July 11-13: At Netroots Nation

The Hidden History of Guns and the 2nd Amendment Book Tour Is Coming...

Thursday, June 6: NEW YORK, NY 7:30pm

Location: The Strand (2nd floor), 828 Broadway, NYC

Monday, June 10: WASHINGTON, DC 6:30pm

Location: Busboys and Poets, 450 K St NW, Washington, DC

Wednesday, June 12: PORTLAND, OR 7:30pm

Location: Powell’s, 1005 W Burnside St., Portland

Sunday, June 23: SEATTLE, WA 7:30pm

Location: Town Hall, 1119 8th Ave, Seattle (West Entrance) w/Elliott Bay Book Company

Tuesday, June 25: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7:00pm

Location: First Church, 2345 Channing Way, Berkeley w/The Booksmith

Friday, June 28: CHICAGO, IL 7:00pm

Location: Frugal Muse, 7511 Lemont Rd. #146 (Chestnut Court Shopping Center), Darien

Saturday, June 29: MINNEAPOLIS, MN 7:00pm

Location: Common Good Books, 38 S. Snelling Ave, St. Paul

Friday, July 12: Philadelphia, PA 4:15pm - At Netroots Nation
Location: PA Convention Center, 1101 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA

Become a Thom Supporter- Click the Patreon button

Sane conversation about abortion

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

1159 posts / 0 new

Comments

Kerry, would you please stop comparing my opinions to Zenzoes like there is some kind of "gotcha" there? Would you also please tell the jury what punishment you would prefer to deal out to women who seek an abortion after the 12 week cutoff? Life in prison? Slap on the wrist? Here's why I ask...

As you and I both know, a rule that is not enforced is just a guideline, right? So, when a woman goes about removing her fetus without your permission, what would you have her punishment be? What would make sense, in your opinion, for a healthy society to impose as a deterrent to self-induced abortion? We already know (yes, KNOW) that pregnancy can be fatal, even after viability of the fetus. So, in essence, you are demanding that the woman risk her life for another's life that you find more valuable. Isn't that rather arbitrary and not absolute at all? You see, Kerry, if you don't say what the charge or the punishment should be, you're not stating anything other than your own arbitrary definition of life. If you're not willing to throw women in prison for murder or fetus-cide, then you're talking out your ass (as I've suspected you were all along).

It's really the end point that matters and not the contextual ethics argument in the middle. It's the end result that we really need to decide upon because that will determine what our society looks like and how it performs to meet the needs of humans. Now, though Zenzoe may prefer to give her own fetus a chance (which I think is only her decision to make), I certainly don't believe she would have women being tossed into prison for seeking a late term abortion. So, though, we may disagree with whether women SHOULD have late term abortions, I think she and I agree that punishing that act does nothing for society. Thus, though we have reached our decisions differently, we agree with the end point. You and I do not. Get it? Zenzoe's position on abortion is different than mine but she is the only one in the conversation who is capable of using one. Thus, my position is to always refer to the will of the woman (even Zenzoe) in whom the fetus parasitically resides.

Is that ABSOLUTELY (pun intended) clear?

When Kerry writes thousand word treatises

Defending the womb-rights of fetuses

He forgets that the law

Was set up for us all.

Not only for those who have penises.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Ulysses:
When it comes to 'individual rights', I think that such 'community interest' impositions could 'condition rights' right out of existence--and take the order of the 'rights for dogs'--ie. dependent upon what priority the 'community interest' is, that 'right' may be at the whelm of whatever the political authority deems--to the point of seeing the dog as a family companion or the next meal--but 'we' in this 'new paradigm' are 'mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing' enough to not only allow this--but 'want it' for 'political authority'....

The sentence above is run-on, indeed, rambling. Alas, it's also a non sequitur. To "whelm" is a verb; it shows action. It means to engulf or submerge, or to overwhelm. It's not a noun, as it's been used by this individual. For that reason, this post is not "mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing" enough to be understood by literate people. It is, therefore, summarily dismissed, without a response.

All so true, except I think he meant "whim." And you forgot "rights for dogs," a subject which continues to dot the Kerry landscape, such rights being little poops in the grass that seem to appear from nowhere, but persistently. Perhaps you're like me, you prefer not to step in it?

But, Ulysses, I begin to feel bad about all of this. Let me refer to an incident in my personal life that may explain this new feeling: A few nights ago, I went to out to dinner with my son and his little family. As we were about to get up from our table and leave the restaurant, my grandson Raiff, age 5, accidentally poured a full glass of ice-water on his chest and lap. On the way home in the car, my daughter-in-law and I recalled the look on Raiff’s face, as he realized what had just happened, how it transitioned from dim awareness, through conscious sense of icy, wet-coldness, all the way to wailing complaint within three seconds—and we just laughed uncontrollably over this, completely ignoring how our laughter at his expense might feel to the little guy. So my son piped up right away and told us we were being mean. (Amazing, to be corrected by my own son!) But, we were being mean, unintentionally, but, nevertheless, mean. Right then I told Raiff, “I’m so sorry,” Raiff— it’s mean to laugh at people, and it doesn’t feel good to be laughed at, does it? I’ve been laughed at, and I know how it feels. I’m going to try not to do that again,” and so forth. You see, our very good and intrepid Ulysses, I'm not sure Kerry is even aware of his accidents, and perhaps it is cruel to keep having fun at his expense. At a certain point, we risk becoming bullies, I'm sure you can see.

