Actually, although I agree with you that the percent of “hard case” abortions (rape,incest life of mother etc) is realatively small …I think Greyson may have questioned the notion that in rape…“the woman’s hormones go all screwy and pretty much eliminate the possibility of getting pregnant.”…which you really didn’t address
But…ironically…that is the entire point of the web site that I referenced earlier. Whether an organism is a living human IS a matter for scientific exploration. Whether an organism is a “person” is a matter for philosophical and somewhat meaningless (in my opinion, as regards to the abortion question) debate.
In 1856, slaves were not considered to have personhood and thus citizenship…so you’ll get no argument from me or the author of the web site article that “personhood” is anything less than an arbitrary, often culturally based, notion.
Actually, I would get an argument from her. She does define “personhood” as beginning at fertilization.
Straight from her mouth here:
Actually, I would get an argument from her. She does define “personhood” as beginning at fertilization.
Straight from her mouth here:
Good Point.
My read on her article is that many people in the pro choice camp create a distinct, scientifcally based (they think) category of personhood…entirely different from the category of “human life”. She seems to be arguing that personhood is a philosophical construct…not rooted in embryology, genetics or anatomy…and so attempts to peg “personhood” at a later time than fertilization (twinning, for example) are flawed science. So if “personhood” does not scientifically occur later…than “it” occurs at fertilization (from a science point of view).
Of course, philosophically…societies can and do establish “personhood” based on non-scientic criteria, hence the Dred Scott reference.
I think the use of quotes around “personhood” in her piece are indicative of the weight she places on such a term…in a scientific context.
I grant that it’s confusing on the one hand to say that , as she does, that “The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question”…
…and then to say that ’ “personhood” begins at the same time as when a human being begins.’
apologies for my formatting faux paux.
I would just like to take a moment and mention that Ad does not represent all pro-lifers(myself included). It always bothers me when people just blurt out statements obviously generated chiefly by emotion. This is less a “Great Debate” and more of an argument starter.
Both sides of this issue have had people start threads like this. It bothers me both ways.
While I am in agreement with the fact that ome women can’t take the pill, there are several different formulations of birth control pills, and in most cases, its likely that at if one type isn’t safe for someone, another type will be. The same goes for lessened effectiveness due to other medications. As for the cost to women without the right insurance: Free clinics, or clinics like Planned Parenthood, which employ a sliding-fee payment method, offer safe and affordable birth control options, as well as other services, to women and men without medical insurance. The services are even discreet and confidential at most clinics. Also, there are more birth control options available that just condoms and the Pill. If one method doesn’t work for someone, there’s bound to be another one that will.
Again, I agree with you that it impossible for us to prevent all unwanted pregnancies - accidents happen, and birth control methods fail. However, I feel like the above mentioned reasons are often used as excuses for unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, when, in actuality, another method could have been employed.
I’m Pro-Choice. I believe that making this decision should be left solely to the mother (and her SO, under many circumstances).
Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control.
That said, What the hell is your deal, Ad Noctum? Who are you to sit in the judgement of others, when you have never personally experienced anything remotely similar to what a woman goes through in this situation? Surely, you don’t think that women who are victims of Rape and end up pregnant with their attackers child should be forced to deal with the emotional distress that such a pregnancy would bring with it? Choosing abortion is not an easy decision for most women. For you to pass it off as such is not only ignorant and judgemental, it’s also inconsiderate and just plain insulting to any woman who has ever been forced to make that decision.
So how exactly would that be legislated?
I don’t necessarily agree with Ad Noctum, but I’ll take issue with this. It may be ignorant, judgemental, inconsiderate, and rude of me, but if it really is such a hard decision for most women, why do so many women have multiple abortions?
What if the people of State X don’t want gays in their state? What if they want to recognize an official state religion?
The Supreme Court has decided that up to a point, the Ninth Amendment protects a woman’s right to control what goes on inside her body. The Constitution does not, however, grant people the right to a society where everything they don’t approve of is prohibited.
True 'dat, beagledave. I couldn’t care less how many abortions are the result of rape or incest. I am rather interested in this new discovery that pregnancy from rape was “pretty much [impossible]”. I realize that this is somewhat off topic, but I like this board and would rather not see it become a breeding ground for “facts” that sound remarkably similar to the things the teacher debunked in health class.
Not so. She has a religious background, but the arguments she presented were non-religious in nature. In other words, your statement was distinctly ad hominem in nature. It dismissed her arguments merely because she’s religious, rather than because the arguments themselves were religious or invalid.
Cervaise, I didn’t respond because I didn’t want to feel like I was marginalizing your experience by responding to it. You did say that you wanted feedback in your original post, and you reiterated that desire, so here ya go.
First, I would like to say that I do feel for you and your wife. Sincerely, that’s a shitty, shitty thing to have to go through. But, at best, I see it as an argument for why abortions should be legal in cases where a fetus was “fucked up” (for lack of a better term) by invasive surgery and radiation. If you could demonstrate that a statistically large number of abortions occur for these reasons, we could talk. But I don’t see your story as a valid argument for making abortions legal for whoever wants them.
