If you want me to call it something other than slavery, suggesting a term would be good.
Otherwise I see forcing someone to carry out the will of another as … slavery.
Well, I don’t know that to be true for all pro-lifers. I think some would be content with the reaility that well over 90%* of all abortions would be stopped, and they’d take this. I’m sure other would be delighted, but would not consider their work done until all murdering of unborn children was over.**
As to this whole war of words, I’m left uninspired with the rhetoric. Pro-Choice people are really, Pro-Abortion, don’t you know? (baby killers for the nuance challenged) Pro-Life people are really Anti-Choice, right? (fundies etc for the similarly challenged)
So go ahead and use “sexual oppresion”, “slavery” and all kinds of other words that force you into linguistic gymnastics. Color me uninspired, no matter who’s using them.
- I don’t know the percentage of pregnancies due to rape/inncest, but the sheer number of total pregnancies leads me to believe that the percentage is very, very small overall.
** “murdering of unborn children” are harsh words, but I use them only to underscore the total clarity that some pro-lifers see this issue. To some, 1 child murdered is one too many, and the work cannot be considered complete until all abortion is illegal.
Are you OK with abortion at any time during pregnancy? Even at 8 or 9 months?
catsix, your grasp of nuance is as evident as ever. There are people in the world who believe that life begins at conception, and should be protected. Provided that they also believe that children remain precious *after * their birth, and that mothers and children should have access to health care, child care, sufficient employment to support themselves, and subsidized income where that is not possible, I respect them. I disagree with them, and I will fight them. But I respect them.
raindog, hyperbole aside, catsix is right. You’re not talking about granting a fetus equal rights with a woman. You’re talking about granting them *greater * rights than a woman. Would you mandate that every healthy adult donate a spare organ in order to save lives? Would you even pass a law mandating that every eligible person donate blood monthly? When you lend out my body, you’re overstepping.
OK you respect them. Fine. I disagree. I don’t respect them.
I’m perfectly fine with ‘I don’t want this thing in my body anymore. Remove it.’ at any point.
One piece, more than one piece, makes no difference to me.
I agree with you in part.
I think it is extemely inconsistent for pro-lifers to make the distinction for rape/incest. I am not their spokesman, but it is silly to ascribe to them the motive of wanting to punish women.
Listen, these people read the polls. The poll I remember most recently had the American public something like 76% in favor of leaving Roe/Wade fully or partially intact.
Those making those exceptions view the battle as uphill in the most optimistic scenario. If they don’t compromise on rape/incest they are demonized, and shown as zealots—out of touch. Often they are caricutured. The same polls, if I remember, show that the population is much more amenable to some restrictions (and for some that means a complete ban) if some compromise can be made for rape or incest.
For some PLers that puts them between the devil and the deep blue sea. They may still believe viscerally that abortion due to rape or incest is wrong. Just as wrong as an abortion due to convenience.
But why not take the partial victory you may get, versus the total victory you will almost certainly not get? It doesn’t change their motives, or their beliefs. It doesn’t morph them into the Taliban or give them some fetish like obsessions about oppresion.
They don’t care how much you have sex, who you have it with, or how. They simply believe that if that sex gets you pregnant, you’ve made a baby—a real live human being—and you are obligated to have it–to protect it.
Is it inconsistent? Yes Does it change them into something else? Nope.
They’re playing politics, plain and simple.
So your beef is not so much with the SD governor, but with every Congressman and Congresswoman, regardless of party, every Supreme Court Justice, every president, and probably 95% of the American public. Got it.
What a disgusting statement.
That “thing” is an innocent human life, and you’re perfectly fine with “removing it” in “more than one piece”.
If you’re OK with doing that one day before birth, why not support killing the thing one day after the birth, or one month, or one year later?
What I’m saying is that I recognize that both the mother and the baby/fetus have rights. Those right should be respected, and shouldn’t be trifled with lightly.
But I think it is absurd to make the case that the right of privacy is more compelling then the right of life.
Further, if that baby/fetus is deemed to be a human being (with all the rights of any other citizen) than the event of his/her birth is irrelevent to his/her existence or right to live.
In other words, the ‘event of birth’, doesn’t confer upon the child any rights it didn’t have just prior to birth, or somehow amplify any rights he/she already has.