Well, you were not ridiculing Kerry; you were merely acting as writing instructor. However, we have all ridiculed him at some point. Perhaps you have good reasons for your reactions here, and I thought I did too—the frustration of it all! But, I don't know—right now I'm feeling empathy for his being, possibly, ganged-up on, and my conscience is kicking in.

Kerry, if only you could take Shakespeare's opinion to heart: "...brevity is the soul of wit..." Then, we might get somewhere, with respect. Otherwise, this discussion becomes a snake chasing its tail...no?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thanks, Ulysses. I knew you would have your reasons, and your points are well-taken. I don't disagree, at least intellectually; it's the heart that hesitates.

Perhaps I became more sensitive to the issue of "insulting" others here, on this forum, when I became the recipient of Antifascist's relentless insults to my opinions with the most recent version of the "atheism is a religion" argument (I insist it most definitely is not a religion). He appears to be on a quest to convince me of my inability to think, or be logical, and to show everyone what an idiot I am. Perhaps he is one of those "big boys" I should get used to sparring with, but, honestly, I don't think I should have to put up with it. I think he's a bully and a nasty person. (not that I think he should be barred from participating, you understand)

Anyway, I don't think the Thom Hartmann forum should be an elite, philosophy forum, where only intellectuals get to play. I think all kinds of people, with all sorts of different styles should feel welcome and free to participate. I understand your justifications for your criticisms of Kerry, but do you think it's possible that, in general, to be on the attack as a matter of habit might intimidate and discourage people from commenting? I am somehow able to stand up for myself and persist, but notice how few women participate here. It can be scary.

On the other hand, I also believe it's better for a person who is being crazy, or obscure, or confusing, or spouting yet the same ol' same ol' propaganda, or ideological BS, to be directly called on it, in no uncertain terms. It's better to be confronted with the real world and real reactions, than to be coddled, when you're being ridiculous.

Mixed feelings, as usual.

Happy Holidays to you too, and to all.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:
When it comes to 'individual rights', I think that such 'community interest' impositions could 'condition rights' right out of existence--and take the order of the 'rights for dogs'--ie. dependent upon what priority the 'community interest' is, that 'right' may be at the whelm of whatever the political authority deems--to the point of seeing the dog as a family companion or the next meal--but 'we' in this 'new paradigm' are 'mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing' enough to not only allow this--but 'want it' for 'political authority'....

The sentence above is run-on, indeed, rambling. Alas, it's also a non sequitur. To "whelm" is a verb; it shows action. It means to engulf or submerge, or to overwhelm. It's not a noun, as it's been used by this individual. For that reason, this post is not "mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing" enough to be understood by literate people. It is, therefore, summarily dismissed, without a response.

All so true, except I think he meant "whim." And you forgot "rights for dogs," a subject which continues to dot the Kerry landscape, such rights being little poops in the grass that seem to appear from nowhere, but persistently. Perhaps you're like me, you prefer not to step in it?

But, Ulysses, I begin to feel bad about all of this. Let me refer to an incident in my personal life that may explain this new feeling: A few nights ago, I went to out to dinner with my son and his little family. As we were about to get up from our table and leave the restaurant, my grandson Raiff, age 5, accidentally poured a full glass of ice-water on his chest and lap. On the way home in the car, my daughter-in-law and I recalled the look on Raiff’s face, as he realized what had just happened, how it transitioned from dim awareness, through conscious sense of icy, wet-coldness, all the way to wailing complaint within three seconds—and we just laughed uncontrollably over this, completely ignoring how our laughter at his expense might feel to the little guy. So my son piped up right away and told us we were being mean. (Amazing, to be corrected by my own son!) But, we were being mean, unintentionally, but, nevertheless, mean. Right then I told Raiff, “I’m so sorry,” Raiff— it’s mean to laugh at people, and it doesn’t feel good to be laughed at, does it? I’ve been laughed at, and I know how it feels. I’m going to try not to do that again,” and so forth. You see, our very good and intrepid Ulysses, I'm not sure Kerry is even aware of his accidents, and perhaps it is cruel to keep having fun at his expense. At a certain point, we risk becoming bullies, I'm sure you can see.

Well, you were not ridiculing Kerry; you were merely acting as writing instructor. However, we have all ridiculed him at some point. Perhaps you have good reasons for your reactions here, and I thought I did too—the frustration of it all! But, I don't know—right now I'm feeling empathy for his being, possibly, ganged-up on, and my conscience is kicking in.

Kerry, if only you could take Shakespeare's opinion to heart: "...brevity is the soul of wit..." Then, we might get somewhere, with respect. Otherwise, this discussion becomes a snake chasing its tail...no?

I've only re-posted this because I edited in a minor correction and the board's program automatically re-posts edited materials at the end of any given thread. There's nothing new of substance in it, so readers who read the first version needn't waste their time re-reading this unless they want to. Ulysses, 12/20/11.

