrary window, especially when anti-choice groups work so hard to make it difficult for women to access abortion services.
Take the US as an example – once one takes into account the disinformation campaigns, the paucity of abortion services avaialabe across much of the country requiring costly and time consuming travel that may be beyond the means of many, the requirements for ‘counseling’ and various other hoops that women are forced to jump through before they can access abortion – then a twenty week limit simply functions as a means by which anti-choicers can deny as many women as possible access to abortion by putting enough hurdles in their path that they run out of time.
Contraception is not 100% effective, and sex education can only mitigate the risk, not eliminate it. Unwanted pregnancies will always occur, aspiring to their total prevention is a pipe dream. Should an unwanted pregnancy come to pass, then women must have access to abortion services so that they can maintain their bodily autonomy. If not, then we arrive back at a society that views women as incubators.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 9:55 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Janine,
I don’t remember that one.
with a machete?
*looks hopeful*
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 9:55 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If the only medical facility the woman can get to is own by the RCC. It would be tyrannical to make make the RCC to act against it’s dogma, even if most of the staff and the people it serves are not catholic.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 10:01 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Beatrice, jim was one of the most dishonest and persistent trolls who ever shit finger painted the walls here. Claims to be an atheist who was concerned that women were having abortions for frivolous reasons. And so came up with improbable situlations in order to “prove” his point.
Slimy to the core.
raven
22 October 2012 at 10:04 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
This is a lie.
But legally, Ray Ingles has no absolute right to tell me what to do. In fact, he has no right at all. Get lost, Ray.
Under US law and the US constitution it is close enough to not matter. You can refuse any and all medical care after age 18 if you want and die, for example.
We aren’t going back to forced birthing and female slavery.
This is true but Ray Ingles doesn’t understand why it is true.
Most of life, most of the time is standing on slippery slopes dealing with shades of gray.
The world isn’t simple and it isn’t black and white. We routinely balance rights because they routinely conflict.
For one example, free speech rights don’t include death threats. The victim has a right too. The right to stay alive and not be terrorized.
Gregory Greenwood
22 October 2012 at 10:14 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles @ 80;
Consent can be ‘presumed’? Even when the person is standing there saying ‘no’?
I hesitate to ask this, but do you apply a similar… unusual concept of ‘consent’ to other areas of life? For instance, what about rape? Why, the woman consented before, and she must have seen this coming, so her consent can be presumed by the man from here on out. I mean ‘no’ doesn’t really mean ‘no’ if she said ‘yes’ before, right…?
Or transplant surgery? The prospective donor gave consent months earlier, so it can be presumed now? Even if they change their minds?
Or in rights of entry? A person agreed to let someone come into their house and take some old belongings five months ago, so their consent can be presumed when that person turns up five months later, even though the house owner has changed their mind because they have fallen on hard times, or they have decided that the items have sentimental value?
Or is this just a special form of ‘consent’ that applies only to blood transfusions and pregnant women?
Enquiring minds want to know…
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 10:15 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
so here’s the thing. What do you do to women who want an abortion after 20 weeks? Let them get it from a Dr. Nick and only go after rogue doctors? That doesn’t fit with it being murder or a violent crime. Force them to term? How far do you go? Do you commit them? Strap them down?/ force c-sections if need be? What do you do with a baby after delivery? Take it away because why would you send it home withsomeone who just days before wanted to kill them? Or force the parent to raise the unwanted kid?
Ray, what degree of violence and legal force are you comfortable with? Are you willing to have policed strap a rape victim down to a table while a doctor performs an unwanted invassive surgery?
raven
22 October 2012 at 10:29 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 11:03 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
LykeX –
Because the anti-abortion absolutists work at it, and a whole lot of people haven’t made up their minds about abortion – but it bothers them – and they go along with it.
Dismantling the personhood argument – getting that debate actually going – immediately clears something like 95% abortions from consideration. It does major good – gets that stupid worry about whether the morning after pill actually interferes with implantation or whatever off the table, for example – and disarms most of their arguments.
But any kind of political compromise or progress is stalled by the anti-abortion absolutists on the one hand, who think anyone who’d allow a signle abortion is a baby-killing Nazi, and the pro-choice absolutists on the other hand who think anyone who’d countenance the slightest restriction on abortion is a chattel slavery enthusiast.
A world where abortion before 20 weeks is broadly available and covered is a distinct improvement over what we’ve got now. Better still is a world where there aren’t over a million unwanted pregnancies a year, of course.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 11:06 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Patricia:
Thanks. Two days out and, trust me, it ain’t easy to stay calm in the face of assholes like Ray Ingles. I think it helps that it was late when I made my last comment– I was tired and more worried about making sense than anything else.
clastum3
22 October 2012 at 11:08 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Abortion is always going to be a difficult one. At one end of pregnancy you have a fertilised cell or two, and at the other you have what most people would no longer describe as a fetus, but a baby, and which is viable outside the mother’s body. And as the judge said, I know what’s day and what’s night, but where one ends and the other begins I do not know.
Irony has it, I got to read Roe&Wade from a recommendation in pharyngula a couple of years ago: it was the flavour-of-the-month then. I was impressed with the balanced way it dealt with these issues.
Something’s changed, and it looks like it’s pharyngula: it’s morphed into one of those sects where everyone’s trying to be holier (more pc) than the next guy. Remind you of something?
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Nah, I just think you’re a stupid asshole.
Btw, “pro-choice absolutist” as an insult? Yeah, I feel women should have full control of their bodies. How extremist of me.
Josh, Official SpokesGay
22 October 2012 at 11:13 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley—well, what would you know? Don’t you have a very late-term abortion scheduled in a day or so? With a mani/pedi, right?
Beatrice—yes. Amazing, isn’t it? Defending women’s bodily integrity as an extremist position.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 11:14 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Joey, not jim.
Nepenthe
22 October 2012 at 11:15 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
And how, precisely, does a de jure* restriction on abortion post-20 weeks move us toward this world.
*Since late-term abortions are de facto restricted in most of the US, this is pretty much a formality.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 11:17 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Please, give an example of how this blog has changed in how we collectively view the issue of abortion.
Or do you think that we are supposed to be shamed to our sense by you insisting that we are ?
Tell you what, your false equivalency will only be a true point when pro-abortion people start to target and murdering anti-abortion people.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 11:18 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You are right, Nick. Being a person who has a name that starts with a “j”, I should be aware of the difference between “jim” and “joey”.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Medically, the correct term is “fetus” until it’s born. That’s when it becomes a baby.
Something’s changed, and it looks like it’s pharyngula: it’s morphed into one of those sects where everyone’s trying to be holier (more pc) than the next guy.
Only fuckwitted bigots without a rational argument resort to whining about “pc”.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
clastum3:
Right now, you remind me of a shallow ass who has no desire to understand anything more than the superficialities of an issue. For a whole hell of a lot of women, legal abortion and bodily autonomy are much more than a ‘hot button issue’ – these are lives on the line, the lives of women, who are being continually told and shown, via legislation, that we’re little more than cattle and often valued much less than cattle.
Personally, I don’t care if someone views me as being ‘holier than the next guy’. That simply paints you as an asshole who has no idea of just how strongly I feel on this particular subject. My autonomy is paramount and it makes me furious that in this century, women are being subject to incredibly draconian laws and treated like imbecile children who couldn’t possibly know what’s right, let alone what is right for them.
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I see you have fallen for the 20 week is a reasonable limit argument of the anti-abortionists. Imposing such a limit is just a smoke-screen by the anti-abortionists to limit access to abortions.
Shame of you for being foolish enough and ignorant enough to fall for it.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 11:20 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Blockquote fail: the penultimate paragraph of #132 is from the fuckwitted bigot clastum3.
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 11:27 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Oh, and just in case Ingles does not know what is wrong with a 20-week limit I will explain.
An ultrasound scan is normally carried out between 18 and 20 weeks gestation and it is the first time many foetal abnormalities can be apparent. Thus putting a 20 week limit on terminations effectively denies a women the choice of terminating the pregnancy if the scan shows up an abnormality.
Gregory Greenwood
22 October 2012 at 11:29 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles @ 123;
Yes, I (and many other people here) think that the personhood and bodily autonomy pof women are non-negotiable. We won’t accept the proposition that women be viewed as ‘just a bit subhuman’ – women are people, and must be afforded the rights of people. First among these is the right to bodily autonomy, without which most other rights are meaningless.
How very extreme of us.
The twenty week limit you propose will improve nothing. It will simply amount to a further concession to the anti-choice brigade that women should not have the final say with regard to their own bodies. And the ebst way to prevent unwanted pregnancy? Better access to birth control and abortion services.
—————————————————————-
clastum3 @ 125;
Acknowledging the humanity of women is a religious belief in your eyes?
So, I take it that in any case where the interests of woman and foetus are at odds, you think that the foetus should come first, and the woman should be relegated to the status of portable uterus?
You don’t see that as misogynistic?
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 11:31 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray Ingles
You know, for someone who “only care[s] about the arguments” you sure seem very eager to engage with anything other than the arguments.
How about you drop your pathetic whining about how anyone who disagrees with you is an extremists and just respond to what we’re saying?
There are a lot of outstanding arguments and questions (here, here, here, and here, and that’s just from my own posts), yet you prefer to write a long post on your speculations about the political situation.
While responding to that quote of mine, you’re ignoring the point of it. You may think that:
But that wasn’t what I was talking about. I was pointing out that if you institute a requirement for a doctor’s signature, you’re effectively banning abortion. That would be the result because, Hey, Newsflash! Abortion is not broadly available!
I point out a problem with your proposition and your response is “Well, if that problem wasn’t there, I’d be right.”
WTF, dude?
Snap out of it, stop playing martyr and start actually engaging in honest discussion.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 11:32 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Please do not confuse better than everyone with better than YOU. Lack of faux humility isn’t arrogance
mamba24
22 October 2012 at 11:37 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I don’t think that the question of personhood, and whether or not the zygote or fetus qualifies as a “human being”…..is irrelevant. In fact, as a pro-choice person, it’s what defines my position. The person-hood or human being status argument contributes more to my view than does the “women has a right to her body” argument. That doesn’t mean I disregard that point, I embrace both arguments, but give a little more weight to the former. In fact, because science shows that a 2 week old zygote isn’t a human being or person, that gives MORE credit to the women’s bodily rights argument.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
22 October 2012 at 11:38 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Not at all. It’s easy if fuckwitted idjits like you would realize not your body; shut the fuck up.
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 11:39 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Actually I am not convinced this need be the case.
First, an abortion should not be carried out except under a doctor’s supervision. And here in the UK, all abortions require two doctors to agree it is necessary but such a requirement does not pose an obstruction to women obtaining abortions.
Of course the situation in the UK with regards attitudes towards abortions is rather different, and the medical profession generally is in favour, with gynaecologists being even more in favour than their colleagues.
indicus
22 October 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If I may throw out a thought on the debate between arguing for reproductive rights via A) debating the consideration of person-hood vs. B) whether hypothetically assumed person-hood yields to a woman’s right to retain control over her own body… regardless of how one feels concerning option B, I believe it is a poor argument to use in the larger national dialogue. Remember, abortion is an enormously emotional issue and this plays a role in how the majority of opinions (on both sides) are formed. The majority of the population seems to be middle ground on the issue, at once favoring keeping abortion legal yet also feeling to some degree uncomfortable with it… remember Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare”? (disclaimer: I am NOT arguing for the validity of this position, merely pointing out its prevalence) To simply come out and say “I hypothetically consider that it may be considered a person but even then, I don’t care” is tailor-made to be co-opted and quote-mined by the emotional wing. To say that person-hood is essentially irrelevant in your considerations is a turn-off to a vast segment of the population.
Now compare this to option A. As with fighting creationism, the best cure has always been to drag their beliefs out into the light of day. Don’t give them any wiggle room or allow them to dictate the manner in which the discussion takes place. Expose it in all its batshittery glory. Much as most evolution-denying mainstream Christians roll their eyes when told T. rex was a vegetarian, the biological “facts” used to support their person-hood argument are typically laughable that they can be digested by many voters. Show the world what a zygote really looks like. Tell the people that the opposition wants to base a nation’s reproductive laws and personal rights on the concept that a clump of two cells deserves all the rights they themselves get. The anti-abortion side fights with emotion and the visual aids they use are as close to development as they can get. If its got arms and legs and a face it can be passed off by them as if it were a child about to enter preschool. If you take their argument and substitute the use of a petri dish specimen, you take that away from them.
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I assume you meant ‘casually’ and not ‘causally’. It’s a great term for evoking emotions but it doesn’t really have much actual content. I mean, if the principle is in fact complete autonomy, then a woman having a ‘casual’ abortion wouldn’t matter either.
Well, there’s the question of whether or not it’s ‘arbitrary’, but time limits after which things become legally binding are hardly unprecedented. Common-law marriages, limits on the challenging of paternity or wills, etc.
That’s also a problem, but as I’ve said part of the issue is that a lot of people really are squeamish about abortion – often because of those disinformation campaigns – and a clear legal regime with public debate and justification for it would help battle that disinformation. Anti-abortion absolutists are already worried that just about everyone else accepts abortion in the cases of “rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother”. Even the disinformation hasn’t budged most religious believers on that.
But still, personhood is an issue that a lot of people worry about. Pointing out what we can prove about that – and, of course what we can’t – can only clarify that issue for everyone.