In other, other words a childs birth is just one step in the continuum of life that began with conception and will progress until death. Along that path, issues like ‘viability’ will ebb and flow.
At any rate, if the baby/fetus is a human,with all the rights of any other human, than what is the significance between a woman who aborts a 6 month old fetus from the womb, and the woman who smothers a 6 month old infant in the crib?
If one accepts the notion that a fetus is a child, than I can find no reason why that child shouldn’t be protected under the law with the same conviction and consistentcy than any other child. The only example that I can think of where such inconsistency was practiced, was when blacks were ascibed 2/3 the societal value of their white counterparts.
If it’s a child, you don’t get to kill it if his/her presence will cause inconvenience, or even trauma.
I think the nature of the removal of an unwanted object from my body is irrelevant to the fact that I should have the absolute right to remove that object from my body, no matter what that object is.
If they wanted to take the thing out whole, that’s fine too. I just think that it’s my right to decide what does and doesn’t live inside my body.
What I’m saying is that the right of privacy should be respected. But the most basic, fundamental right is the right to live.
And so if the right of privacy collides with the right of life, the right of life must prevail in a civilized society. The right of life is superior.
You may not kill me because my presence is an inconvenience to you. You may not kill me if my presence is a mistake—even due to rape. You may not kill me because “you’re not ready.” You may not kill me because you’ve changed your mind. You may not kill me because his condom broke, or the spermacide failed.
catsix is wrong, dead wrong.
Hey, catsix, this may be harsh, but if you feel so strongly about not having a baby, and being in 100% control of your own body, then,
get a hysterectomy or a tubal, or some other “permanent” form of birth control, you fucking cunt.
And you, no matter your age, shape, state, consciousness or sentience are not allowed to use my organs or my body without my consent no matter whether your survival depends upon it or not.
Your right to life does not entitle you to the use of my body. Neither does a fetus’s.
That’s exactly right, “live[ing] in my [your] body”
I know this is The Pit, and for some strange reason our little community has deemed it acceptable, if not encouraged, to suspend civility, decency and simply kindness just because it’s The Pit.
Still, that was uncalled for, and says more about you than catsix.
Whether you choose to offer it or not, you owe her an apology.
And that too, will say more about you than her.
Wow, I wish I had thought of that. I wish I’d spent the last nearly ten years of my life trying to accomplish that. I wish I’d sat there and explained my case over and over again only to be told that I should come back when I’m 35, married and have two kids. You’re a god damn genius! Why didn’t I realize it was so easy? Where is my brain, having not tried to get a tubal or a hysterectomy. I haven’t found a single doctor who’s willing to do a surgical sterilization until I’m at least 35 and married or have two kids, and even then they’d be reluctant. Even if I could convince them to do the procedure, many forms of surgical sterilization (like tubal ligation) have a higher failure rate than proper use of the Pill.
I wish assholes like you found out the facts and didn’t make assumptions about my medical history before they called me a fucking cunt.
Look, I won’t apologize, but I will say that I merely was responding with the same level of vitriol that she seems to be spewing towards the issue and unborns/fetii/whatever you want to call them. Hyperbolic? Perhaps…appropriate? Questionable…but I would argue that her level of venom is no less appropriate.
A question for the life-at-conception folks: of a set of identical twins, how can you tell which one is alive? I mean, one act of conception ocurred. This means one life, yes? You’re not saying every cell that could theoretically be implanted into a uterus and grow to adulthood is a life, are you? Because if you are, you’re turning gestation to mass murder. There are dozens of cells that could theoretically be viable, that can’t allowed to develop as individual cells if an ovum is to develop properly. Either one of these cells is a life and the others are not, or they are all lives.
Ultimately, this issue is not going to be handled by existing laws on personhood or privacy or such, simply because it’s a complicated issue with no exact analogue in other established case law. Shouting slogans does not make the truth less complicated than it is.
So in other words, DirkGntly, what you said to me is just fine because I’m an evil baby killer.
I’m going to leave this thread now, before it gets worse.
catsix clearly feels very strongly about this—maybe even venomous.
This is an issue than most people feel at a visceral level. I don’t agree with her, but I respect how strongly she feels.
Despite the palpable rage she feels, she hasn’t disrespected anyone in this thread.
I still think you were out of line, and I think it would be best if you aplogized.* I’ll leave it at that.
(*this from a man who’s done his share of aplogizing at SDMB)