Your points about children are well-taken. I have five grandchildren -- three girls, two boys. If anybody were to deliberately hurt any of them, I'd do my best to offer the offender a speedy demise. Children should not be bullied or hazed because those actions can leave permanent emotional and psychological wounds and scars. Having said that, we diverge in opinions when it comes to dealing with adults.

I think the only thing that shouldn't be tolerated politically is intolerance. Libertarianism is a form of intolerance; it's intolerant of community. Conservatism is a form of intolerance because while true liberalism is built upon tolerance of all other isms except intolerance, conservatism, especially the brand now practiced in the U.S., tolerates only itself. So, to bring it full circle, true liberals are intolerant of Cons because Cons are intolerant of everybody and everything except other Cons and conservatism. Kerry falls on that side of the political spectrum on abortion rights, and he says he's a Lib, and I see them as the ideological and economic class enemy.

It's not that he's a bad speller and grammarian that bothers me. He is, but he's also not cogent half of the time, and one sometimes cannot even understand his ramblings. His remarks are not well-thought out. There's a difference between expecting somebody to be a professional wordsmith and expecting them to simply communicate clearly and concisely. He doesn't even accomplish the latter, yet he demands that he be considered righteous while spouting anti-intellectual remarks. Is he anti-intellectual because literacy comes hard for him so he resents literate dialogues? I dunno, but it's my opinion, based on his writings over a long curve, that he is, in fact, anti-intellectual and not fully literate. Yet he claims to be a doctor. Go figure.

It's also clear by what he writes that he's against liberal (liberal in the Renaissance sense) higher education, willfully ignorant, and philosophically tenacious, in the literal, philosophical sense of the term "tenacious." Tenacity of thought is antithetical to Socratic dialectics, upon which most of American higher education (until recently, the envy of the world) is based.

This is all a problem for me because he gets to vote, too, and his vote carries as much weight as mine or anybody else's. Thus, he has the ability to project an adverse social, political, and economic impact onto me and mine, and that's where it really gets to be a problem. Libs, but more especially Cons, have all but destroyed the socioeconomic fabric of my country. And then along comes this guy, who wants to deliver poorly thought out, ineffectively communicated, angrily delivered, repetitive screeds about a subject on which it's painfully obvious that he's not intellectually grounded. Because this is a public forum, there's always a chance that his blathering might win him a convert or three among those even less thoughtful and educated than he is, at which point their votes, too, have the potential to have a negative outcome for me and mine. I consider people with those views to be minions of the rotten socioeconomic infrastructure now in place, and I believe we're currently in the battle of our lifetimes for the soul of the country. So I'll be a civil as they are, but I won't brook their attitudes; snarkiness; lies; innuendos; lies by omission; or simple bullshit propagated in any attempt to further the Con agenda, whether it's couched in civil terms or not. I'm through figuratively taking knives to rhetorical gunfights while the Libs and Cons show up heavily armed, to continue the metaphor. So, seeing as how my views on women's freedom of choice mostly dovetail with yours and D_Natured's, Kerry gets no quarter. I don't know what he believes about other political issues, but if he's consistent, the rest of his views may be right-of-center as well.

There's another point. This is the Wild West. A free-for-all, within certain established parameters. While some posters may be young, most are mature and well-read, reflecting Hartmann's audience demographics and psychographics. If people want to peddle bull here, they should at least respect the ambient environment of the board enough to make it good bull, or be ready to be called on it. Those (including Kerry) who can't run with the big dogs shouldn't get off the porch.

I'm already at the point of simply ignoring him, because this thread has been done to death. DRC shows more class than I do in that regard, but I've always been competitive in life (played basketball in the old CBA) and I have a hard time letting go of stuff, especially if I feel that I or mine have been done an injustice, or that somebody has the potential to inflict even indirect harm upon society -- in this case, through voting and ideology. So, maybe it's time to just move on and let him be that distant dog, off in the night, barking at the moon (talking to himself). Maybe he'd find that the most satisfying conversation of all.

Happy Holidays to you and your grandchildren.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Kerry, would you please stop comparing my opinions to Zenzoes like there is some kind of "gotcha" there? Would you also please tell the jury what punishment you would prefer to deal out to women who seek an abortion after the 12 week cutoff? Life in prison? Slap on the wrist? Here's why I ask...

What has that got to do with the point that you, D_NATURED, are describing 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' while Zenzoe is describing a 'care and concern for the fetal viability' (presumably--still calling it 'fetus' at this point) before birth? What you are describing as a 'gotcha' is actually just pointing out the irrational correlation that your position has with Zenzoe's--you know, the one where you claim to 'agree and understand Zenzoe' as you debase my own position for what appears to me to be very similar conclusions--just, as I told Zenzoe, for what appears to be different reasons. The only distinction that I would offer is that, in making the issues of 'rights' being so definitively, and absolutely, described, it does prevent a political authority from being able to adjust such rights in just about any 'whim' they wish to 'authorize' (although, political authorities will be able to 'over-whelm' just about any right if allowed such whims against them)--thus, the need to define them within limits that carry absolute positions.