And almost no pregnancies are a surprise at 20 weeks. Quite possibly this could happen sometimes. Getting a perfect system is… what’s the phrase? A “pipe dream”. How about the same kind of system we have for challenging paternity, where the father has to “know or reasonably should have known”? The imperfection of life is only a problem for one side, it appears.
Or one that requires women to come to a decision to accept or reject a four-month period of responsibility, absent medical need?
I acknowledge that pregnancy is a unique condition without a lot of analogues. Do you?
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ingles,
Do you want to explain why you keep parroting that 20 week crap ? You cannot claim you are not an anti-abortionist and yet keep using their arguments.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray
How do you inforce your 4 month reponsability? Are you prepared to detain rape and incest survivors?
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 11:48 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Yeap, we know that rape and incest victims are more likely to present late for a termination.
Wonder what Ingles has against them.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 11:49 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Crap. In this case a perfect system is one where any woman can end a pregnancy safely whenever she wants to. The only reason this does not exist, is misogyny such as you demonstrate.
You prove again and again that you are not arguing in good faith, by simply ignoring the facts. As Matt Penfold has already pointed out, many serious fetal abnormalities cannot be detected before 20 weeks.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 11:52 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Matt:
It would constitute an obstruction here in the States. A massive one. Pharmacists already have legal ‘right of conscience’ in that they can refuse emergency birth control and doctors and nurses also have legal ‘right of conscience’ in many States and in many hospitals, allowing them to refuse participation in anything they feel is against their god’s will (such as dealing effectively with an ectopic pregnancy.)
With a majority of clinics closed, and doctors who are willing to perform abortions thin on the ground (and in constant danger), a signature requirement would be a major victory for the lifer contingent.
I bring up South Dakota a lot in these threads and with good reason – it’s a shining example of what lifers can achieve when going around Roe v. Wade. Obtaining a legal abortion in SD is damn near impossible for most women. Almost all the clinics have been shut down, the one PP clinic is in the ass end of the state, imposing serious travel on a woman, there’s the mandatory 3 day wait, the mandatory ‘counseling’ at a faux-clinic run by rabid xtians, a doctor is only available 3 times a month at the clinic, etc.
In the case of SD, where a doctor has to fly in every month, how in the fuckety fuck is a signature requirement going to work, let alone two signatures? No, absolutely not. It’s already a fucking nightmare trying to obtain an abortion here.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 11:53 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I wonder when Ray Ingles will have the rudimentary honesty to tell us exactly how he thinks his desire to coerce women into continuing pregnancies to term when they do not want to, should be enforced. Never, is my guess.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 11:54 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Hey, Ray Ingles, did you notice those citations about how women in many parts of US can have a hard time finding someone who would perform an abortion? I guess they should just give up if they can’t manage to find a way to get an abortion before those magical 20 weeks of yours pass.
Hmmm, guess who makes sure women will be in that kind of situation, who you enable by supporting limitations on abortion? Anti-choicers. Congrats. Nice company you got there.
terryg
22 October 2012 at 11:56 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Koshka,
Indeed. repugnant fuckwads.
Then I realised Ray Ingles is right, and I am a heartless bastard. Ruths corneas were used to restore the sight of a 34yo woman and a 41yo man. I’ll ignore the woman because bitches aint shit, but Ray Ingles has made me realise it was unconscionable to wait until Ruth died to give that man her cornea. after all, in Rays dystopian universe Ruth had no bodily autonomy, and a MAN needed her cornea, so why not just take it? besides, years earlier Ruth had consented by selecting “organ donor” on her drivers license, and consent once given can never be revoked right? not even with shitty excuses like “I’m noy dead yet”?
And this asshat thinks he’s helping. here’s a subtle hint Ray: you’re not fucking helping, you’re making it WORSE.
Fucken thinking, how does that work?
Amphiox
22 October 2012 at 11:57 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles, the most common by far real world reason for abortions after 20 weeks is lack of timely access to abortions before 20 weeks. By the time she has managed to clear all the necessary hurdles both legal and medical it is past 20 weeks. So until abortion before 20 weeks is freely available on demand, none of your arguments are relevant in any way to reality.
And of course if your system is implemented, the anti-woman crowd will have an easy strategy to follow – simply obstruct, limit, and delay access to abortion so it becomes extremely hard to get one in time to meet to 20 week cut-off.
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 11:57 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
That’s what I thought would be the case. Which really goes to show that access is what is key.
And in the case of the requirement of two doctors in the UK, I forgot to mention that only one of them needs to have examined the woman. Quite honestly, if it is intended to put a restriction on access to abortion then it has failed. In fact it should probably be done away with.
Ibis3, member of the Oppressed Sisterhood fanclub
22 October 2012 at 11:57 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@ Ray Ingles
I haven’t read past this because the utter inanity of this statement stopped me short.
How could you possibly think the other forced birth advocates care when there’s the potential for consciousness (as someone pointed out, pre-birth there’s no question of consciousness anyway because of oxygen level regardless of cognitive development)? Anti-choicers by and large don’t give a shit, because A) they believe that what makes a person is a soul, not a functioning brain and B) when it comes down to it, they’re real issue isn’t about foetuses and babies, but about women and sexual/reproductive submission.
The debate over foetal personhood is a deflection from the real debate over female personhood.
Oh, and by the way, if you trust the opinions of doctors so much, why are you not in favour of leaving all decisions over medical care to patients and their qualified doctors instead of trying to get the state involved in restrictions and mandates?
P.S. I don’t see anyone abusing you. I see people arguing with you. There’s a difference. I’m sure there’s a scourge around here somewhere if you need to flagellate yourself.
mythbri
22 October 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray Ingles #144
Emphasis mine.
I invite you to take your “responsibility”, wad it into a compact unit, and shove it directly up your ass. Nasty tone? Yes. Take it up with the tone-police – you’ve had three posts here.
Pregnancy is a medical condition. People have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. This is not your choice, unless it is you who happens to be the pregnant person in question.
Read this link. This is what your “20 weeks” argument can do to real fucking people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_A.C.
Ray Ingles
22 October 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
LykeX –
One of me, several of you. Only got so much bandwidth. Speaking of which, some quickies, working backward.
Matt Penfold –
Already said fetal abnormality is an exception justifying abortion after 20 weeks. (E.g. #61). So whenever the ultrasound shows a problem…
Ing –
As Matt Penfold pointed out abortion isn’t DIY so a doctor’s participation is pretty much necessary as-is.
Beatrice –
No, a descriptive term. I’m trying to avoid insults. If you take it that way, that’s on you.
LykeX –
A woman’s who’s known she was pregnant for many months and had the opportunity to come to a decision before the time limit, has no signs of fetal abnormality, or maternal health issues like preeclampsia or gestational diabetes and so forth.
Trying to kickstart the debate push some new positions might actually move the middle that indicus points out and change that. The current logjam doesn’t seem to be helping much. Indeed, it’s getting worse.
Indicus is wrong, though, that talking about zygotes alone will do it, because of the problem that P.Z. points out – people have a strong emotional reaction to the surgical procedure of abortion. So talking about personhood, clearly defining it, and pointing out what we know and don’t know about it is important.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 12:01 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
TerryG:
In Ray’s case, it doesn’t.
Matt Penfold
22 October 2012 at 12:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Exactly. As I have already pointed out, here in the UK less than 2% of abortions take place after 20 weeks. And doctors report that women deciding to have a termination after 20 weeks for anything other than what even Ingles seems to think would be good reasons simply does not happen.
He is wanting to prevent something that does not happen.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 12:06 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Many people with heart conditions were told to loose weight by doctors…when do we hold them responsible, what time peroid. Letting them die will divert resources to more responsible and likely to survive patients after all.
A healer should not be concerned with “responsability” their job is to heal and give the best care for their patient possible.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space
22 October 2012 at 12:09 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
“If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit attrocities.”–Voltaire
The absurdity here is the existence of “the soul.” We cannot say exactly when it enters the body and makes us human. All we know is that it is likely sometime before the age of 50 and after or during fertilization. We know it cannot be in the sperm, as that would mean men could not jerk off. It cannot be in the egg, because that would mean God is an abortionist every time a woman menstruates (never mind all the pregnancies that terminate spontaneously–pay no attention to the abortionist behind the curtain!!!)
END Sarcasm tag
Here’s the thing. If you place limits on a woman’s rights over her body, you have to come up with a reason.
Examples:
1)The fetus is “conscious…”
Dude, have you ever been around a newborn baby?
2)The fetus feels pain…
OK, what about if we anesthetize it?
3)An unwanted pregnancy is wrong?
As opposed to being unwanted in your childhood.
No matter what reason you come up with, you will run into the problem that your rights end at your nose…and if your nose is up there with the friggin fetus, you have probably violated a state law if you live in the south.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 12:09 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray
An abortion isn’t DIY? are you that ignorant of what people did pre Roe?
You also didn’t answer my question, what legal force are you comfortable with
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
22 October 2012 at 12:12 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Typical of anti-choice idjits and just plain idjits who fail to look at reailty, and are caught up in silly and circular sophistry.
Josh, Official SpokesGay
22 October 2012 at 12:12 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray, you’re a lying fucker (spare me the, “I’m sad to see you sink to the level of name-calling”). You’re incredibly dishonest and everyone here can see that you are deliberately ignoring very reasonable questions. Questions about your own position that really do require clarification. We see you doing it.
You pretend as if you’re answering certain select questions with non-sequiturs. Example:
No. Unresponsive. You didn’t answer the question. You evaded and equivocated. You do realize we can see this, right?
Basically, though, fuck right off you bastard.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 12:14 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Not a big student of history, are you?
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 12:15 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
So, as far as you’re concerned, this woman should not be able to obtain an abortion. Why? What is it, exactly, that makes you smugly happy to make such a pronouncement? Do you magically know exactly what is going in this woman’s mind? Do you magically know every itty bitty detail of her life? Is her life not allowed to change in a matter of months?
First of all, a majority of women don’t know they are pregnant until two months gone. That cuts rather seriously into your idiot ’4 month’ scenario. In my case, I kept testing *not* pregnant past two months. When I finally did test positive, I had an abortion – no fuss, no muss, no hassle. That was back in the ’70s, when women’s autonomy was actually respected.
Secondly, let’s say the woman in question has indeed arrived at a decision – she wants to terminate. She doesn’t particularly want everyone to know her business, however, which is troublesome, as she has to arrange for a considerable amount of time off from work, in order to travel both ways and deal with that mandatory 3 day wait. There’s also that pesky matter of money. Abortion is very expensive these days. It’s not always magically easy to come up with that money. For that matter, it’s not always easy to work out the travel situation, either. Then there’s that super pesky “getting one week or more off work” business.
Once all that is dealt with, there’s availability of a doctor, which can add to a woman’s wait. Along with the mandatory 3 day wait, many states have a mandatory ‘counseling’ law, said counseling provided by a bogus womens’ health clinic, a cover for evangelistic xtians, who will do whatever they can to delay said mandatory counseling. Now many states have a mandatory invasive ultrasound requirement as well. This can also be subject to delays.
The list of problems goes on and on, Ray. It’s obvious you’re an idiot, however, your idiocy is now digging holes for you. An abortion is not at all easy to obtain, especially with a fucktonne of laws in place impeding access. By the time a woman can get everything arranged, two more months have often easily passed.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space
22 October 2012 at 12:16 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles: “As Matt Penfold pointed out abortion isn’t DIY so a doctor’s participation is pretty much necessary as-is.”
What
the
Fuck!?
Ray, do you really think women are incapable of wielding a coathanger if they get desperate enough? Have you not heard of the use of hot stones to induce abortion used by South Sea Islanders?
Look, Ray, I trust that you aren’t a bad person. I trust that you don’t want to enslave women. I really do. But do you really think you’ve thought this through all the way to its consequences? ‘Cause it kind of sounds like you’re winging it, and that really isn’t going to present your intellect or intentions in the best light when you are talking about coercing women into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.
terryg
22 October 2012 at 12:16 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ing, are you subtly saying I shouldnt be prejudiced against fat people? what, are they human or something? [engages brain at long last] Oh, shit, yes they are. Sorry for having been such a douchebag.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 12:20 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
The talks about responsability with health care (deny access to women, obese or smokers or not too long ago gays and drug users) reminds me of the Seinfeld where Jerrys mechanic stole his car because Jerry was mistreating the equipment. Its absurd in that scenario with an inanimate possesion…but for some reason we accept the judgemental reasoining when it comes to welfare and health?
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 12:24 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray
Incidentally, are we to understand that the doctor’s signature basically just amount to whether he’s willing to do the abortion or not? Will there not be any objective criteria? Each doctor decides what they’ll accept as a good enough reason to do the abortion?
If no criteria exist, then your personal opinions (as described in #157) don’t count for shit.
If there are such criteria, then your answer is non-responsive. You still have to answer what you’d do if a doctor performs an abortion is in violation of the rules.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 12:24 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Unholy cow, you really are stupid, aren’t you? What in the fuck do think was going on prior to Roe? The women of Jane were performing abortions, safely. They weren’t doctors.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 12:28 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray apparently never saw Dirty Dancing (that’s the one with a coat hanger abortion in it right?)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 12:31 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Caine, I have a question. I thought that Jane had access to doctors and other medical personnel who would provide the abortions. I thought the idea behind Jane was to provide something better than a potentially dangerous operation done by shady people preying on desperate women.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 12:33 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ing:
Never saw that movie, but there’s no excuse for such an abysmal lack of knowledge, especially of recent abortion history. Abortions have been going on since…forever.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Janine:
Jane did bring in doctors in the beginning (and continued to do so when possible), however, the need was greater than the amount of doctors – many were reluctant because of the legal consequences if they were caught. A safe setup for D&C can be done for a couple of grand and the technique is easily taught. That’s what Jane eventually did to deal with the needs at the time.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 12:37 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Also, it is not that difficult to look up accounts about women who bleed out or got infected because of self induced or back alley abortions in the US before Roe V Wade. Or from any place that does not have safe and legal abortions.
