hdc_bst, you do realize that what you are espousing is pretty much the law of the land in the USA right? I mean, that’s already the policy. So you can rest easy. Women aren’t walking to to a clinic 5 minutes before the birth and having elective abortions. It simply doesn’t happen.
I can’t address whether this is her actual position, but anti-abortion rights advocates commonly come across as saying "tough luck, lady, until you give birth you’re fair game (for all the risks and complications associated with pregnancy).
I substantially agree with this and with the many laws on the books that severely limit abortions in the third trimester. What to allow in the third trimester would be even less of an issue if it wasn’t for attempts by anti-abortion rights activists to discourage first and second-trimester abortions, not to mention opposition to availability of “morning-after” pills and contraception.
One half is the law - yes. However, I do think that there should be wider availability of emergency contraceptives, regular contraceptives, and early term abortions. I don’t want to force unwanted children on anyone, but I also believe that at some stage in the game there is another person in the equation who the state must protect.
Heck, Canada’s gotten by without any such protection for quite some time, now. If there are late-term elective abortions taking place here, they’re not frequent enough for anyone to take notice, let alone gun down the doctors performing them.
I think this is mostly what I’m trying to communicate - there is a middle ground to the argument. There is a population (of at least one) that sees reason to oppose some late term abortion but is not anti-abortion in general. On most other social issues I suspect that I align closely with the pro-choice crowd, and so I’m trying to understand if there are flaws in my position vs. theirs.
I’m not sure why recognizing someone’s beliefs as sincere means we must find a way to accommodate or compromise. I can imagine finding a compromise, in which I accept that elective abortions in the third trimester are illegal, but in return I want all restrictions prior to that dropped and all efforts to reintroduce barriers stopped. Since I strongly suspect I’ll never get such an agreement (or see it honoured), I don’t see a reason to be accommodating.
Hmm… good food for the thought. In a way, I feel that this is the strongest counter argument to my position. The population of people wanting a third trimester abortion for other than medical reasons is likely vanishingly small, and (it seems to me) likely to be facing some mental issues. How much energy should be spent crafting legislation to address these cases, and what should the punishment be to someone circumventing them? From that perspective it seems like a waste to preemptively stop an imagined epidemic.
Fine, how’s this for a new position - nod philosophically when someone decries late term elective abortions, support availability of contraceptives and early term abortion, and use law enforcement to prevent domestic terrorism.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I’m not sure why recognizing someone’s beliefs as sincere means we must find a way to accommodate or compromise. I can imagine finding a compromise, in which I accept that elective abortions in the third trimester are illegal, but in return I want all restrictions prior to that dropped and all efforts to reintroduce barriers stopped. Since I strongly suspect I’ll never get such an agreement (or see it honoured), I don’t see a reason to be accommodating.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not trying to negotiate for the pro-life crowd. I’m trying to assert that there’s a third crowd, somewhere in between, with a different perspective. That crowd also votes, and mostly agrees with you. I just find some aspects of the pro-choice discussion and phrasing of person-hood disturbing and arbitrary.
Talk of compromise is all well and good, but I just can’t get around the fact that when it comes down from theory and applies to individuals, this “compromise” is entirely one-sided and is ultimately meaningless when you’re talking about what a woman can decide to do with her own body. If you are a woman with a wish to do X with your body at time Y, either society is letting you do it or not. There is no compromise. And that’s why I can’t really have any sympathy for a pretense at reasonableness. Go compromise with your own bodies if that’s what you want to do. Leave everyone else’s bodies to their own decisions.
So there’s a third crowd. Why do I have to accommodate them? I get that you (and presumably them) find some aspects “disturbing and arbitrary” but… so…? If you want to vote accordingly, that’s your right, of course.
I don’t quite get your “domestic terrorism” point.
No need to accommodate, just trying to broaden the discussion. I saw gaping flaws in the definition of person-hood being presented on both sides, and discussed them. It seems you didn’t find my points compelling or thought provoking, hopefully someone else did.
No one should be shooting, bombing, or otherwise harming abortion doctors. On this we agree.
Yet for a narrow gap of time, desiring doing X with your body at time Y must have deleterious results on person Z. That is, unless you consider Z to not be a person until they are bathed in the blessed air of the outside world.
I am willing to concede from a practical perspective that this is not a major concern. From the perspective of an ethical discussion, I think that the involvement of Z must be addressed. Denying Z person-hood is compelling to some, but I find it an arbitrary work around.
I’m a fantastic person.
I only read the title.
Yeah… I just call that “crime.”
I don’t find it an arbitrary work-around at all. So long as “Z” is entirely enclosed within the organic body of a woman, “Z” is not a person with rights that society may exercise legal authority to protect to the detriment of the liberty of the woman in question. It’s perfectly logical, perfectly simple, and not arbitrary at all.
Location is an arbitrary criteria, and is no more meaningful than any other criteria you could come up with to differentiate two groups of humans. It’s quite simple, really.
waits for Bryan
Speaking of the title, is it correct to describe the video as “a documentary”? The filmmaker is not just recording and citing opinions, he’s actively involved in trying to change them, and not just the opinions of the audience, but the opinions of his subjects. In fact, he’s proud of it. The whole point of the video is “look how easy it is to change someone’s mind”, though if it was truly even-handed, he’s spend the last half of the video arguing for a pro-choice stance to see how easily his subjects can be swayed in that direction.
I’m not sure what you’re waiting for, but I guess I’ll just point out that location is very often a critical element in distinguishing between legal and illegal, appropriate and inappropriate, moral and immoral, even citizen and noncitizen. As criteria go, it’s often a pretty useful one. Heck, location has a basis in physical reality (arguably, it’s the basis of physical reality and the intensities of electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity all depend on the relative location of the involved masses and waves), which certainly makes it less arbitrary than, say, national borders.
There is nothing arbitrary about the point at which there is a transition between the body of a person and the not-body of a person, either in law or ethics. That’s where a host of conceptual rights and crimes are determined. For example, under the tort of battery, Person A’s right to act ends at the point that this action affects the body of Person B.
No, you might think location is more meaningful criteria than, say, national borders, but it’s no less arbitrary a criteria.
Actually, on further reflection, I guess I’d have to say location combined with time form the basis of physical reality. I just got a copy of a Discovery Channel documentary titled How The Universe Works. I’ll view it and see if it adds any insight to the discussion of abortion, bananas, and Nazis.