In the theatre that is American politics, it’s one of the tragedy ‘masks’ that’s balanced by comedy ‘masks’ like ‘Creationism’.
Strawman alert! Making something and then unmaking it is not the same as not making it. Granting legal rights to something and then revoking those rights != not granting rights in the first place.
In which case, robertliguori, once can revoke the alleged “right” of the woman to have total control over her own body. (Remember, it is the pro-choicers who are arguing that this right is absolute.)
In other words, if you say that the deformed individual’s alleged right to bodily control can be revoked, then the woman’s alleged right to bodily control can be revoked as well. This ruins the pro-choicer argument, rather than helping it.
The mass killing of innocent human beings will always be an issue in my heart.
JThunder, I hope you never have daughters.
Robin
That was pretty cruel Robyn 
It’s sad that this debate always seems to raise such heated feelings on each side, but that was a very low blow.
It’s also pretty awful of candida to suggest the pro-life movement, and those on the pro-life side of this arguement in particular, have a ulterior motive of subjegating women as their “real” goal(much like a “true” Scotsman) instead of their stated goal of protecting innocent lives. There have been many abortion debates on the SDMB and the gender division isn’t always as stark as it has been here. This was a petty claim and has no place in civilized debate.
catsix I would stand by your side to defend you against an employer who would terminate or retard your career because of a pregnancy. I would also defend you against a family who would condemn you on basis of a pregnancy. I would vote for a law which protected your right to keep your medical records confidential and not have to air them before the public(sorry, I have enough confidence in sealed court records that I wouldn’t consider them “public”, so consent of a judge under advice from medical professionals familiar with the patient’s condition doesn’t seem like an unreasonable standard) before a “medically necessary(on grounds of physiological or psychological harm to the pregnant woman)” abortion would be allowed.
Still, I believe life begins when the 46 chromosomes which are the fundamental essence of human life come together in a new and unique combination(fertilizaion IOW). Other definitions of “life” or “personhood” make about as much sense as some of the arguements raised for the concepts of “race”. I don’t believe in labels. I’ve rarely seen them used as anything except a chance for one side to demonize, or at least dehumanize, another. Once we lose sight of our common humanity these schisms rarely fail to escalate to injustice, or worse.
Enjoy,
Steven
I know that abortion is an emotional issue, but it is not all-or-nothing. There is common ground somewhere.
As to my disagreement with JThunder, while it is his right to advocate criminalizing abortion, several of his posts have crossed the line between pro-life and inhumanity. Forcing a woman to bear a child whom she knows will never enjoy the same quality of life that we do, and will spend whatever time it has on this earth in pain and suffering, is nothing short of cruelty, both to the woman and to the child.
He also wants to hold them hostage, both physically and by their own minds:
If he regards imprisonment as “inconvenient”, it seems to me he’d have no problem at all physically preventing a woman from seeking abortion. IIRC, in this country, that’s illegal.
Robin
Cruel? As opposed to letting the mother kill the child, which is cruel to both the killer and the victim?
You’re referring to the act of placing a suicidal person under suicide watch. This is a common practice where someone is in danger of hurting themselves. It is an act of mercy, to prevent that person from ending his or her own life.
To say that this is keeping the person “hostage” is clearly inflammatory, and a gross distortion of the facts.
Yes, it’s illegal… but since we are debating the justness of the abortion “rights” laws, that argument amounts to circular reasoning.
And what is so wrong about physically preventing someone from killing another human being? Your argument assumes that the killing of this unborn human is a morally acceptable act – and thus, is yet another circular argument.
If life is truly something that needs protection, them sometimes that type of restraint is necessary. In fact, society routinely does that to people who are likely to commit murder. It may seem cruel to the prospective killer, but it is an act of kindness toward his or her intended victims.
BTW, note that I absolutely did not say “imprisonment.” I did not say that suicidal pregnant women should be placed in the slammer.
What I said is that they might have to be placed under suicide watch, which is an entirely different matter. To call this “imprisonment” makes for a colorful but inaccurate metaphor. It is a clear attempt to insinuate that one’s pro-life opponent wishes these women to be locked up in jail – an accusation which is not supported by the discussion at hand.
Rather like saying that pro-lifers have the subjugation of women as their “real” goal, rather than the protection of human lives, wouldn’t you say?
Mtgman:
All of your willingness to help could not undo the mental and physical damage of being forced to carry a pregnancy I don’t want. You have good intentions, but you need to understand that I don’t want someone to battle for me so that I can have a child. You’d have to battle me to make me have a child, and you’d lose.
The barriers placed in my way would only serve to cause the abortion to happen somewhere else, or to have it performed illegally by a compassionate doctor or a fourth year medical student. At the very bottom line you must understand that I am not someone who wants to have a child but faces obstacles. I am someone desperate to not have a child, and will risk my life if I have to. The best thing that you or anyone else could do for me is to not attempt to fix things, because to do so would create more damage.
Going to a judge, or even telling anyone other than the doctor who would perform the abortion about the situation would be beyond the burden I could bear, and I wouldn’t do it. There’d be no option of a suicide watch, no option of imprisoning me in a mental hospital (and it is imprisonment) to exacerbate my own suffering.