SC (Salty Current), OM
22 October 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
She needs to define “fully human” and explain why and how she thinks it ethically relevant here.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Thank you, Caine. I was but a child when Roe V Wade happened and did not know about Jane until sometime in the late eighties/early nineties when groups like Operation Rescue started to fuck shit up.
willow2054
22 October 2012 at 12:46 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ok, I guess I didn’t make my position clear here. I do not believe that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion should be restricted.
What I’m saying is that most woman do not have abortion in mind as their go-to method for birth control when they first become sexually active. I work with teenagers, and at least once a year, a girl will tell me she’s pregnant and doesn’t know what to do about it. In the discussion, it always comes out that she wished she had made her boyfriend use a condom. I have actually had girls tell me that they “did it standing up because they thought you couldn’t get pregnant that way.” When we discuss other options like pills, they say they didn’t get them because they didn’t want the doctor to tell their parents they were sexually active. When we discuss Planned Parenthood, the morning after pill, and medical confidentiality, the girls are clueless. At this point, their lack of education makes abortion, adoption, or being a young, single mother the only options. Because these girls have grown up in a town where abortion is considered to be a terrible thing, and most don’t really understand how adoption works, they almost always end up dropping out of school and having the baby.
I think young people should have easy access to a variety of forms of birth control. When unwanted pregnancies occur, they should have access to abortion. My issue is that I would think the religious right would appreciate the reduction in numbers of abortions that comprehensive sex ed would afford… but it seems like what they really want is control over women’s bodies. Their push for abstinence-only sex ed AND anti-abortion legislation makes it clear that they aren’t interested in logic or what’s good for women, but just want to control and oppress women.
There, see, I don’t need a crown of thorns.
Ibis3, member of the Oppressed Sisterhood fanclub
22 October 2012 at 12:46 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You know what would be really cool? A situation where people could be trained and legally licensed just to provide abortions, much as we currently have midwifery licensing. Anything complex could be referred or the procedure transferred to a hospital (as midwives do for complex births). As we know, abortions are far less risky than labour and birth. Such a programme would make abortions so much more accessible, and accessibility is a problem even here in Canada where we have no abortion law and provinces are required to fund them.
mythbri
22 October 2012 at 12:50 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@willow #179
Before you remove that crown of thorns, can I ask you if you have similar talks with the male teenagers you work with?
Contraception is not only a “woman thing”.
SC (Salty Current), OM
22 October 2012 at 12:50 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
No, she goes to a hack doctor (allegedly) for a backroom abortion. Any other Dirty Dancing trivia questions may be referred to me.
macrophage
22 October 2012 at 12:51 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I’ve been undergoing fertility treatments for the last 3 years. So far it’s only resulted in miscarriages and thousands of dollars spent. One thing I learned, more than anything, is that it’s not a child until it’s born, no matter how badly it’s wanted. There are so many little checkpoints that a developing embryo/fetus have to pass through that many never make it through. Any single missed or failed checkpoint results in loss of pregnancy. This is very basic developmental biology that’s completely forgotten by the “human at fertilization” crowd.
I get the impression that many of the people making these arguments have absolutely no knowledge or memory of anyone ever having a miscarriage. [I've personally seen convenient amnesia among several pro-life people whom I know have had them.] Because then they’d know that not every pregnancy that starts will end up with a viable birth. The entire argument of “human at fertilization” assumes every fertilized egg will become a fully developed child at birth. If that was the case I’d have several children by now. Instead I’ve got heaps of medical bills….
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 12:52 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I am assuming, willow2054, that you know that the same people who are working at ending access to abortions are also against sex education and the easy access to birth control.
Pregnant teen aged girls are features, not bugs, for these people; they are moral object lessons. They are what the theocrats can point at to “prove” that their way is the only way.
Ibis3, member of the Oppressed Sisterhood fanclub
22 October 2012 at 12:53 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray If a woman doesn’t need a doctor’s note to get pregnant, undergo labour, give birth, and raise a child, why should she need one to have a simple medical procedure that leaves her in the same condition she was in a few months before?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
22 October 2012 at 12:54 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Nobody puts Baby in a binder.
Gregory Greenwood
22 October 2012 at 1:00 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles @ 144;
Just a little letter transposition error. It is one of rather too many you will likely find scattered throughout my posts. Just consider it my offering to Tpyos.
You misunderstand me – I am not talking about the abortion itself being ‘casual’, I am talking about society being prepared to abrogate the bodily autonomy of women on such a casual basis. If society is prepared to throw away the idea that women’s bodies are their own and no one else’s on such a flimsy premise, then it is hardly unreasonable to say that women are being treated as second class citizens at best.
The limit is arbitrary once you realise that the issue under discussion should be the bodily autonomy of the woman, at which point whether or not the foetus has any claim to personhood becomes moot. Also, I don’t think that legal limits pertaining to wills or marriage contracts can realistically be compared to the forced pregnancy of a woman and the health risks and bodily violation that entails. This is another false equivalency on your part, much like your earlier attempt to liken one’s body to an object one owns.
Pandering to popular squeamishness will serve only to advance the cause of the anti-choicers. Whether or not Joe Public finds a particular procedure ‘icky’ is no basis on which to determine the limits on the bodily autonomy of women, unless one wants to live in a popular tyranny.
Furthermore, religious believers who put the notional will of their alleged deity above the health and wellbeing of their fellow humans will never be allies of the pro-choice movement, because they have already decided that the lives of women are of less worth than their own delusions.
Again, whether a foetus has any claim to ‘personhood’ has zero impact on the woman’s right to bodily autonomy, unless you care to assert that foetuses should have an unprecedented right at law in the flesh of others.
And for those women to whom it does happen… what? Is it just too bad for them? Simply collateral damage in the world according to Ray Ingles.
I am not so callous as that.
The point I was making with the term you reference here is that perfect contraception is not possible, that is why abortion must be available. Conversely, I am not demanding a perfect system of abortion; merely that abortion should be available to those women who need it without the unnecessary hurdles that anti-choicers and false ‘allies’ to the pro-choice movement like yourself would seek to put in their way.
Because not knowing whether the woman you had sex with is pregnant or not is exactly the same thing as the serious health risks associated with pregnancy…
This stuff about the poor menz and their unacknowledged problems with regard to pregnancy… you wouldn’t happen to be an MRA, would you?
I acknowledge that pregnancy and birth are high risk events that even today can and do regularly result in the deaths and severe injury of actual women. Do you?
You may be so privilged that this is an empty intellectual exercise for you. I assume from your nym that you are male (apologies if this is in error). I am also a man, and that means that we are both privileged in so far as these issues will never directly effect our own bodies. The same cannot be said of the women who face the realities of that which you so idly pontificate upon. The difference between us is that I have empathy for the women who have to navigate our society’s backward and irrational attitude toward pregnancy, something which you seem to lack.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 1:01 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ibis:
I agree, it would be good. It’s also not gonna happen.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 1:03 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
FIFY ;)
willow2054
22 October 2012 at 1:47 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@mythbri #181
Girls seeking advice like this typically will talk to a trusted adult who does not know the boy involved. I would definitely talk to boys about this, and have on very rare occasion when boys have come to me about their concerns. It is disturbing the number of boys who see an unwanted pregnancy as “her problem”, and also the number of girls who see a baby as a way to “make him stay with me”. I am not a health teacher (I teach chemistry), so birth control is not part of my curriculum, but I do teach another class that frequently touches on human population growth. In that class, we have frank, open discussions of all forms of birth control. This probably goes against my state DOE’s policy, but it is supposed to be a college-level class, and I teach it that way.
@Janine #184, I do realize that. I’d use those same girls as proof that abstinence-only sex ed is useless.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus
22 October 2012 at 1:56 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Well, what did she thik we think it was? A unicorn?
clastum 3
Huh?
But, yes, we know, being an atheist just means you don’t believe in god. You can be an asshole as much as you want. Nothing in atheism says you’re against slavery…
FIFY
Ray Ingles
So, your whole legislation thingy is just to show the women that bitches ain’t shit.
No, we don’t have “absolute control” over our bodies, although most people here would argue that the majority of the other restrictions are also not OK.
But you have the right to decide who does stuff to your body. No blood donation without your consent. Hell, bone-marrow donations are quick and easy compared to a pregnancy and safe lives of actual people, still you have to consent to them.
Spoken as a run-off-the-mill clueless on the medical realities of pregnancy and childbirth guy.
Yes, because women are just stupid. They perfectly know they’re pregnant and they could just get a pill, or a small surgery easily, but, duh, that’s no fun. Just keep on puking, be uncomfortable, be bloated and wait until week 22 because abortions are just much more fun that way
I was kind of waiting when you’d come up with the “the sluts have to take responsibility for what they did” argument.
You have no clue what those 4 months entail, especially when every miserable minute of those 4 months was forced on you by some ignorant asshole like you.
dianne
Duh, because the latter version has the patient aka woman involved. Ray doesn’t need the opinions of stinky pregnant women.
+++
The little one has only one kidney. This was suspected first at around 20 weeks and confirmed some 4 weeks later because kidneys are about the last thing to really develop. Now, 1 healthy kidney is not a problem, but no kidney is incompatible with life. If they survive birth the babies horribly suffocate because their lungs can’t develop.
So, to cut the line at 20 weeks means that women who carry a fetus with Potter-syndrome (no kidneys) are force to carry a pregnancy they know is doomed for 4 more months and then give birth and watch their baby die…
+++
Apparently lots of parsley will do the trick, too
daniellavine
22 October 2012 at 2:01 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray Ingles:
You’ve failed to make any arguments that would convince someone not already part of this argument who skews towards the “bodily autonomy for women” side that your 20 week sign-off would be either pragmatic or moral. I’ve not seen you give a single argument that this policy would result in better outcomes for anyone, nor have I seen you make a coherent argument that it would be more moral than the alternative (legal abortions). I’ve seen you dodge a lot of arguments that such a limit would be abused for the sake of limiting the bodily autonomy of women.
Why don’t you make abundantly clear:
-If you’re making a pragmatic argument, what are the practical benefits?
-If you’re making a moral argument, what is the moral basis for this argument?
dianne
22 October 2012 at 2:09 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If anyone wants to play with a serious “not even when the mother and fetus will both die without an abortion” fanatic, here’s a link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/10/blob-of-cells.html#comment-42585
Poor man’s a priest and is invoking “science” to support his ill considered views. Personally, I think he’d be better off just sticking with “God said so”, but no one asked me.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 2:11 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Also, in case anyone needs it or wants it, the Molly Saves The Day post of 2006 (from when SD banned abortion) can still be found here.
skepticalmothering
22 October 2012 at 2:18 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray already implicitly accepted full access to abortion, since he’s OK with it if the alternative is a threat of permanent injury to the mother. EVERY birth has a significant threat of permanent injury to the mother!
I invite any doubters to insert a softball into their orifice of choice, and/or experience non-laparoscopic abdominal surgery.
Mothers routinely experience scarring of their genitals, long-term incontinence issues, and permanent disfigurement of their abdomens. That’s not even going into the less common injuries such as fistulas, fertility impairment and so forth.
dianne
22 October 2012 at 2:19 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Something that’s been bothering me about this time limit at 20 weeks thing: We just don’t do that in medicine. Ever. If you notice a lump in your testicle but don’t do anything about it for 5 months because you’re too scared, too busy, or too broke to deal with it earlier, you won’t be told, “Too bad. You had your chance. No surgery for you!” If, in the mean time, you develop metastatic disease-still treatable (testicular cancer dies off very nicely with chemo) but more expensive to treat you won’t be told, “Too late. You’ve let it get out of hand and we can’t be bothered to pay for chemo for slackers.” No, it’ll be taken care of to the best of the doctors’ ability and your willingness to agree to admittedly unpleasant treatments. (The person who calls a first trimester abortion “violent” has never seen a transabdominal orchiectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection followed by cisplatin based chemotherapy. It’s curative, but…not fun.)
Again, why is abortion different? Why not treat it like any other medical procedure? Conversely, if there are not enough protections in place to prevent patients from being exploited when they consider abortion, are there really enough protections for other procedures? A person with cancer is scared and vulnerable too-should there be waiting periods before one agrees to an orchiectomy? Should the patient be required to take a last look at the poor innocent testicle before it goes? Should a transrectal ultrasound be required for good measure…
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 2:23 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Dianne:
Last year, I had a routine gall bladder removal. Keyhole surgery, supposed to be easier, yada, yada, yada. I had an absolutely miserable and long recovery time. My abortion, in comparison, was smooth, easy, no general anesthetic needed and a very quick and painless recovery. How I wish other surgical procedures were like that.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 2:25 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Yes, but as he already argued eloquently here, that’s the same as saying that we should shoot random people in the street.
Sure, this was completely dismantled both here and here, but it’s still a strong point, worthy of consideration.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
22 October 2012 at 2:37 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Right, so in those circumstances, you want women to be forced to continue with a pregnancy. You want to treat them simply as incubators, as brood mares, without the right to bodily autonomy. In what way is this less vile than imposing chattel slavery?