What does whatever punishment the jury would deal out to a woman who aborts after 12 weeks have to do with any of this, D_NATURED? Are you really following the points in this conversation (as Ulysses and Zenzoe emphasize the grammar without addressing the concepts, themselves)? The whole point behind the absoluteness of rights directly addresses your example--and I have made that point several times. The point of the absoluteness of rights (in extent and context) given to the person with the 'rights of conscience' to use them means that 'community interest' has no capacity to intervene--thus, no jury trial. When you interdict that 'right' with a 'community interest' that doesn't involve another right (such as an identified and determined 'right to life' of the product of conception), then you have the potential of political authority and jury trials interrupting any heretofore absolute 'right'--for any reason they can introject as 'their concern'--which I see as potentially prejudicing and oppressing unless done for another absolute right.

Quote D_NATURED:

As you and I both know, a rule that is not enforced is just a guideline, right?

And you don't see this 'rule' or 'guideline' as any different from an absolute 'right', D_NATURED? Then why are you giving the mother the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains' at any point in the pregnancy if that is just a 'rule' or 'guideline'? And, why is Zenzoe 'adjusting that' with something that Zenzoe calls a 'care and concern for the fetal viability' if that 'care and concern' doesn't contain another right so absolutely considered--and how is that any different from a 'rule' or 'guideline' without such a right? You still don't see how irrational yours and Zenzoe's positions to each other are yet, D_NATURED? Yet, you claim to be against my position because I do conceptualize it as exactly what this 'in group' apparently wants to ignore--a contention between 'opposing rights' and how that is ABSOLUTELY identified and determined--even when Zenzoe's posturing with the 'care and concern for the fetal viability' is in direct contradiction to your ABSOLUTE RIGHT of 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains if the mother wants to' right before birth? And, neither you nor Zenzoe acknowledge how irrational that 'agreement' is......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

What would make sense, in your opinion, for a healthy society to impose as a deterrent to self-induced abortion?

Why do you ask me that as if I'm against abortions, D_NATURED? I'm the one pointing out that Roe vs. Wade acknowledged that self-induced abortions have never been illegal--never had a 'punishment', never went before a 'jury of your peers', never defined it as 'murder', 'manslaughter', or any other crime? The only thing that laws against abortion prior to this did was prevent someone from helping the mother to abort--those people could be charged with a crime. And, of course, the whole point of that was that it recognized that the fetus did NOT have 'right to life' so absolutely defined at conception--that issue is a more modern concept that has absolutely no precedence in American law (or any culture or civilization in the world throughout history)--until now. Perhaps you have missed my many discussions concerning abortions--and abortion rights--on this board before. No culture or country anywhere in the world has ever treated miscarried fetuses as if any other human death--including not naming or handling them as any other human death or investigating their untimely demise for possible criminal involvement--not even Catholic countries. Where is your head in this, D_NATURED? Have you really been following this discussion as much as Ulysses accuses--and Zenzoe ignores?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

It's really the end point that matters and not the contextual ethics argument in the middle.

God Almighty, you not only cannot compare how your 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' to Zenzoe's 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus', you even attack me with the concepts that others use against my position. Look back over this discussion, D_NATURED, it was DRC that brought up 'contextual ethics' (and me asking 'Who gets to determine that context if rights are only conditional?') against the more absolute ethical position of 'absolute rights'--even as Zenzoe claims to want to make all rights 'conditional'--without, at any point in this discussion, squaring that with anything about the 'rights to abort' that may be considered ABSOLUTE. The 'right' that Zenzoe seems to want to make 'conditional' is the 'right to life'--even against the rational claim that, if there is no 'right to life', there is no ability to have any other right. An autonomous existence requires an existence. But, don't try to use that against me again because my position acknowledges that this whole point on the issues of abortion rights is contended against when does a human life with rights begin. Not, as Zenzoe seems to offer, when it is appropriate for a political authority to intervene 'for the care and concern of fetal viability' against the mother's otherwise absolute 'right to choose' when there is no 'right to life' to 'choose against'.....Zenzoe seems to have a problem with that contention of rights--it is my position that it is the only way to see this without allowing political authority the ability to intervene in a manner that can be prejudicial and oppressive--by making the rights that are involved in this issue absolute in the context and extent of their abilities (but, 'right to life' always supercedes 'right to choose' against it when the 'right to life' has been determined to exist--and recognized as such--even if that 'line' isn't drawn until birth--it is still 'drawn'). You see that yet?

Quote D_NATURED:

Now, though Zenzoe may prefer to give her own fetus a chance (which I think is only her decision to make), I certainly don't believe she would have women being tossed into prison for seeking a late term abortion.