If you have any compassion at all, understand that though your motives are good, your actions would lead to far more suffering than an understanding that since pregnancy and all its ills would be my cross to bear, it’s my decision to make. Turn your back so that I can do the thing I can live with.
You can do that, or you can fight me. If you choose to fight me, know that you will never win a battle with a desperate, determined six.
It wouldn’t be a battle so you can have a child you don’t want. It would be a battle so the child(which already exists) can have a chance at life. Once that chromosome pairing has completed there is a human life there according to the most basic and fundamental definition I can think of. Your feelings don’t negate its existance.
I don’t have a simple solution and my compassion leads me to offer alternatives to people who would suffer great, possibly life-threatening distress(pysical or emotional) from an unwanted pregnancy, but still I feel strong consideration should be given to the life which can’t speak on it’s own behalf yet. I would not willingly force someone into a desperate situation. I’m not a sadist. I support, and personally do what I can to aid and succor women in distress from pregnancy(work to provide free/low cost medical care and support adoption as well as supporting birth control education and availability).
Personally I find the idea of putting a woman distressed over her pregnancy in a straightjacket(or other restraints) pretty abhorrent. Still I don’t blame JThunder for suggesting it, he’s been backed into a corner himself. All he had to work with is a hypothetical situation where the woman will kill herself if she can’t get an abortion. When faced with an extreme situation it’s hard to come up with a good solution.
My best suggestion is head off such crises by increasing availability of/education about birth control(including surgical sterilization if the process can be made safer or more reliably reversible if the woman changes her mind later) and making adoptions easier so women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and would not meet criteria for a medically necessary abortion would both decrease in numbers and have an option which does not destroy the life of the unborn. Destroying the social stigma of a single mom or young mother being somehow undesirable or less capable of a career or a family’s love would certainly be a plus, but it would be much harder to achieve.
Turning my back may not be something I can live with.
Steven
Also note that I merely said the woman might have to be restrained, not that she should be. I certainly did not suggest the use of a straightjacket, although I admit that it might be necessary in extreme cases.
When a person is under suicide watch, one can often use gentler means. The person can be placed in a hospital room, for example, under close supervision and deprived of sharp implements. Now, MsRobyn might call this a “hostage” situation, but I think that reasonable people would recognize this as an attempt to save the woman’s life.
After all, what is more cruel – to keep the woman under supervision (possibly using restraints, if her situation grows extreme), or to permit either suicide or the death of an innocent? It’s rather foolish to protest the cruelty of restraining a suicidal person, while suggesting that the dismemberment of an innocent human makes for a satisfactory solution.
I’d also like to point out (again!) that such situations (i.e. a woman who will commit suicide unless she is given an abortion) are certainly possible, but decidedly hypothetical – and certainly not representative of abortion cases in general.
Make decisions you can live with when they don’t affect your life.
When they affect mine, accept that it isn’t up to you.
A petty claim?
*Q: What groups provide main dynamic behind the anti-choice movement?
A: Reactionary Christian sects with a particular social agenda.*
Meanwhile, somebody else can’t spot words like ‘mainly’.
I see. So as long as we’re not personally affected, we should shut the hell up?
I guess those brave souls who served on the underground railroad had it all wrong, then. Shame on them!
I am so sick of you and others on your side trying to marginalize our argument by saying that it’s just an American, religious, knee jerk reaction.
And I’ve said outright, that the Pro-life movement isn’t about us controlling women’s bodies. And I, and the rest of us, don’t argue against abortion because we enjoy it, we argue because we believe in the cause.
I, and the rest of the Pro-life movement have a firm belief in our cause because we have carefully looked at the issue, and all the factors, and after seeing things like ultrasound pictures, photos of 6 week old babies (or fetuses if you prefer) with clearly defined body parts like a head, arms, legs, fingers, toes, and so on, looked at the facts, like the ones I posted earlier about human development, we know that since each species reproduces its own kind, then what a human is giving birth to is another human. We look at all this, and come to the conclusion that what’s being aborted is a human life, which deserves the same protection as a child that’s born.
Joel
Oh come on!
What we have here are two sides, neither of which accepts the basic assumptions of the other, going through the rituals.
Meanwhile:
*Q: Is it an American obsession?
A: Yes
Q: Are most of the main protagonists of the anti-choice movement from the American religious right?
A: Yes
Q: Is it a knee-jerk reaction?
A: No, it’s jaw-jerk reaction comprising of hectoring women about us having a right to determine our own outcomes.*
PS - hitting me over the head with a metaphorical fetus doesn’t work.
So what is your point in saying that the “anti-choice” movement comes largely from the “religious right”? Do you seriously believe that this stance should be rejected based on the people who are advocating it?
If so, I suggest doing some research into the logical fallacy known as “ad hominem argumentation,” and why it is considered fallacious.
J Thunder
My point in talking about the religious right has to do with my having raised the question of a whole social agenda (do try to follow the bouncing ball).
I suggest that, if you want to play with logical fallacies, you try with somebody other than a Phil grad.
When you’re not personally affected, you don’t get to make the final decision.
Got it yet?