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 2:38 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Good for Matt! I came to the same point of view in the eighties by doing what all honest intellectuals do: considering what it would mean if my opponents were correct. What if the fetus is a person? Answer: So what? No one gets to use my body against my will. Case closed.
Arguing the rest of her straw fetus is just extra. “It’s a person!” So what? “It’s human!”: So what? “Scientists say it’s a human embryo!” So what? “It has little hands and feet!” So what? “It contains blood!” So what? Ad nauseam.
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 2:45 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
From the memoirs of a doctor, circa 1930s:
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 2:48 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Josh:
Ha! I did, but I had to cancel both the late term abortion and the pedi. God damn it.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 2:52 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley:
Oh, great. So much for the partial birth abortion surprise party…
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 3:00 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
“…if you find a trespasser on your land you can’t kill them; indeed you are obliged to protect them….” Tell that to the fucker in Florida who shot a Japanese student for knocking on their door to ask for directions when he was lost and committing the additional sin of going around to knock on the side door when the homeowners didn’t answer the front door.
“He’s a home invader! Blow him away!” And they got away with it because it’s reasonable to think that any non-white stranger is a deadly threat.
daniellavine
22 October 2012 at 3:00 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray Ingles:
Still really interested in hearing the premises of your argument — whether it’s pragmatic or moral and the fundamental basis for it. In the above you seem to assume that the 20 week deadline is obviously a good idea and don’t seem to go out of your way to defend it — you’ve spent most of your time trying to bat away objections (in my view, the easier objections; you seem to be ignoring the more salient ones).
I think you can make this easier just by spelling out clearly why you think it’s a good idea. I really don’t see where you’ve done this yet.
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 3:05 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I *really* want the same rules applied to everyone. You want a three-day waiting period and a gory video before someone can have an abortion? OK, but someone waiting for heart surgery has to wait too and watch the gory video. I wonder how many people will refuse life-saving surgery because it’s too gory? You want extreme regulation suitable for hospitals on abortion clinics? OK, but your dentist has to follow them too. Oh, andd don’t forget the tooth-extraction video and the three-day waiting period. We will wait to see how long those rules last.
SC (Salty Current), OM
22 October 2012 at 3:06 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
And the hotels just positively gouge you on abortions these days. I can’t tell you my shock when my Westin bill has come. I can see a mark up for in-house spa services, but 300%? Outrageous.
dianne
22 October 2012 at 3:13 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I know the “pro-life” position is primarily insulting to women, but I can’t help but feel that they must think that doctors are pretty stupid too. I’m trying to picture the scenario they think occurs in the “late term” elective abortion they are so worried about…
Patient walks into OB’s office. She’s 39 weeks pregnant and was chatting last week about getting the baby’s room ready.
Patient: “I want an abortion.”
Doctor: “Okey-dokey. Let me just get my scalpel.”
No. Just not happening. Not likely behavior on either side.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 3:13 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
SC,
You should have checked the “abortion on a whim” field! I hear you get a day at the spa for free, massage included, with that one.
joey
22 October 2012 at 3:16 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Nick Gotts:
What about “forcing” parents to provide nourishment/care for their children? Do you agree with laws against child neglect? In what way is this (child neglect laws) less vile than imposing chattel slavery?
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 3:17 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
SC:
They get away with that due to the Frivolous Abortion Clause. That happens when you do stuff just for fun.
daniellavine
22 October 2012 at 3:19 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
In the case of abortion, you’re protecting someone’s bodily autonomy. In the case of child neglect laws, you’re protecting someone’s bodily autonomy. Not getting your argument here.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 3:22 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Hey, guess what! A fetus isn’t a child!
A better analogy: If you don’t like abortion, we should force you to give blood/plasma/marrow/organs to whoever needs them ‘cos that’s obviously all you’re good for.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 3:22 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ooooh, that must be joey who was mentioned by Janine and KG. I thought that kind of specimen would be in a deep dungeon by now.
SC (Salty Current), OM
22 October 2012 at 3:23 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Damn. I always forget to check out the options and packages. I see I’ve also missed the infanti-side offer.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
22 October 2012 at 3:23 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
In what way is this (child neglect laws) less vile than imposing chattel slavery?Still as stupid and inane as ever Joey, the village idjit. Only a total presuppositionalist fool would say what you did.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 3:25 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Oh look its joey, joey why did you feel the need to lie again?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 3:26 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
As for Ray’s stupid 20 week argument, I will refer back to my post at #8. Shorter: At 5.5 months (ie 22 weeks) pregnant, a good friend of mine found out that her fetus has developmental abnormalities of its major organs. My friend’s life isn’t endangered any more than if she was carrying a healthy fetus, so should she be forced to carry until she delivers or has a stillbirth?
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 3:27 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Beatrice:
He was confined to Thunderdome at one point. At any rate, he’s been making the same stupid “arguments” for fucking ages on end. A true blue idiot, that one.
joey
22 October 2012 at 3:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
daniellavine:
But given the premise that the fetus is a person (what the thread is about), laws against abortion should also be considered as protecting someone’s bodily autonomy…the bodily autonomy of the fetus.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 3:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Thanks, Caine (and Janine and KG before).
I’m forgetful. And I keep mixing up joey and joed.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
22 October 2012 at 3:30 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Dang borked the blockquote in #216. The first sentence is Joey.
daniellavine
22 October 2012 at 3:32 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Why should I grant such a premise?
Even if I did grant such a premise, you’d have to acknowledge that the bodily autonomy of two different human beings is at stake. Why does the fetus automatically get more consideration than the woman?
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 3:34 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Nick Gotts @60
“abortion is safer than continuing the pregnancy at all points, means abortion on demand is the only acceptable policy.”
Your premise is incorrect. Overall, as practised, abortion is many times safer than childbirth. Legal, sterile abortion is safer than pregnancy up until about sixteen weeks (see graph). After that, the danger of abortion i greater, though still not large, perhaps because of blood loss from a larger placenta.
By the way, official pregnancy starts on the first day of the last menstrual period [LMP] so you’re “two weeks pregnant” at conception. Anti-choice folks use this to muddy the waters about gestation time and development.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 3:35 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Dude, this ground has been covered before. Read the fucking comments, I addressed this way back at #37:
Fetal personhood laws do not only restrict a pregnant woman’s actions; all women (of childbearing age) would be subject to care for a embryo/fetus/whatever that might not even exist just in case she was pregnant.
I wish you smug motherfuckers would admit that’s what you want.
kristinc is writing a book called "50 Shades of STFU"
22 October 2012 at 3:37 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Joey, the thread is about the premise that the fetus is NOT a person, do try to keep up.
Maybe we should all be ignoring joey anyway. He’s like a 13-year-old making fart noises while the grownups try to talk.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 3:38 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
All miscarriages prosecuted as possible murders. That sounds fun.
joey
22 October 2012 at 3:39 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
daniellavine:
You don’t have to. I was just trying to stay on subject because that was the premise given by Matt Dillahunty at the debate.
Why does the fetus of a child automatically get more consideration than the parents? Can’t the parents simply choose not to take care of their own children, at any time? Don’t they have the bodily autonomy not to be slaves to their own children?
joey
22 October 2012 at 3:40 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ooops, meant to say…”Why does a child automatically get more consideration than the parents?”
A. Noyd
22 October 2012 at 3:40 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles (#61)
If I’m pregnant and I don’t want to be, that’s a medical problem.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
22 October 2012 at 3:42 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
A. Noyd ,
This.
D
22 October 2012 at 3:42 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Markita Lynda—threadrupt @ 224.
That sort of comparison is misleading. Later term abortions are rare and done mainly because of complications. Comparing the death rate of those to pregnancy in general is a false comparison. You’d have to compare them to pregnancies not aborted after similar complication. I don’t know of any study having done so, but I’d wager Nick Gott’s statement is accurate.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 3:43 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
1) “Fetus of a child” is nonsensical bullshit.
2) When was the last time you were forced to donate an organ? You prolly have an extra kidney in there…
3) A child has its own bodily autonomy when it becomes a child and is not dependent on another’s organs for its very survival. Pop quiz, dumbass: when does this happen?
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 3:43 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Markita Lynda:
No, the reason for attempts to establish that as law is yet more delay in the case of women who would want an abortion.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 3:45 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
A. Noyd:
QFMFT.
dianne
22 October 2012 at 3:47 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@224: I think your graph has some old data in it. The average risk of pregnancy related mortality in the US is 14 per 100,000, putting it somewhat higher than abortion after 16 weeks. It should also be noted that abortions after 16 weeks are rarely elective so the women undergoing them are usually high risk and the number 14 per 100,000 is probably an underestimate for this patient group.
daniellavine
22 October 2012 at 3:47 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
It very explicitly was not. Dillahunty said that premise was tangential to his argument, which was true. Dillahunty did not argue from that premise.
“Fetus of a child”? Never mind, I think I see what you’re saying.
Parents are not the least bit slaves to their children. As far as I know, all jurisdictions have laws by which parents who believe they are unfit can cede responsibility of their children to the state or to other people better capable of dealing with that responsibility. Besides that, children are not typically capable of feeding and housing themselves until at least age 16 or so, so if you’re going to have children then you do have a certain responsibility to be prepared to feed and house them at least that long.
You’re predictable enough that I know your next argument. “But people who get pregnant have a responsibility!” One can get pregnant without the intention of getting pregnant — it’s much more difficult to have children without the intention of having children. Besides that, one way to avoid “being a slave to your children” is to have an abortion, so if you’re serious about that argument presumably you should be in favor of abortion.
daniellavine
22 October 2012 at 3:49 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Shorter: in terms of legal rights, parents have more than the child does. ”Why does a child automatically get more consideration than the parents?” is the opposite of how it is in the real world.
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 3:50 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray, it’s none of your god-damned business, so butt the fuck out!
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 3:55 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
daniellavine, if you’re going to insist on interaction with joey, would you please consider taking it to Thunderdome? The rest of us are all too familiar with joey’s crap and it simply won’t stop if he’s given any encouragement.
joey
22 October 2012 at 4:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley:
Typo. Sorry.
Never. But the state “forces” me to provide basic care to my children every day.
But a newborn infant is still very dependent on people to nourish/care for it. It can’t do that by itself. So how much “autonomy” does an infant really have? Not significantly much more than a fetus in the womb.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 4:05 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Joey:
I’m done with you. You’ve proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are by far the stupidest person here.
You can continue to spew; I’m going to look for something more interesting to snack on.
joey
22 October 2012 at 4:07 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Markita:
Helpful information Markita. Thanks.
Josh, Official SpokesGay
22 October 2012 at 4:12 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
SC, I realize Westin is way over-priced but you gotta admit the complimentary scoop of Abor-sherbet™ is really nice finish to a weekend of luxury terminations.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 4:16 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
At the expense of the bodily autonomy of the mother. Child neglect laws, however, do not violate the bodily autonomy of anyone. Gee, that almost sounds like a relevant different. How about that.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 4:22 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
It doesn’t. In the case of child neglect laws, it’s the bodily autonomy of the child vs. the economic autonomy of the parents. Not an equivalent comparison.
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 4:23 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Some U.S. states have even passed laws allowing anti-choice medical personnel to lie to women, e.g. tell them they’re not pregnant, they’re not in danger, or their fetus is fine, avoiding their responsibility without danger of being reprimanded, fired, or sued for malpractice. They are allowed to do this so that women’s access to abortion can be delayed past arbitrary cutoff dates. It causes both more danger to the women, greater expense, and greater suffering. It makes recovery times longer. Unlike a woman with an acknowledged pregnancy, a single woman has to undergo an abortion without showing any signs of pain or distress when she goes back to her normal life. Delaying abortion makes that harder.
In Canada the only laws concerning abortion are those governing good medical practice and arguments about who pays for abortions in clinics. (One province is still refusing to fund clinic abortions in spite of federal regulations, because of anti-choice political sentiment.) Nevertheless, pregnancy tests are getting better and legal abortion is getting earlier and safer. That is all. No abortiplexes, no dead fetuses in the gutter.
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 4:23 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Helpful information Markita. Thanks.
translation:
“This is stuff I can misrepresent to support my position!”
slimy.
So how much “autonomy” does an infant really have? Not significantly much more than a fetus in the womb.
except for the fact that POST natal care can be provided easily by ANYONE.
if you can’t see the difference there, you’re bugfuck nuts.
joey
22 October 2012 at 4:28 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
daniellavine:
I understand that. But he argued that even if the fetus is considered a person, then abortion would still be justifiable. I’m refuting that argument, simply because a mother providing care for a fetus is not really distinguishable from a parent providing care for a child, given the premise that the fetus and child are considered persons. If parents are already “forced” to provide basic care to their children, why would it matter if their children are in utero?
That is also why there is state-funded adoption.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
22 October 2012 at 4:30 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
That was a proven conclusion months ago.
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 4:30 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Mythbri @156, you missed a period! Try “In re A.C.“.
dianne
22 October 2012 at 4:31 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Markita: I apologize for my regionalism: Your data was probably for Canada. So late second trimester and third trimester abortions are less dangerous than completing an average risk pregnancy in Canada. Good to know, but the same is not true in the US where the risk is about double that of Canada’s. And why that should be…is a complete mystery (cough health insurance cough).
SC (Salty Current), OM
22 October 2012 at 4:32 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Well, that’s true. And the peachy flesh-tone is a stunning contrast to my champagne and black robe.