That's not quite the point here, D_NATURED. The question is more to the point that if Zenzoe is going to be so 'caring and concerning over the viability of the fetus' (not just hers but any fetus), does that translate into preventing the woman from having an abortion in late term pregnancies FOR ANY REASON (or, as I've pointed out as Jefferson's 'rights of conscience' being between 'that person and God', NO REASON AT ALL as far as anyone not directly involved is concerned). Who, or what, is to not only just determine the 'viability of the fetus' (and how do they do that), but to determine what 'care and concern' for such a fetus is to mean with respect to any elective abortion for any reason at any stage in the pregnancy (and how do they do that). It directly addresses the point that if Zenzoe is going to allow the authorizing of a political authority to interdict against an otherwise heretofore ABSOLUTE RIGHT for the mother to choose the outcome of her pregnancy, what is Zenzoe using to determine that authority's conduct and reasons for action against the mother's 'right to choose' if it is NOT concerning the 'right to life' of the fetus (as its premise to 'viability') otherwise....and, for whatever reason Zenzoe offers (if any) that isn't about another's 'absolute right' in this issue, how is that to be guarded against being done in a prejudicial and oppressive manner even if done for the 'care and concern of the fetal viability'.....prejudice and oppression can be imposed 'for the best of reasons' if you let it.....especially coming from 'mature, sophisticated, intellectualizing' people that, otherwise, have nothing at stake in it (you see, unlike you, I don't think that Zenzoe is speaking only in terms of Zenzoe's own pregnancies when Zenzoe is claiming a 'care and concern over the viability of the fetus' in this--but, if I'm wrong, Zenzoe can correct me on that--but, then, if I'm wrong, why is Zenzoe offering this as a consideration here to begin with--that 'care and concern' for her own personal pregnancy issues is, of course, just like Jefferson promotes in 'rights of conscience', between 'her and God'...what's that to mean in the context of 'abortion rights' to other women, otherwise?).

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

You see, our very good and intrepid Ulysses, I'm not sure Kerry is even aware of his accidents, and perhaps it is cruel to keep having fun at his expense. At a certain point, we risk becoming bullies, I'm sure you can see.

Your 'bulliness' is only because you act in unison as a group that contends it is in 'agreement with each other' as much as you are in contention against me (as being 'libertarian') more so than any arguments against my position (as the 'absoluteness of individual rights' against any 'community interest' otherwise)--especially when it concerns this issue of elective abortions. I know that is Ulysses point because for the last several posts, Ulysses has done nothing but castigated me without once addressing my positions squarely--of course, as part of your own ignorant assault on my character, claiming some grammatical error as you ignore the points in my position. And, how you let D_NATURED claim 'an agreement' with you as D_NATURED expresses the mother's ABSOLUTE RIGHT to 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains right before birth if the mother wants to' as you posture something related to the 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' without either of you at any time explaining how those two concepts 'agree'.....

Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry, if only you could take Shakespeare's opinion to heart: "...brevity is the soul of wit..."

Well, in the interest of producing something of content and context against our separate positions here, Zenzoe, can you briefly summarize your point in making 'all rights conditional'--especially in considering any human's 'right to life' (once it has been determined to exist) up against, say, the mother's 'right to choose' to abort at any stage in her pregnancy--for any (or no) reason? And, if the mother does have the absolute right to choose in some stages in her pregnancy, can you explain that against your previous position to have 'all rights conditional'? Can you briefly explain that in a manner that is coherent and understandable? And especially explain how your 'care and concern for the fetal viability' fits in this....and how is that to be acted upon and who or what gets the authority to determine its actions up against the otherwise absolute right for a pregnant mother to elect abortion instead of birth in any stage of pregnancy.....and just to refresh my memory of your 'condition of rights' up against my 'absoluteness of rights' (to the extent and context that they can be made), let me repost where we seem to 'agree' but explain why we don't 'agree' to the mechanisms and reasons behind it:

Zenzoe (post #121):

As of now, I'd like to know where we differ on the basics.

1) At what point in a pregnancy do you believe, in your personal perspective (morally, ethically), abortion should be unrestricted? At what point in a pregnancy should restrictions apply? (Please be very brief. I'm not interested in a long bit about what is law now, in how many states, or the history of it, etc. I'm only after your own feeling on it.) (and sorry if I don't know this already—it got lost in the course of the discussion.)

Kerry (post #130):

You mean I get a personal opinion here? How 'selfish'!....8^)......

I've stated it. I feel comfortable with the Texas law cutting the right to elective abortions off at 20 weeks as being the earliest any gestation has survived outside of the womb--sounds reasonable and rational to me with respect to any potential of a 'right to life' for the fetus as well as recognizing the 'right to abort' of the mother since it is generally understood in our society and culture that 'life' starts at birth ('we' don't celebrate 'conception days'--'we' celebrate 'birthdays').

Zenzoe (post #132):

Oh. my. god. We agree. And we agree to "generally understood," and we agree to a balancing of rights. Why are we arguing?

Kerry (post #133):

Perhaps it's not what we agree to--it's how each of us gets to that conclusion that appears to be so 'judged'. I know that is why Ulysses has a problem with me because I'm a libertarian--and many here don't believe it's possible to be 'leftist' in that approach....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have only one thing to say as far as Ulysses comments are concerned--and, I'll be quite brief:

Quote Ulysses:

Libertarianism is a form of intolerance; it's intolerant of community.