I’m not sure if it applies to you in particular, Cervaise, but I know that zensi had this to say (and it’s a common stance)
To which I reply: why the hell not? If, again quoting zensi
then aren’t you restricting the woman’s choice to say that abortion should not be used as birth control? If one is to take Stoid’s position, which if I may paraphrase, is “It’s my body, everyone else has fuck-all input,” then why not permit abortion to be used as birth control? If a woman has no problem with abortion, and you’re pro-choice, you have to respect her choices, yes? Suppose a woman, of her own free-will, takes multiple fertility drugs, gets gangbanged by 10 strapping young men, and then gets an abortion a month later. As a pro-choice advocate, don’t you have to say, “Hey, it’s your choice”?
Cervaise, I like talking in the abstract about abortion, because abortion is nasty business. Again, I am sincerely sorry for your ordeal.
Quix
Your logic here is flawed. If the people of State X don’t want gays in their state, they’re just shit outta luck. They can thank the Civil Rights Movement for that. If they want to recognize an official state religion, they are again, shit outta luck. The Constitution expressly forbids establishing or recognizing a state religion. The First and Tenth Amendments did that. You are correct in stating that the Constitution does not give us a right to live in a society where what we don’t approve of is prohibited. We owe that to the First Amendment. However, the Constitution did limit the scope of the Federal government quite severely. How is abortion a Ninth Amendment issue? At what point does the Ninth Amendment no longer apply to a woman’s right to control her body?
Greyson:. I apologize; I misunderstood what you were asking. Let me do some research to find your answer. However, I did say that I could be wrong and if I am I asked for someone to correct me.
The point, quixotic, is that every story is different. Our experience is probably unique. However, the exceptions proposed by anti-abortion legislation are almost invariably “in cases of rape or incest.” We fall into neither of those categories, and if the anti-abortion crusaders had their way, I would in all likelihood now have a wife paralyzed from the waist down, and a dead (or at best badly handicapped) baby. You’ll forgive me for not feeling a tremendous sense of warmth for this notion.
That’s exactly why an honest person must debate abortion in the real world, and why trying to stay in the abstract is such a cowardly cop-out. It is a nasty business. It is unpleasant, and complex, and difficult. It has all sorts of messy implications and ramifications that cannot be distilled into a nice, clean, on-paper philosophical debate. Ivory-tower theorizing has its place, but when you actually try to apply your notions to the real world, you’d damn well better be prepared to dig into the ugly, complicated reality. Either that, or go find somebody else’s sand to stick your head into.
Oh, and darian00. if your wriggling gets any more convoluted, we could bake you and salt you and eat you at ball games.
Ummm . . . no. While there may be explicit or implicit Constitutional protections keeping gays and lesbians from being declared persona non grata by a state (probably Article IV, Sec. 2), there is no piece of Federal Civil Rights legislation that explicitly guarantees equal protecion on the basis of sexual orientation.
Forgive me if I missed something, but you said that your wife carrying the baby to term would be “dangerous.” The third exception that is even MORE popular than the two you mentioned is “if the mother’s life is in danger.” Wouldn’t your wife be able to get an abortion for that reason?
Now that I re-read what you wrote AGAIN, I’m even more confused, especially where you said that you’d “have a wife paralzyed from the waist down.” What does paralysis have to do with presence or absence of a fetus? I would think that without the surgery, your wife would be paralyzed. The fetus had no bearing on the surgery, as you didn’t discover it until after the fact. Could you maybe clarify?
**
There are very, very, very few things in society that can be “distilled” as you put it. By your logic, it seems you would agree with a person who said, “There are so many flavors of murder. Justifiable homicide, self defense, wartime criminals, etc. There is no way we could distill regulations against murder into a nice, clean, on-paper philosophical debate.” And yet, society attempts to do just that! Governments write laws forbidding murder in abstract terms, not in specific terms (although court cases do add a flavor of concreteness). Do you consider humanity’s anti-murder crusade “cowardly,” because it’s not dealing with concrete people?
Quix
Look up the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade for the details. The Ninth Amendment states that the enumeration of rights in the Constitution cannot be used to justify infringement on basic rights that aren’t listed therein(right to travel, right to privacy, etc.)
Hello, Mahaloth. I agree with you, aside from being a rather committed pro-choice partisan. I do hate rehashing the same hash.
Can you think of means and methods satisfactory to you for providing women with the necessary and sufficient sense of control over their reproductive functions to allow them to have impromptu sex if they feel like it, without fear of being trapped by pregnancy? To me, that is of sufficient importance to outweigh any considerations for embryos and fetuses, but perhaps this same necessary freedom could be obtained through means other than legal and available abortion services?
Can you think of means and methods satisfactory to you for providing women with a way out in the event that they change their mind after conception? Again, to me it is imperative that they have this freedom and therefore I am pro-choice. But are there other options you can envision supporting that would allow a person to choose no longer to be pregnant as need be? Is there an alternative to abortion that would address this issue?
quixotic: I’m sorry. Evidently I wasn’t clear. Let me explain further.
Giving birth, you see, is hard work. The baby doesn’t just pop out after conception. The uterus swells up to accommodate the growing fetus. This puts significant strain on the spine. Then, during the actual birth, there are lots of muscles in the abdomen that spasm and contract for a period of hours, usually six to eight, sometimes shorter, sometimes much longer.
This is difficult and painful under the best of circumstances. When you have fresh surgery on the spine, all of this muscular activity pulls on the bones and tendons and creates an enormous risk of pulling apart the healing bones.
Now, inside the spine is the spinal cord. If the spinal cord gets damaged, partial or complete paralysis usually results. A broken vertebra being yanked on by spasming, contracting birth muscles is a bad, bad thing.
Let me know if you need further details.