Elegant.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 4:34 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
It’s not? Are you insane or just stupid?
How about this for a difference:
If the child is born, the care can be transferred to another person, temporarily or permanently. This cannot be done with a fetus.
I.e. the care of the child doesn’t impact the bodily autonomy of the mother once the child is born.
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 4:34 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
That was a proven conclusion months ago.
fair enough.
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 4:36 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I’m refuting that argument
well, actually you just think you are.
It’s readily apparent to anyone with half a brain you’re just flailing about.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 4:38 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
It’s the same difference as paying for dialysis treatment and donating a kidney.
kristinc is writing a book called "50 Shades of STFU"
22 October 2012 at 4:46 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Right. That’s exactly why, when I was 8 months pregnant and wanted a chance to stretch my bladder or roll over in bed without feeling like a beluga whale, I was able to hand the pregnancy over to my husband and say “I’ve had her all day, now you take fetus duty”.
OH WAIT.
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 4:49 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I’m not sure if it’s quite rational, but I always feel that I’m on the right side of an argument when the opposing side starts talking complete crap.
Needless to say, I’m quite astonishingly certain that I’m right on this particular matter.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 4:53 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
kristinc:
Wait! You mean to say that people don’t lay eggs?
Bummer.
PatrickG
22 October 2012 at 4:59 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@ Ray Ingles:
While you said this to indicate your own emotional integrity in the face of oppobrium, this is quite descriptive of your general attitude. You clearly value the arguments over the people involved.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t be basing your strategy on solutions on foundations like:
I implore you to stop saying that we need to violate the principle of bodily autonomy because people have emotional reactions to abortion. While consideration of emotion is quite useful in framing debates and changing public opinion, it is emphatically not a basis for restricting rights. So please, just stop doing it.
A ludicrous example to illustrate just how completely irrational you’re being: people have emotional reactions to homosexuals — in fact, they’re quite squeamish about that nasty gaybuttsex. So how about we grant them the right to be openly gay as long as they sign papers affirming they’ll never engage in non-hetero sexual activity? Compromise!
You’re quite obsessed with the concept of personhood. However, the person in question here is the woman. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? Why do you have to continually engage in this argument on terms that explicitly deny the personhood of the woman.
Um, really? Matt Penfold pointed out that abortion shouldn’t be DIY, because medical procedures tend to go better when handled by professionals.
The only thing that’s “necessary” for an abortion is a desperation (usually accompanied by induced trauma, e.g. use of a coat hanger or repeated blows to the abdomen). Being willing to ignore history is not a substitute for an actual argument.
[Note: I made it to #164 before I just had to respond. I'm sure others have responded to these points. I just got tired of not commenting because other people do it well!]
kristinc is writing a book called "50 Shades of STFU"
22 October 2012 at 5:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley, I really would have thought you’d noticed by now. Due to, you know, REASONS. And also FACTORS.
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 5:09 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Care is different from life support. The entire point of gestation is that it is can be provided only by the pregnant woman and is therefore in her gift.
D., you may well be right about why late abortions are more dangerous but those are the figures as they stand now.
In the previous graph, take extra-special note of the tall red bar on the far right. That’s how much illegal abortion is more dangerous than childbirth. Banning abortion forces women to risk their lives, not only because childbirth is more dangerous but also because illegal abortion is more dangerous. Look at the graph here where maternal and infant deaths both fell by 75% after abortion was legalized.
Caine, you are right. I was particularly disgusted that legislatures were taking the opportunity to force people to use the LMP as the beginning of pregnancy instead of the actual estimated start, knowing that it would distort previously established legislation about when abortions can be done.
Amphiox
22 October 2012 at 5:18 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Hey, isn’t gooey the tyrant slavemaster of women and doctors already confined to Thunderdome? What’s it doing here?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 5:19 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
kristinc:
You mean this Buddha belly didn’t come about because of my love of french fries? Huh. Explains why it’s been moving around so much.
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 5:21 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Wait! You mean to say that people don’t lay eggs?
I’m betting you’re now considering serious pain reduction methods…
:)
on the more personal note:
Wish you all the best with your spawning!
Amphiox
22 October 2012 at 5:21 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
gooey doesn’t grok the concept of individual bodily autonomy.
Never has.
Except, of course, for its own.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 5:24 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Thanks, Ichthy!
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 5:25 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley:
It was the evil tobacco, Audley. I know this, ’cause I was watching one of those silly cop shows the other day, and a man called for paramedics, saying he had abdominal pain and he was pregnant. He explained that he got pregnant from tobacco – smoking, you know, because tobacco has thoughts and it wants to be a person.
Now you know.
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 5:25 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
people have emotional reactions to [a particular subset of] homosexuals — in fact, they’re quite squeamish about that nasty gaybuttsex.
ftfy.
gay bashers rarely seem to have a problem with same sex relationships of the female variety.
I’ve always found that interesting. I know why it is, really, but I still find it interesting.
Amphiox
22 October 2012 at 5:26 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
The “requirement” of course (as gooey deliberately ignores) ENDS with bodily autonomy.
That care which parents are expected to provide to their children is such care as can be provided without endangerment of their own life and limb.
Parents are NOT expected to provide basic care to their children when doing so puts their own lives and health at jeopardy.
They are celebrated and lauded when they do so, praised as heroes even if the cases are sufficiently extreme, but they are NOT REQUIRED.
Pregnancy, of course, even the most routine, puts the woman’s life and health at jeopardy.
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 5:27 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
was watching one of those silly cop shows the other day, and a man called for paramedics, saying he had abdominal pain and he was pregnant. He explained that he got pregnant from tobacco – smoking, you know, because tobacco has thoughts and it wants to be a person.
O.o
lolwut??
please can has link to comedy?
was this NTSF:SD:SUV?
LykeX
22 October 2012 at 5:27 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
So, have the nitwits given up or are they just resting? Pining for the fjords, perhaps?
Koshka
22 October 2012 at 5:28 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
A good reason you should not have had children.
Amongst others.
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 5:28 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
In Daily Kos, William F. Harrison tells “Why I provide abortions.”
I provide abortions for my patients and for any other girl or woman who feels this her best option…
The figures for the first graph are probably not from Canada but from either the WHO or the Guttmacher Institute. I will poke around and try to find the reference.
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 5:31 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
So, have the nitwits given up or are they just resting?
my guess?
dumbass has gone off to take the data that Markita posted and spin it to a more favorable audience.
then it will return, much inflated with ego.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 5:32 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Caine:
So, wait. I shouldn’t have quit since I’m having a lil’ ‘bacco behbeh?
God damn it!
Amphiox
22 October 2012 at 5:34 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Not BODILY autonomy.
NOT bodily autonomy.
Full bodily AUTONOMY.
The ability to breath independently being something in the gooey’s understanding to be “not significant”.
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 5:37 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
So, wait. I shouldn’t have quit since I’m having a lil’ ‘bacco behbeh?
hey, you’ve learned a lot today!
;)
Nepenthe
22 October 2012 at 5:38 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Reading goes much slower when you have to sound out each word. Be patient.
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 5:40 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
This also turned up, again without a citation.
Risk of death per year:
In an accident: 1 in 2 900
In a car accident: 1 in 5 000
Childbirth: 1 in 8 700
From a fall: 1 in 20 000
Using contraceptives: about 1 in 60 000
Riding a bicycle: 1 in 130 000
Surgical abortion: about 1 in 500 000
And here’s a relevant cartoon.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 5:42 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ichthyic:
No comedy, for real. I found the clip though – in my previous post, I left out the T-rex eggs and magicians. You can see for yourself, have fun!
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 5:42 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Well, you can browse, too. Various snippets can be found here: Pro-Choice Canada.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 5:44 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
My docs are gonna be so surprised!
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 5:44 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley:
Apparently so. Wait…you weren’t a T-rex in a previous life, were you?
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 5:47 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
whoah.
“did you smoke anything tonight?”
“Just cigarettes.”
well, there you have it. another reason not to smoke:
YOU WILL BE INFESTED WITH TREX EGGS!!!
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 5:51 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Caine:
*sigh* Now I need to find a past-life regression therapist or whateverthefuck they call themselves.
*rawr!*
Ichthyic
22 October 2012 at 5:52 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
*rawr!*
hey, say it like you mean it!
cm's changeable moniker
22 October 2012 at 6:01 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
[meta]
Ray Ingles (whom I suspect is a Brit) seems to be arguing for the UK’s policy of accessible, free, legal, and safe abortions up to a term limit. He (I presume; I could be wrong) seems to be advocating a term limit of 20 weeks, versus the UK’s current 24 weeks. We could argue the exact number.
That said, if putting a term limit for accessible, free, legal, and safe abortions ensures that free, legal, and safe abortions remain accessible, maybe that’s a compromise most people would accept?
—
Matt Penfold @#159:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/17/woman-jailed-taking-drugs-to-abort-child
(The sentence was shockingly harsh, but …)
Rutee Katreya
22 October 2012 at 6:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Meaningless until society decides that it’s time to harvest organs from people forcibly. You’ve got two kidneys, presumably. People need one of them.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
22 October 2012 at 6:06 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 6:24 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
From the “relative risks” research:
So that seems to contradict my earlier graph.
Also,
Markita Lynda—threadrupt
22 October 2012 at 6:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
The annoying thing about Ray is that he seems to be discussing this from a point of lofty noninvolvement, an amusing topic to throw around and consider philosophically at his debating club, instead of as an issue that affects our lives and health. It reeks of male privilege.
anat
22 October 2012 at 6:56 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
To Ray Ingles,
Just FYI, because you are naive enough to believe the current US situation enables any woman who is endangered by her pregnancy access to abortion, see When a politician decides if the life of the mother is at risk.
Makes you happy?
Ibis3, member of the Oppressed Sisterhood fanclub
22 October 2012 at 7:03 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@cm’s changeable moniker
No. First, we know that the anti-choice people will not accept that. They don’t want any abortions taking place at all, since pregnancy is God’s punishment for being a
slutwoman. It says so in the Bible. They will do whatever it takes to make sure that God gets his way: obstruction, propaganda, shame, lies, harassment, rape, and murder.Second, those who believe that women are persons and not chattel shouldn’t compromise by condoning anyone be forced to remain pregnant for any longer than they consent to it.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 7:08 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
What on earth makes you think that? Lifers gave up on getting Roe rescinded some time ago, as it’s proven much more effective to enact laws which skirt it, effectively banning legal abortion for the majority of women. Every single limit is one more way to erode access, which is why lifers work so damn hard for any fucking limit they think they can get into law.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space
22 October 2012 at 7:35 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles,
A “moderate” right-to-lifer is one who has run low on ammunition. Remember, these folks believe that “the soul” is what makes one human, whether one is 30 or a zygote.
Amphiox
22 October 2012 at 7:39 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
24 weeks at least is not a wholly arbitrary number, and actually has real world relevance. 24 weeks is the current absolute minimum age, with maximum modern medical intervention, after which a preemie infant has a chance of some sort of long term survival. In other words it is the age of current-maximum-medically-supported-viability. And the UK, having a universal access public single payer health system, at least in theory, would not be requiring the woman to pay for that extremely expensive medical care out of her own pocket.
Ray’s 20 weeks though, has absolutely zero real-world relevance as a threshold for anything. It is an arbitrary number pulled out of an arbitrary ass.
cm's changeable moniker
22 October 2012 at 7:40 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Bollocks. I forgot to add the requisite: This healthcare policy does not apply in the US.
(“the UK’s policy of accessible, free, legal, and safe abortions up to a term limit [etc.]“)
Sorry.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal
22 October 2012 at 7:48 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Why do you think such a restriction is a good idea in the UK? It’s not as though you don’t have anti-abortion people there. You don’t have the same amount of rabid lifers, but neither did we, at one point.
cm's changeable moniker
22 October 2012 at 8:07 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I don’t.
I mean: while I consider this to be a good healthcare policy, I appreciate that the realities of American politics mean that it may not be attainable.
Sorry.
Ibis3, member of the Oppressed Sisterhood fanclub
22 October 2012 at 8:17 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@cm’s changeable moniker
Why do you think this is “a good healthcare policy” anywhere?
anteprepro
22 October 2012 at 8:37 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Here’s the thing about the “but child neglect laws!” argument against abortion: Abortion isn’t about death. It is about ending the pregnancy; removing something from another’s body. Because no-one should be forced to provide their body to another. Death is incidental to ending the pregnancy. When the child is autonomous, viable, alive and independent biologically , it is still independent economically. So the anti-choicer says “A-ha, your argument means that you shouldn’t be forced to support them, and therefore you are allowed to let them starve to death!”. But letting the child die due to lack of support isn’t analogous to abortion, because in abortion there is no other source of support available . In real life, with a biologically independent child, you have the option of adoption if you don’t want to support it. Just like in real life, you can’t just move a biologically dependent to someone else’s body in order to let someone else finish the pregnancy.
The analogy simply doesn’t stand. And the fact that this would be obvious if the anti-choicers happened to remember the existence of adoption when it doesn’t help their arguments is the icing on the cake.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 11:07 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Joey has violated his banishment and should be abortabanned.
@303
Joey knows this because I know I at least explained to him that at a certain stage the procedure for aborting a pregnancy is delivery. So he’s full of shit
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
22 October 2012 at 11:09 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Hey how’s that for a compromise, when the pregnancy is far enough along that the risk of abortion >>> delivery we will induce delivery to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Sound fair?