Permit me to correct Ulysses misstatement of my position. As I see 'libertarianism', it is 'intolerant of community' that is 'intolerant of individual rights'--as giving 'community interest' some authorization to act against them......I don't see any difference between a 'community interested in individuality' and one who 'grants individual rights as much as acquiring them for oneself'--and don't see how a 'community interest interested in individuality' could otherwise go against that point and still maintain its 'individuality interest'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

By the way, I was wondering if any of you were interested in how 'I' would handle the prospect of a drunk wanting to leave the ER despite any medical advice to the contrary. Well, whether you are interested or not, I'll tell you. IF--and that is a big IF (some--despite all the monitering equipment to the contrary--may leave without anyone knowing--and how we are to be 'responsible for that', I have no earthly idea--and, remember, hospitals like any corporation are trying to eke out as much work from as few a workers as they possibly can to 'maximize profits'--so there are, indeed, times when 'no one is at the moniter'--and, even small ER's can be busy and hectic at times--I am sure large city ER's like in New York can be even more so...)--IF I were aware of that drunk trying to leave, I would confront that drunk. You see, I really do know that when it is 'damned if you do or damned if you don't', you now, whether it is philosophically consistent to do so (especially in 'medicine') or not, have to be in the position of the one who damns (lawyers do know this implicitly). If I knew the drunk were leaving, as the drunk was leaving, I would inform that drunk (yes, in most cases, you can even 'reason' with drunks in the proper context) that, as soon as that drunk steps out of the ER, I will have the police called to come pick you up for public intoxication (and, of course, time that call for everyone to know in case that drunk does get run over)--they can confine you against your will. In such cases, almost every time (everytime that I can remember), the drunk will stay.....

I hope everyone can 'praise the Lord' in this holiday season....or, is that what 'this holiday' is all about?

Oh, and there is another thing that I think that I realize even better than DRC, Zenzoe--I know that even 'atheists' can be 'self-righteous'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, if brevity is the soul of wit, you are the least witty person alive. Inviting you to a party must be the social equivalent of Hari Kari.

After all these pages you still don't see that it is you alone who believes in the no abortion after viability argument. Furthermore, you play willfully ignorant of the fact that if there is NOT a criminal or civil penalty for helping an abortion be performed, it doesn't matter what point in the pregnancy the procedure occurs because nobody will know about it.

Protecting the rights of pre-beings, who can't use them, at the expense of a being who CAN use them is wrong, legally, morally and intellectually. If a woman does not have domain over her own uterus, then the law may someday see fit not to give you and I domain over our own bodies. Perhaps, even using our parts for the maintenance of other-more important-beings. Those beings may have a right to life too-even if it kills you. It would be the same principle.

I believe I have the absolute right to my body and I defend the same for women.

Knock Knock...we're here for your liver. Is that the world you want?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

PS...It's not that I disagree, Kerry, that humans have a right to life. It's just that you are putting an insurance policy on the frame of the vehicle. I would rather wait until it rolls.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Kerry most clearly disdains

The vacuuming of fetal brains

It's his way, I s'pose

That he'd tickle their toes

Until laughter blows up their veins.

An interesting chap Mr. Kerry

Who, politically, leans liber-tary.

He's the first man to pass

Typing just with his ass

Thus, his keyboard is not sanitary.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

THE issue that I have had all along with you, D_NATURED, is NOT in allowing the ABSOLUTE RIGHT of the mother wanting an elective abortion--even as you continue to play it up as if that were the case. Even as I do beleive with Texas law that the fetus gains an ABSOLUTE 'right to life' before birth--NOT 'at conception'--I don't think that that is our point of contention particularly between you and I. I think that at least as to how you have described this right, we are in agreement as to its character of ABSOLUTENESS even if we are not in agreement as to when that is to be defined and 'the line is to be drawn' between the mother's ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CHOOSE in elective abortions up against her offspring's ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO LIFE at some point--and that is not the contention as I see it in this 'discussion' with you. The contention I see is how to guage 'conditioning any right' (as Zenzoe likes to put it) up against a right's, any right's, ABSOLUTENESS.

It is Zenzoe who has come in to add 'animal rights' as if that, somehow, is to be negotiated in this issue of human RIGHTS with elective abortions. It is Zenzoe who has come in to claim something Zenzoe terms as the 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' up against your, otherwise, ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CHOOSE in the case of elective abortions. And, it is Zenzoe who is using that argument as a way to circumvent having to acknowledge ANY RIGHT AS ABSOLUTE--and bring forth the idea that ALL RIGHTS ARE CONDITIONAL. When Ulysses has anything pertinent to say on this issue other than castigating me, Ulysses has put forth a rather superficial and tacit agreement with Zenzoe that 'autonomy' is not an issue that can have ABSOLUTE RIGHTS. IF you read again--and lay aside your own contentions against my self-description as a 'libertarian' (even though I have tried over and over to define it in a political context as 'prioritizing real individual rights' up against any 'political authority to intervene in such rights, otherwise')-- what has really been discussed in this case, I think you might be able to see my point in this.

But, make no mistake about it, I have NOTHING against claiming that RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE with respect to the political context in which they can be used--and interpreted as such. I have EVERYTHING against claiming any such right as 'conditional' in such political authorizations.

Zenzoe's claim that 'the health of the mother' and 'the mother's young age' should come into affect to condition what Zenzoe is to 'condition the fetus's right to life' when Zenzoe otherwise comes into to claim a 'care and concern for fetal viability'. I am here to tell you that that is a red herring when it comes to determining the 'contention of rights' this involves--and their ABSOLUTENESS. In any late term pregnancy, if there is an indication to abort, there is an indication to perform a C-section. The CHOICE OF THAT is not up to how 'the health of the mother' or 'the mother's young age' is to 'condition it'--the CHOICE OF THAT is up to whether the mother wants to electively abort or not--period--UNLESS that offspring has gained a 'right to life' at that point (this is the only point where you and I disagree). And, we can disagree as to when 'that point' is to occur--but, there should be no disagreement that this is based in ALL RESPECTS in elective abortion's case on WHAT THE EXPECTANT MOTHER WANTS regardless of 'the reason (as long as there is no 'right to life' to contend to)'--and, that is what makes it 'elective'. 'Care and concern', otherwise, SHOULD NOT be used to 'condition' it in any respect--unless there has been an agreed to and established RIGHT that offspring now has to life. Would the 'condition of too young an age for the mother' be used to have that mother kill that offspring if that offspring were already born? No because I do believe that most people would agree at that point that such an offspring has gained THE RIGHT TO LIFE--absolutely, not 'conditionally'.

It is the point of 'conditioning any right' that I am in absolute disagreement with--not to making any right absolute. If Zenzoe really wants to 'condition the life of the fetus' up against the 'health of the mother' or 'too young an age of the mother' at a late stage in pregnancy, I would rather Zenzoe be against any rights to the fetus, any fetus, than to, somehow, claim some 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' as a 'condition of rights' in the mother's 'right to choose', otherwise, by those not 'conditioning the care and concern of fetal viability' due to the 'health of the mother' or 'too young an age of the mother'. And, I think that I have made my reasons for that known--I am not for any political authorization, or rationalization, of conditioning any right once that right has been determined to exist. I do consider its applicaiton as ABSOLUTE in every context and every content that it can be used--as Thomas Jefferson stated in promoting 'rights of conscience', as that being between 'that person and God'.....and, prior to this new era of 'conditioning all rights' (as, somehow, being the 'mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing' thing to do), that is exactly what the Supreme Court has decided with 'rights to the person' when it has been determined to exist in such decisions as Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence vs. Texas. And, when there is no RIGHT to the person to be applied ABSOLUTELY against any other 'community interest' to be imposed against it, then the Supreme Court has also determined that 'community interests' can supercede any 'right to the person' held against it--like what Bowers vs. Hardwick did before being reversed by Lawrence vs. Texas. And, if the Supreme Court hadn't judged 'corporations' as if 'a person deserving of rights' (in, as Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection, notes the Supreme Court write-up of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad did), we would still have 'community interests' superceding the 'rights of corporations'. But, I certainly don't see that as a rightful claim in its political context against the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS when it comes to real individuals as persons, I see it as a claim against declaring corporations as if persons with rights....and I certainly don't see 'conditioning all rights' getting rid of that problem with corporations....again, it's the 'conditioning of rights (to persons)' that I absolutely disagree with....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
It is the point of 'conditioning any right' that I am in absolute disagreement with--not to making any right absolute.

Yet, you don't want to give women absolute rights when they have the condition of pregnancy. When you say that up till a certain point women have rights and after that the fetus' rights take over, you are conditioning rights upon the stage of pregnancy and not making them absolute.

Let me just say, once and for all, I like Zenzoe, because she strikes me as a fair-minded and intelligent woman and even if I disagree with her on this topic, I feel she understands my position. I'm not so sure you do, but I'm willing to keep trying.

And, if the Supreme Court hadn't judged 'corporations' as if 'a person deserving of rights' (in, as Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection, notes the Supreme Court write-up of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad did), we would still have 'community interests' superceding the 'rights of corporations'.

But, do community interests supercede the rights of people to their own bodies? I don't think so. Some community may decide that keeping unmarried girls virginal may be consistent with their religious and community standards. That does not give them a right, in this country, to form a posse, hold girls down and perform a hymen check. That hymen, existent or not, belongs to a human being who has the right-even as a minor- to her own body.

But, I certainly don't see that as a rightful claim in its political context against the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS when it comes to real individuals as persons, I see it as a claim against declaring corporations as if persons with rights....and I certainly don't see 'conditioning all rights' getting rid of that problem with corporations....again, it's the 'conditioning of rights (to persons)' that I absolutely disagree with....

No you don't, or that PERSON with a bun in the oven would have your absolute and not your conditional support. I am, perhaps, the only one in this conversation who DOESN'T want to condition rights to persons. Again, where I feel you go astray is that you consider a fetus to be a person. I don't consider a fetus to be a person any more than I consider a corporation to be a person. A person is an individual cell of awareness, not a parasite capable of only living at the expense of another, and a person is not a group of people dedicated to making money in some endeavor.

You-like the Supreme Court clerk who articulated the Union Pacific judgement- are defining personhood by an arbitrary standard. Mere viability outside the womb is not the complete standard of personhood and never has been. It is but one of the criteria that really makes a person a person. And, if there were any way to remove the fetus whole, without causing harm to the woman, I would be willing to listen to your ideas. However, there is no way for that fetus to leave the womb without either itself or the woman in which it resides risking death. Thus, I would rather see an unwanted fetus diced up for easy removal than I would risk one ounce of harm to its unintended host.