Goddamn squeamish dillards, clearly everyone not just bio majors need to spend a class castrating pigs and removing mummified piglet fetuses in order to get some perspective on gooey issues
Amphiox
22 October 2012 at 11:33 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
As did I.
The gooey of course ignores it because if it didn’t, it would have had nothing left to say months ago.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus
23 October 2012 at 12:08 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I’m always wondering what pro-lifers imagine an abortion would look like at that point…
Apart from the dreaded “partial birth abortion”, of course…
joey
Well, unless the babes are literally vampires that literally suck the blood from your veins I don’t see how that has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Yeah, and in case of an ongoing violent assault you mustn’t protect yourself ’cause of the bodily autonomy of the attacker. Idiot.
There’s something called Child Protection Services. If I really think I cannot deal with the critter anymore, I can go tehre and get help for the kid.
Apparently you don’t understand what bodily autonomy means.
Old At Heart
23 October 2012 at 12:21 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Gentlefolks of all four gender persuasions, I propose a solution: We kill all living beings. Now, hear me out, I think this is a valid solution:
Most pro-lifers are very anti-life once it’s free of its non-person-no-rights-sustenance-pod, so they can agree with this.
Most pro-choicers are very big on the whole abortion on whims and mass murder of billions eugenics hitler ate sugar Marxofascist thing, so they can agree with this too.
Of course, we wouldn’t want the pro-lifers to feel bad that they’re possibly killing prospective future lives in the indeterminate future by killing the neutrals and pro-choicers, so pro-lifers can have the glory of dying first. Might I suggest by viking funeral, to cover as many religious bases as possible?
…They gone? Okay, I think we can skip step two.
[Translation for the humour impaired: Those proporting to be pro-life but are really just anti-choice? Go die in a fire.]
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus
23 October 2012 at 12:26 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Says the guy who has gone thrpugh pregnancy and childbirth 10 times already…
Oh, wait…
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
23 October 2012 at 12:48 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
THE CRIME IS LIFE THE SENTENCE IS DEATH!
Ichthyic
23 October 2012 at 1:28 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
24 weeks at least is not a wholly arbitrary number
actually, I would argue that it is.
as you note, that is the CURRENT value for when artificial systems can potentially make a premie survive.
next year, it might be 20 weeks.
next decade, maybe 4 weeks.
after that? seems probably we will be able to artificially sustain human development from fertilization onwards.
IOW, 24 weeks as a date is just as arbitrary as natural partum.
it still doesn’t address autonomy issues. It still opens the door to forced pregnancies, even if the idea is that the child you didn’t want will be raised by the state in a test tube.
I’ll stick with actual natural birth as being the dividing line where we as a society assign rights to an individual aside from the rights of the mother.
chigau (棒や石)
23 October 2012 at 1:30 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Old At Heart
Why only four?
Who are you excluding?
Ichthyic
23 October 2012 at 1:30 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
abortabanned
stored for future reference!
Gen, Uppity Ingrate.
23 October 2012 at 3:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
While I agree with your other sentiments, I would personally substitute “live birth” in the place of “natural birth”.
carlie
23 October 2012 at 5:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Oh, wow. The argument “a newborn is just like a fetus in terms of the care it needs from an adult” can ONLY be made by someone who has never been pregnant. Heck, or ever noticed anyone else being pregnant in the near vicinity. Or has dealt with an infant. I get the distinct impression that children in general are simply thought experiments to joey, and that he has never encountered one at any age or any stage of development in the wild before. This is why people like him have no business making any decisions about women and their health care.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
23 October 2012 at 6:44 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I love you guys here so much. I got so depressed at the beginning of this thread yet you guys show support, care and humor that kept me off the deep end.
I really, really hate forced-birthers. You know all those, “but it rarely happens anyways cases? I could easily and if I get pregnant again, would probably become one of those cases.
I am a poor single mother. I seriously freak out at the chance of becoming pregnant. I had sex once 5 months ago and I still freak out about it. I knew a girl who had her period 6 months into her pregnancy. It could happen. That simple chance scares the fuck out of me.
Oh and even if I miss my period the very first month of pregnancy, I still worry because I live in Arizona. Do you realize how fucked up Arizona’s laws are on abortion? I have all these loops to jump through and that’s if I could afford it. It could easily take 6 months for me to raise the funds, even with the Horde helping. Then where am I? Begging and searching for a way to have an illegal abortion. And you know what? I bet your fucking ass I’m going to try for one. Because another child? Another pregnancy? Fuck that noise. I don’t want it. I use birth control for that very reason, the 10 year IUD. The only way to get more permanent birth control is to tie my tubes and no doctor will do that for someone so young like me. Yet I’m still scared about having sex because I know if I get pregnant I’m screwed.
The forced birthers are winning. They want people, specifically young women like me scared and shamed about sex and absolutely screwed if have an unwanted pregnancy. So no, no fucking limits at all on my damn bodily autonomy.
LykeX
23 October 2012 at 6:54 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Which is a whole other level of WTF. It’s one thing for a doctor to ask a few questions of the patient to make sure they realize that such a procedure could be irreversible, it’s quite another for a doctor to refuse performing it.
I don’t see why it’s any of their goddamn business. If the patient wants it and is fully informed of the consequences, then shut up and tie those tubes.
It’s back to the catch-22: If you get pregnant, you can’t get an abortion because you need to take responsibility, but if you try to be responsible and get your tubes tied, they won’t let you do that either.
I swear, it’s enough to make you sick.
sonderval
23 October 2012 at 7:09 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I have a question conerning the “full bodily autonomy” concept:
Is this not also violated when I’m required by law to, for example, use mouth-to-mouth ventilation on an unconscious person – this also puts me in danger (from infection, for example), but I might be sued with non-assistance of a person in danger?
Does this not show that there are limits to bodily autonomy and that the assumption “no one else can claim rights in your body” is false?
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
23 October 2012 at 7:14 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Another level of WTF, I had to find a doctor old enough to remember Roe V Wade to give me an IUD at all. My original doctor refused to give me one. When I asked my first OB/GYN, Did he think it was a good idea for me to use a different less stable less reliable form of birth control and have another child before I hit 20 years old? His response was “That’s not my decision to make.” Damn straight, it’s not. It’s mine, but he was referring to God. Fucking forced birther assholes. He went on to cover up, saying that it was too much of a risk due to the complications that arise if you get an STD while having an IUD. Several offices said that I called, said it wasn’t advisable and wouldn’t give me a straight answer if they would still give me one. I knew all the risks, read up on it. I was willing to take the risk of losing my fertility in order to not worry about birth control for 10 years, especially since I had no idea how I was going to pay for it once I got kicked off the state insurance.
I mean I know I was young at the time but damn, I knew I didn’t want to have another child. I knew how to be responsible. I am responsible. My body, my risks, my fucking decision. End of story.
Fuck getting a doctors permission slip signed twice. Doctors are people too; people that are stupid or biased or judgmental or just plain hateful. Doctors are not gods to be assumed to right, especially not in the case of women’s heath where the history is documented to be so inhumane and horrible.
LykeX
23 October 2012 at 7:24 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Hell ye…
Oh. *sigh*
Who gets to decide what level of risk is acceptable? The goddamn patient! I guess he slept through the ethics courses in med school.
@sonderval
Are you required by law to do so? I don’t think that’s true for my own country, but I’m unsure about US law.
Certainly I would think that if you have a reasonable suspicion of an infectious disease, it’s a legitimate reason to not perform mouth-to-mouth.
Usually, the rule is that you’re required to do whatever you can to save someone else, except if it puts you in harms way to do so.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
23 October 2012 at 7:24 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Firstly, are you required to give blood or organs to help people? That’s far more analogous to this than simple mouth to mouth.
Secondly, laws greatly vary from place to place so get specific.
Thirdly, You are assuming we agree with such laws. While I think it would be the right thing to at least call for emergency assistance to help, I do not think it should be legally enforced for people to give another assistance. All kinds of things can go wrong, and people could freeze. Not calling for help is the farthest I’m willing to make people go legally. Would it be great for people to go beyond that? Yes, but I’m not okay with legally forcing that on people.
From Wiki:
Anri
23 October 2012 at 7:38 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
So, in essence, this argument is not about exactly when in the course of pregnancy a fetus starts being a human, it’s about when in the course of pregnancy, a woman stops being a human, right?
sonderval
23 October 2012 at 7:40 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@LykeX
Here in Germany, this is indeed law AFAIK. According to Wikipedia (German, sorry):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtliche_Aspekte_bei_Hilfeleistung#Zumutbarkeit_der_Hilfe
it is indeed not clear if the fear of, e.g. AIDS, would be a sufficient reason not to help someone because they might be infected, and I might possibly be sued for not helping because of that.
@JAL
I am not sure if donating an organ would be comparable, but being forced to give blood is a better comparison to being pregnant – I fully agree. I just wanted to point out that the “bodily autonomy” argument is not as absolute as some here seem to see it. (And I also agree that – since we are not forced to donate blood – no woman should be forced to continue a pregancy if she sees danger to her (physical or mental – which she alone can judge) health. My question was concerned only with the way the bodily autonomy was stated here by some.)
I admit I never thought that someone could not agree with such a law requiring you to help – where would you put the limit? Giving someone drowning a hand (I might rupture a muscle)?
dianne
23 October 2012 at 8:03 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I am not sure if donating an organ would be comparable, but being forced to give blood is a better comparison to being pregnant
I disagree. The risk of giving blood is negligible. In 2011, there were two fatalities in blood donors shortly after donation. In one case the donation was definitively ruled out as being implicated in the donor’s death. In the other, there was no evidence to support a causal connection, but the connection couldn’t be disproven. So, no evidence of real risk there. Pregnancy, in contrast, has a 14 per 100,000 case fatality rate in the US (somewhat lower in Germany and other first world countries, but still clearly non-zero risk.)
Kidney donation, last time I saw numbers, had a risk of something around 30 per 100,000: a little riskier than pregnancy, but same order of magnitude. And, unlike blood donation, pregnancy leaves the body permanently altered, even when everything goes perfectly. Like kidney donation, these changes don’t necessarily affect life expectancy or quality of life, but they can add a small amount of danger. For example, a c-section means abdominal scarring, which makes any subsequent abdominal surgery that much riskier. Pelvic floor changes from vaginal delivery can increase the risk of urinary issues including potentially deadly infections.
So, all in all, I think kidney donation is the nearer analogy.
sonderval
23 October 2012 at 8:08 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@dianne
The reason why I did not like the “donating organ”-analogy is because here you lose an organ permanently.
But you are right – blood donation is too risk-less to provide a good comparison. And, since we are not even forced to do that, forcing someone to a pregnancy seems impossible to defend.
dianne
23 October 2012 at 8:21 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Sonderval: Marrow donation, maybe? It’s about an order of magnitude safer than completing a pregnancy (i.e. about 10x as dangerous as abortion), but it involves only the loss of renewable tissue and does have some risk. Furthermore, the tissue typing has to be a closer match than one can get away with with solid organs (kidneys don’t give you graft versus host disease) so the probability of there being one specific person who is the only person in the world who can save the potential recipient is higher. Not a perfect analogy, but all analogies are imperfect in some way.
sonderval
23 October 2012 at 8:29 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@dianne
Clever, I think that fits quite well.
And we are definitely not forced to donate marrow.
However, thinking about this opens another can of worms: What about parents who have a second child to act as a bone marrow donor for the first child? (Wasn’t there such a case a few years back?) Should they be sued for not acting in the best interest of that second child (forcing it to a needless treatment) to save the first?
If this is too off-topic, please tell me.
daniellavine
23 October 2012 at 8:43 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I think a mother “providing care for a fetus” is absolutely distinguishable from a parent providing care for a child. I don’t see how one could reasonably argue otherwise in fact — they’re quite different. Again, parents are not forced — with or without scare quoted — to provide basic care for their children. They have a legal obligation to make sure that care is provided but there are many cases in which the parent does not provide this care themselves. And in fact it’s physically possible not to care for the child (although this is illegal if the parents don’t find another way to get the child the care he or she needs); however, it’s not physically possible for a woman not to “care for” the fetus. You can see right there a difference that might require the different treatment by law. Note that drinking and smoking while pregnant is not illegal although it is obviously bad for fetuses. By your argument it should count as child abuse.
But you’re not honestly making this argument and I know you’re not. Because as I already pointed out if you’re really going to maintain that parents shouldn’t be “slaves to their children” as you put it then you should support availability of abortions since it allows parents to avoid being “slaves to their children.”
I get the sense that you think abortions are what happen when women get pregnant “on a lark” and then decide to end it “on a whim.” I have never heard of a single case like that. Trust people to make the right decision. They don’t always do, but if you don’t give them a choice then they can never make the right decision (because they’re not making one at all).
dianne
23 October 2012 at 9:04 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
What about parents who have a second child to act as a bone marrow donor for the first child?
I have to admit I’ve never thought about it much. It does seem a bit questionable ethically-what if the second child doesn’t want to give marrow but is afraid to say so, for example-but can’t actually think of a way to stop it. Refuse to perform sibling transplants on children? Well, maybe…perhaps a child can’t reasonably consent to being a donor.
If this is too off-topic, please tell me.
And all of us soooo good at always staying on topic. (A little history, in case you’re new here: Ever wonder how the lounge came into being? It was originally a topic thread that went badly off topic and ended up being a permanent open thread.)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
23 October 2012 at 9:08 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Then you aren’t thinking. End of story. I can feed a baby/child. I can’t feed a fetus. If you can’t tell the difference, you are an idjit. Which you admit wiht such slopopy thinking.
LykeX
23 October 2012 at 9:10 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Nerd
Read that bit again. Note the lack of an “in-” in front the the “distinguishable”.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 9:13 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Anri:
This description is so depressingly apt.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
23 October 2012 at 9:26 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You’re right, my wrong. Moar coffee.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
23 October 2012 at 9:56 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Just want to point out we have someone honestly asking a potential bullshit question and that people can tell and distinguish them from assholes like joey based on their response
joey
23 October 2012 at 10:27 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
carlie:
My wife and I have four young children all under the age of 8, including an extremely beautiful three-month-old baby girl (explains my sporadic posting). I’ve been by my wife’s side through all four of her pregnancies and deliveries. And in fact, my wife shares the exact same views on this subject as me. So, you are simply incorrect about your assumptions about me, as well as your assumptions about many mothers.
And for those who don’t think taking care of children could adversely affect one’s health (mentally, emotionally, and physically) the same way that pregnancy does, then please talk to my wife…or any other mother who actually raised a child from infancy.
Does that mean that my wife and I are allowed to stop providing basic care to our children for own bodily benefit, even in the situation where no one is available or willing to care for our four loud and messy children for us?
dianne
23 October 2012 at 10:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
And in fact, my wife shares the exact same views on this subject as me.
Or so you believe. I haven’t seen anyone who even identifies as “joey’s wife” posting her views here. Perhaps because she’s actually taking care of the 4 small children and not just pontificating about it.
Does that mean that my wife and I are allowed to stop providing basic care to our children for own bodily benefit, even in the situation where no one is available or willing to care for our four loud and messy children for us?
You are. You can drop the infant off at a fire station if you so choose. You can take the older children to CPS and relinquish parental rights to them and take no further responsibility. Heck, there’s a good chance that if you dropped them off at your parents they’d take care of them for you. For the next 20 years, if need be. (That’s how a couple of cousins of mine got raised.)There are also less extreme options: one can hire a nanny, babysitter, or daycare to help care for one’s children and have a certain amount of time off. There is no option for temporarily or permanently dropping off a fetus to someone else’s care. That’s the basic difference you seem determined to not understand.
chigau (棒や石)
23 October 2012 at 10:35 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Hands up anyone who thinks joey actually reads anyone else’s comments.
LykeX
23 October 2012 at 10:37 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
And you really noticed no difference between the situations before and after birth? Either your wife has been doing all the work for you, or you’re just a lying scumbag.
Nobody said that, so stop lying. Of course taking care of a child can be stressful, even to the point of being unhealthy.
The point is that, once born, it is in fact possible to hand the kid off to someone else. You can hire a babysitter and take a night off. Try doing that if you’re pregnant.
Yes. It’s called “giving a child up for adoption.”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
23 October 2012 at 10:39 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
What a lying loser. The Children can be dropped off with a sitter, grandma, auntie, or any rescue shelter at any time. A pregnant woman doesn’t have that available. She is stuck until birth/abortion. And you know you lie when you compare these dissimilar things. Which makes you a damned liar in Mark Twains categories of liars and the lies they tell.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 10:40 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
*hands up*
…
*reads chigau’s comment*
Oh, sorry, I thought you asked who wanted some chocolate cake.
kristinc is writing a book called "50 Shades of STFU"
23 October 2012 at 10:42 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Goddammit where’s the “like” button?
Amphiox
23 October 2012 at 10:48 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Gooey the dishonest tyrant slavemaster lying with ridiculous false equivalencies yet again.
Yawn.
Matt Penfold
23 October 2012 at 10:48 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley Z. Darkheart has eaten all the chocolate cake for breakfast.
anteprepro
23 October 2012 at 11:03 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
joey is as illiterate and ignorant as ever. Still conveniently forgetting about the existence of adoption.
And he thought that what he responded to, a mockery of his ignorance, was simply a statement of assumptions about him? What a fucking clown.
I am trying to put my hand down further than it is right now, but I need to wait for my underlings to finish the shoveling.
Ray Ingles
23 October 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Gregory Greenwood – Been busy, but got a little time at lunch.
If there’s a person there after a certain point, then a person’s life isn’t flimsy. It still can be argued that that doesn’t outweigh any degree of autonomy, but it’s not the same thing as ‘casual disregard’.
You asked about examples of legal time limits after which consent is presumed or mandated. I presented some. The overwhelming majority of women already make that decision before 20 weeks; so far as any data shows, after that point the (at least) large majority of abortions happen because of medical need.
Not hardly. I didn’t, in fact, claim that time limit on contesting paternity was any kind of hardship – rather the opposite. And, indeed, in the case of contesting paternity it’s possible for the man to challenge by showing that they couldn’t reasonably have known of the pregnancy or the legal action to establish paternity. As I, er, explicitly said in response to your specific question, why can’t a similar regime hold for the (ahem, rare) woman who finds out to her surprise that she’s pregnant in the sixth month? In other words, extending the same rights to the woman that the man has?
True, but if my reasoning is wrong my gender won’t make it right, and if my reasoning is right my gender won’t make it wrong. Might as well just stick to reasoning – unless the intent is to paint me as evil, too, and not just wrong.
The violist analogy that’s been brought up is useful, but no analogy is perfect and leaves off important details. If people came equipped with ports that could cause accidental and unintentional transfusions, we’d have laws covering responsibility and liability for them.
I think biology is rather unfair here, and it would be great if we could develop something like Lois Bujold’s ‘uterine replicators’ and transfer embryos to environs where they’d face – and cause – less risk. But we don’t have them (yet) and have to deal with the unfairness as it currently is.
Men have limited ability and windows to challenge paternity because essentially all risk for reproduction falls on women. The burdens are asymmetric. If a fetus becomes a person, then delivery before viability becomes an asymmetric death sentence. Setting up a go/no go window – with appropriate medical exceptions – seems at least thinkable.
Being able to positively rule out awareness post-20-weeks would pretty much obviate this. To wit…
Nick Gotts –
To ask again, where can I find some references about this?
I actually used the term ‘awareness’ – as in ‘aware of something as basic as pain’. Whether or not mammals in general are conscious, for example, they’re aware of stimuli. And awareness even in humans doesn’t drop to zero even while sleeping. Dreams aren’t limited to just REM sleep.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
23 October 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray
Are you a vegan Ray?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 11:27 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
kristinc:
Or a squid button! Anyway, I know what comment is being OM NOMed next time ’round.
–
Matt:
There’s still a (rather smallish) piece of cake left!
–
Joey:
Oh man, I know I said I was done with your dumbassitude, but I gots nothin’ better to do today.
Guess what? I am whoa pregnant at the moment– so pregnant that I’m basically sitting around my apartment waiting for contractions to start. You do not get to tell me what it’s like to be pregnant versus caring for a small child because, unlike you, I’ve experience with both situations.
Let me get this straight: you’re saying that should you and your wife die, there’s no one to take you kids? That they die with you, just like if a pregnant woman was to lose her life?
anteprepro
23 October 2012 at 11:35 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
joey and his wife must have a particularly vile last will and testament.
Matt Penfold
23 October 2012 at 11:36 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Something Ingles seems to be unaware of is that when it comes to late term abortions they are overwhelmingly not something the women wants to do. Nearly every women faced with having to have a late term abortion would prefer to to go to term, but cannot. Either because there is such a serious abnormality with the foetus that it will either die before term, or shortly after birth, or the women will not survive if the pregnancy continues.
These are heart-breaking decisions for the people involved.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Do I have to point back to one of my earlier comments at #8 again?
My friend absolutely does not want to terminate her pregnancy halfway through– this decision is breaking her heart. But fuck it, we’ve got an arbitrary number to defend, amIright?
LykeX
23 October 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray Ingles
Are you going to address the DIY thing at all or are you just hoping that we forgot about that little blunder of yours?
LykeX
23 October 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I mention it because you don’t have a whole lot of credibility left here and acknowledging a mistake would earn you a much needed point or two.
daniellavine
23 October 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@Ray Ingles:
Still wondering what the basis for wanting a 20 week cutoff is. Moral or pragmatic? Who does it help and how? For what purpose?
Matt Penfold
23 October 2012 at 11:47 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Yeah, sorry. The privilege of living somewhere where the issue of women not being able to get an earlier abortion is a non-issue came through there.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 11:47 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Anti-choicers in US making it more and more difficult for women to obtain abortion before the arbitrary time limit… still ignored by Ray Ingles.
anteprepro
23 October 2012 at 12:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I have a guess about why Ray chose 20 weeks. But, unless someone desperately wants to know, I’ll just let Ray flail around incompetently for a bit longer to see if he can actually come up with an answer himself. I’m afraid that if I mention why I think he came up with 20, that he’ll just seize onto my answer even if he didn’t actually have one of his own. It is far more entertaining to watch obvious dodges.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 12:19 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Oh, anteprepro, now I wanna know!
The only thing I can come up with is that it’s halfway through gestation, which makes the whole thing incredibly arbitrary.
But let’s see what Ray says first!
mythbri
23 October 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
HEY RAY INGLES! HOW ABOUT RESPONDING TO THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED YOU?
You are not presenting effective arguments. Your distinctions are arbitrary and misinformed. Your arguments are not right, and your gender has nothing to do with it (although it does inform your lack of empathy).
@joey
I was unaware that your wife was elected Spokeswoman Of All Teh Wimminz. Tell her to send out a general memo at the next Super Secret Meeting of the Female Monolith.
Gregory Greenwood
23 October 2012 at 12:48 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ray Ingles @ 345;
This has been covered several times – even if the foetus could be considered a person, it makes no difference because nobody can claim rights in another person’s flesh. That a life may be lost by absence of such a right is neither here nor there. If this were not the case, then it would be possible for a person who needs a kidney transplant to demand that a suitable donor give up one of their kidneys. Oddly enough, no one (not even you) seems to be arguing for manditory organ donation, but forced birth is just fine.
I refer you to a point I made back @ 187;
Why are you asserting that a foetus should possess a right at law in the flesh of another person that goes far beyond any right possessed by anyone else? Why should foetuses have greater rights than people whio are unambiguously conscious and fully capable of independent existence?
I await your answer with interest.
You are riding that false equivalency horse hard, aren’t you? None of the cases you cite involve risks to health or life or in any way relate to bodily autonomy. I also note that you have avoided answering my point made @ 120 – do you extend this curious concept of ‘consent’ you have manufactured with regard to pregnancy to other situations in life? Since we are talking about issues of bodily autonomy, I would be particularly interested in the issue of rape; are there circumstances were a woman’s consent to sex can be ‘presumed’ as well? If not, why not?
And for those who are unable to do so? They are just out of luck, I take it? And what about the points made upthread by various commneters about the fact that foetal abnormalities often are not detectable at 20 weeks? Then there are the many examples that have been given of the techniques used by US anti-choicers to delay women who seek abortions until the 20 week time limit expires. What about the women who fall foul of such delaying tactics as ‘cooling off’ periods, unneccessary ‘counseling’, obstructive anti-choice doctors, the unavailability of abortion services in their county? Is that all just too bad for them because they failed to get an abortion within an arbitrary cut off point? And no – the inability to absolutely prove the lack of some kind of consciousness past twenty weeks does not render the cut off point any less arbitrary, because as has been pointed out so often no one can claim rights in another’s flesh.
So the whole bit about;
(Emphasis added)
Wasn’t a whine about the poor oppressed menz then?
Your gender makes you neither wrong nor right automatically, but your oblivious bloviating about an experience that you as a man will never undergo does speak to your unexamined privilege. This may be an empty academic exercise for you, but people like Audley, who actually are pregnant, do not have the luxery of viewing this topic purely in the abstract.
What is a mere semantic point to you is the reality of their lives, a point you would do well to remember.
mythbri
23 October 2012 at 12:59 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
QFT. Thank you, Gregory.
Ray Ingles, this is not amusing theoretical wankery to me, or to the other women here. What you’re talking about has REAL effects on our REAL lives (by the way, we are all REAL individual, indisputable people).
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 3:09 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Gregory:
Pffffffft. We all know that I’ve carried DarkFetus for 39.5 weeks so far simply so I can change my mind about being pregnant/having a child and have the most gruesome abortion ever as soon as I go into labor.
I am a silly woman who can’t be trusted to make rational decisions about her life, family, or medical procedures after all!
carlie
23 October 2012 at 3:20 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Now who’s making assumptions? Let’s see, differences between my pregnancies and raising my infant children:
Pregnancy
carlie
23 October 2012 at 3:24 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
DAMN IT.
Pregnancy
anything I eat or drink goes directly to their bloodstream
when they move any body part ever it hurts my body parts
I haul their weight around every second of every day
Pre-eclampsia yay!
Carpel tunnel yay!
Constant acid indigestion!
Almost-constant nausea!
Feet swollen and walking hard!
Sleeping – no can do! Body in the way!
Infancy
Can eat or drink whatever I want
Can move freely, even into another room away from infant
Other people can hold it
Other people can feed it
Other people can take care of it
Any sleeping position I want
No more carpel tunnel
No more blood pressure problems
No more indigestion
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 3:53 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Carlie:
You forgot:
Hemorrhoids!
and
Consstipation!
kristinc is writing a book called "50 Shades of STFU"
23 October 2012 at 4:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I dunno, carlie, I think this list is completely sufficient as it stands.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 4:04 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley,
Regarding your questions at #37, Matt (as well a person asking a question later) raises similar points during Q&A and Kristine’s answer is that there are “legistical issues”. Those don’t mean that we should kill the preborn… in other words, she steadily avoids the issue.
Ichthyic
23 October 2012 at 4:10 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I seriously freak out at the chance of becoming pregnant.
IUD.
no pills, no muss, no fuss. modern IUDs are not like the IUDs that had risks associated with them 30 years or more ago.
Just visit your GP once a year to check on it. That’s it.
Ichthyic
23 October 2012 at 4:12 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
… I use birth control for that very reason, the 10 year IUD.
missed that first time through. I blame lack of coffee.
LykeX
23 October 2012 at 4:15 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You also missed this part:
Ichthyic
23 October 2012 at 4:16 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Joey:
in fact, my wife shares the exact same views on this subject as me
shocker.
Ichthyic
23 October 2012 at 4:17 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You also missed this part:
you have a point?
make it.
LykeX
23 October 2012 at 4:21 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I didn’t mean to jump on you. It’s just that, to me, that was the central point of the whole story; what should be a simple matter is greatly complicated by an asshole doctor who don’t seem to know the limits of his authority.
Yes, an IUD would be great in many cases, but if no doctor will give you one, you’re screwed.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 4:21 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
The point is probably that it’s not always “no fuss” to get IUD.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical
23 October 2012 at 4:23 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
[looks upthread. holy shit, he really did say that.]
So, Joey, is your wife allowed to have any opinions that do not agree with yours?
Ichthyic
23 October 2012 at 4:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I didn’t mean to jump on you. It’s just that, to me, that was the central point of the whole story; what should be a simple matter is greatly complicated by an asshole doctor who don’t seem to know the limits of his authority.
thanks… the timing and wording of your original seemed easy to mistake to me.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 4:37 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Beatrice:
Well, of course she does. Because babies are all sunshine and rainbows and unicorn farts and they never ever ever suffer from genetic abnormalities that could cause their lives to be short and torturous. *eyeroll!*
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 4:38 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
And I still would like to know if Ray would stick to his 20 week cutoff in such a situation. (Bear in mind, the pregnant woman’s life is not in any additional danger.)
Ichthyic
23 October 2012 at 4:42 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Yes, an IUD would be great in many cases, but if no doctor will give you one, you’re screwed.
I’d point out that there indeed is a big difference between the doctor attitude described by JAL, and that of the doctors here in NZ, who are fully supportive in that regard.
BTW, those doctors in JAL’s locale whinging about “increased risks with STDs” apparently left out the word “UNTREATED” in that, which is really where any risks lie, and those even are increased only in very specific, and relatively rare, circumstances.
Doctors exaggerating the risks of IUDs are doing themselves and their patients a gross disservice.
and, FWIW, I myself have constantly harped on the fact, on local blogs here in NZ as well as ones that get global viewing like Pharyngula, that it’s effective access to services that are the big problem now in the States. I have seen reasonable studies done that suggest access to abortion, family planning, and those related to just plain sex, are effective LESS now, for the average american, than they were BEFORE Roe V Wade passed.
As to how to change that? Fighting for not overturning Roe will not stop it. The only way to affect real effective change is to start getting politicians in office that simply refuse to participate in manipulating authoritarian personalities for personal gain, and instead do indeed look at what their jobs are supposed to be: managing conflicting interests for the best overall interests of all involved.
the best leaders are good managers, not dictators that rely on authoritarian support.
I have my doubts that the current tide of authoritarianism that has been enabled by politicians on right, and tolerated by those on the left, will change direction or be diffused sufficiently before quite a bit more damage is done to the very concept of freedom itself.
I hope I’m wrong, but if history is any judge, things are going to get a LOT worse before they get better.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 4:46 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I shouldn’t have been lazy and should have quoted you, Audley. This was about the issue of miscarriages and whether a woman should be under scrutiny for every moment since (possible) conception. Is smoking while pregnant child abuse, that kind of thing.
No example similar to your friend’s situation was given, so I don’t know about that.
But she was awfully determined to avoid saying what kind of health threat (that isn’t life threatening) to a woman would allow for abortion.
daniellavine
23 October 2012 at 4:48 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If I’ve been reading current events right that is actually a feature not a bug.
The policies of both parties look a lot like “controlled demolition” to me. Just as one example look how quickly petro companies are trying to suck all the natural gas out of the ground. Thirty years from now: “Oops, I guess we’re stuck with cooooaaaal…”
dianne
23 October 2012 at 4:55 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Re STDs, here’s my view, FWIW: Yes, there’s a risk of STDs in a person who is sexually active. Yes, there is a risk that a woman who gets an IUD won’t come back for her annual exam and therefore the STD will go unfound and untreated. So what? She’s an adult. Tell her the recommendations and the risk and let her decide. If she decides to ignore your advice and ends up sterile from an untreated STD, that’s her problem. The doctor’s role is to give appropriate advice and make sure the patient understands the risks and benefits of any given course. The patient’s role is to decide what she or he will actually do. Sorry if that’s a bit on the libertarian side, but I believe in allowing adults to make decisions about their own bodies.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 5:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Beatrice:
Oops, my bad!
Her point makes no sense, though. I cannot be forced to take drugs against my will and there are legal repercussions if, say, someone jabs me with a needle full of heroine. So, unless you’re willing to extend the same legal protections to a fertilized egg, your argument holds no water.
(No, I haven’t watched the video yet. For once, my craptacular WiFi is good for something, if only my own peace of mind.)
skeptifem
23 October 2012 at 5:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I would say its never “no fuss” because it involves inserting a device through the cervix. It is not comfortable for the vast majority of women.
dianne
23 October 2012 at 5:03 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Because babies are all sunshine and rainbows and unicorn farts and they never ever ever suffer from genetic abnormalities that could cause their lives to be short and torturous.
Two words: Tay-Sachs disease. Ever seen it? I have. You don’t want to. At one point it looked like I might be a carrier. If the repeat hadn’t been negative*, I would have gotten a tubal ligation rather than getting pregnant if it meant getting a scalpel and a couple of percocet and doing it myself.
*I’m still a little unsure about what that was all about. The first test was said to be “equivocal”. That could mean anything from a PCR failure to a dropped tube and technicians too embarrassed to admit it to a mutation that’s not classic TS but is something other than a normal gene. I’m still a little concerned in the back of my mind about the last, though the first two are far more likely.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 5:10 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley,
Of course her argument holds no water, that’s why she has shuffled it all under the “legalistic issues” carpet. Preborn humans shouldn’t be killed, but what that means for how miscarriages should be legally treated is all *mumble mumble people sometimes die, it happens to fetuses too, but that doesn’t mean we can deliberately kill them mumble legalistic issues*
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 5:13 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
All I want is some damned consistency from the “pro-life” crowd.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical
23 October 2012 at 5:26 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Wow. Pregnancy really does make women ditzy.
(that is an attempt at humour. expecting consistency from ‘pro-lifers’ is about as likely as getting it from Rmoney.)
dianne
23 October 2012 at 5:29 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@387: Good luck with that.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 5:40 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
This particular woman is scarily consistent. No rape or incest exceptions. From the moment sperm meets egg, you have a little human being there and you shouldn’t murder humans!!!
Gregory Greenwood
23 October 2012 at 5:53 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel) @ 362;
It scares me that there are misogynists out there who would sagely nod along with this, completey oblivious to its ultra high snark content*.
—————————————————————-
* Warning – Side effects of snark include mocking the privileged and hurting fragile man fee-fees. Snark can be harmful to your acceptance by MRA arsehats. Always read the label.
dianne
23 October 2012 at 5:55 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
But does she want to save all the little one celled humans who die of disease? Normal people who really believed that they were babies would desperately want to stop the miscarriages that kill the majority of concepti. Pro-lifers…not so much. I’ve never seen a pro-lifer do anything but dismiss the miscarriage rate as unimportant.
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 5:57 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
People (fetuses) die naturally. It’s… natural.
dianne
23 October 2012 at 6:04 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If we’re all cool with people (including babies) dying “naturally” then explain why we spend so much money on medicine, the purpose of which is to prevent “natural” deaths. If we shut everything but the trauma centers down and limited the use of those to people who were attacked violently (saving accident victims being, apparently, not allowed), we’d save a whole lot of money…
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 6:11 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
*shrug*
My translating idiot-anti-choicer speak only goes that far.
But I bet her answers would include both “that’s different” and “that doesn’t mean you can kill them.”
Beatrice, anti-imperialist anti-racist Islamophobiaphobic leftist
23 October 2012 at 6:15 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
(first phrase because it’s weaseling out and second because she seems to like repeating it)
and it’s late, good night
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel)
23 October 2012 at 6:23 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Oggie:
:D
Sorry, I’ve had a rough day of backaches and cramping– I should know better than to expect anything other than RAGE INDUCING ASSHOLERY from the “pro-life” crowd.
carlie
23 October 2012 at 6:36 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
There is also the fact that most doctors in the US have traditionally refused IUDs to women who were nulliparous (never had a baby), because of some weird belief about it not working with a uterus that hadn’t been stretched out or something. Then doctors everywhere else started doing it and realized there was no problem, but of course US doctors didn’t catch up, ever.
No kidding. When I got my first one, I couldn’t get out of bed for two days. Then I spent the next two weeks feeling like there was a carving knife in my back. Then about 6 months later the pain finally all went away.
Ichthyic
23 October 2012 at 7:21 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
some weird belief about it not working with a uterus that hadn’t been stretched out or something
wtf?
where in hells did that notion come from I wonder?
When I got my first one, I couldn’t get out of bed for two days. Then I spent the next two weeks feeling like there was a carving knife in my back. Then about 6 months later the pain finally all went away.
yikes, that seems like a rather extreme response.
did you report symptoms to the doctor that was responsible? None of my female acquaintances (relatives or friends) have ever reported such an extreme response!
carlie
23 October 2012 at 8:42 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Ing – eh, they said it was within the range. I did have it checked a few weeks later because I had my annual checkup and everything was properly in place. When I got it replaced I barely felt a thing.
The childbirth thing may have been more about the cervix stretchability, I’m not sure. I suppose looking it up would be good. Ah, here:
source
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
23 October 2012 at 8:50 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
@carlie
Apparently I have absorbed more people into my collective.
Ichthy report to the adjustment chamber for synchronization and happification asap!
willow2054
23 October 2012 at 8:57 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Richard Mourdock is running for senate in my home state. All three candidates are anti-choice. Oh boy! :-/
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
23 October 2012 at 9:25 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
You have no idea how hard it was to not snap at my doctor, “But I want to be sterile!”
I would never and haven’t gone out for an STD. That’s just stupid. I’ve gotten my regular check ups and went in for testing after finding out my partner wasn’t faithful.
But it was so, so hard not to tell that doctor I was going to go out for a STD to get sterile with the IUD. I seriously wanted to say that to fuck with him and see the look on his face, to make him realize how serious I was about not having another child. It would have just make things worse for me though, saying that. He’d call or at least make a note in my chart to follow me everywhere.
Hell, when I got it after my child was born it was still so uncomfortable. Thankfully, it was minor and was fine once the doctor placed it. No problems since and I plan on using IUDs til I can get my tubes tied or menopause. I hate the very idea of getting pregnant again. I feel bad because so many other people want children, want to be able to have children and I hate my fertility so much.
dianne
23 October 2012 at 9:32 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
JAL, sterility is only one possible result of an STD. Another is ectopic pregnancy in a state without abortion providers. I suppose suggesting that you go to a different provider is completely futile? What about Uni AZ? If there are any reasonably liberal doctors in AZ they’re probably there.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
23 October 2012 at 9:45 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Oh, I know dianne, it was just a one off snark remark I wanted to make. I know the risks and currently have an okay doctor. It’s easier once you get the IUD since the next doctors accept that another doctor gave it to me. Funny, how that works.
Anyways, I’ve kept up on it. My mother has had her fair share of problems that I’ve gone through with her. She had an ectopic pregnancy that was only discovered and treated because she went in for an abortion. Later, she had to have a full hysterectomy at 33 and a host of issues in between time.
That’s part of what scares me so much, seeing what’s she gone through. It was so scary and the doctors were either complete assholes or really awesome when she was going through all that. My mom is better now though after the hysterectomy. She has a bunch of different medical issues but no more in that area at least.
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness
23 October 2012 at 9:54 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
oh, to clarify I only talked about the STD risks because that’s what that doctor harped. Seriously, that’s all I remember him talking about. It was so frustrating and shaming. I wanted to lash out because of it. It wasn’t the regular tell everybody about the risks thing. I swear he was doing it because he was judging me. Why else wouldn’t he mention the ectopic pregnancy risk? It was all “But you don’t have a stable one partner relationship.”
He said he only gave the IUD to older women in committed relationships with children clearly done making their family.
I wanted to smack him.
dianne
23 October 2012 at 10:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Sigh. Been there, had the same temptation myself. Fortunately, as these things go I’m hypofertile so have been able to make do with condoms. But “accidentally” solving the problem permanently with a little disease is so tempting…especially when you’re being told you’re a silly girl who will regret it later and unable to control your own fertility in the way you’d prefer. I expect if you did get pregnant you’d be accused of looking for a welfare baby or child support or something. There simply is nothing a fertile woman can do with respect to having or not having sex and/or children without being told it’s the wrong thing.
dianne
23 October 2012 at 10:03 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Why is my comment in moderation?