The person who wanted to blame women for having sex is way off base. Women have the right to have sex without having to be a mother. Women should also have the right to change their mind, up unitl the point when there is no more fetus to decide about because it has entered the human world. There is no way to give absolute rights to a "person" that exists within the physical boundaries of another person. Existing within the physical being of another is not how human existence is defined. That is how a parasite is defined. But there's a bigger issue.

However we, as a nation, define life and humanity in our laws, it better be with the end in mind. In other words, how will this decision make society better or worse. I'm sure you are aware of the vast, devastating consequences of defining life at conception. What that would mean to Americans in terms of civil rights and to the medical and legal systems is well articulated by others. Thus, if we are going to define life so conditionally for the purpose of taking rights away from women, there better be a big fucking pay off for society as a whole. If you can tell me what the benefit is to society, to condition rights away from grown women who happen to be pregnant, I'd love to hear it. Until then, color me unconvinced.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Kerry:

It is the point of 'conditioning any right' that I am in absolute disagreement with--not to making any right absolute.

Yet, you don't want to give women absolute rights when they have the condition of pregnancy. When you say that up till a certain point women have rights and after that the fetus' rights take over, you are conditioning rights upon the stage of pregnancy and not making them absolute.

Let me just say, once and for all, I like Zenzoe, because she strikes me as a fair-minded and intelligent woman and even if I disagree with her on this topic, I feel she understands my position. I'm not so sure you do, but I'm willing to keep trying.

Yeah, you do keep saying that--but do you REALLY understand what Zenzoe is saying, D_NATURED? Let's just ask some simple questions (that can be answered 'yes' or 'no') and see where this goes:

1) Is the 'right to life' absolute when it has been determined to exist?

2) Is the 'right to choose' for the pregnant mother absolute when it has been determined to exist?

3) When it comes to elective abortion--or any 'choice' of the mother--is there any 'condition' to mitigate, adjust, or circumvent those two rights other than how to guage each of their political influences against each other?

Now, number 3 could require some explanations if you answer 'yes' to 'conditions on either right' (other than guaging the rights to each other--remember, something Zenzoe didn't want to do because the 'contention between rights' is, according to Zenzoe, NOT how to see this)--but, answering 'yes' to the 'conditioning of rights against their absoluteness' does need a qualifying explanation especially in the context of justifying any political authority to impose against them--ie. what 'conditions'? Ulysses offers the explanation that 'autonomy' is always based on 'conditions'--no 'right' is absolute. DRC came in here to claim something on the order of 'contextual ethics' to comply with such 'conditions'--without either explaining what 'conditions' either he or Ulysses are talking about--other than just to say it's 'contextual' without explaining the 'conditions' with which such a 'context' is to hold--other than, again, claiming something on the order of 'community interest' (which, if that is really to rule this roost, could be taken to mean 'any condition placed in the political authority to claim a "community interest" condition for it'--something that could be used to oppress and impose even for 'the best of reasons' if not at least considering 'rights to the person' from a political perspective in any absolute context).

I guess you can give Zenzoe some credit at least by explaining some 'conditions'--such as 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus' up against the mother's 'right to choose'--and something about 'the health of the mother' or 'too young an age of the mother' up against the fetus's 'right to life'. But, you know what, D_NATURED, I'm not sure why you don't understand the point I am making against this with respect to the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS. If Zenzoe is allowing a political authority to impose against the mother's 'right to choose' for this reason of 'care and concern for the viabiliy of the fetus', how is that any different from granting the fetus the 'right to life' as the explanation for the intervention? It's still an imposition. And, as far as the 'conditioning' of the fetus's 'right to life' that Zenzoe was to, otherwise, be so 'caring and concerning over its viabiliy' (notice how Zenzoe is authorizing political authority to be able to have it 'either way'--'two halves against the middle'--'damned if you do and damned if you don't'), with respect to the late stages of pregnancy, that's a farce. Zenzoe's 'conditioning' excuses for 'the health of the mother' or 'too young an age of the mother' as so-called 'conditional options' against the fetus's' 'right to life' is, one, misrepresenting the otherwise ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CHOOSE for the pregnant mother and, two, misrepresenting the othewise ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO LIFE once that has been determined to exist for that mother's offspring. In late stage pregnancies, as far as ANY indication to abort is concerned, there is also--and always--an indication to perform a C-section (and a C-section can be done as quick--and, in many cases, be safer--as any induced abortion in the late stages of pregnancy--unless you are waiting right before birth to 'crush the fetal skull in and suck out its brains'--but, then, again, if you are waiting that long, how is that now for 'the health of the mother' or 'too young an age of the mother'?). As far as rape is concerned, why would the mother wait that long to decide to abort that baby unless the mother wanted that child? Similarly, if the mother is too young to know what she's up against, how far are you going to allow that 'condition' against the 'right to life'? What if the mother doesn't 'know what she is up against' at the time the offspring is born? No 'right to life' there? Absolutely?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Kerry:

And, if the Supreme Court hadn't judged 'corporations' as if 'a person deserving of rights' (in, as Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection, notes the Supreme Court write-up of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad did), we would still have 'community interests' superceding the 'rights of corporations'.

But, do community interests supercede the rights of people to their own bodies? I don't think so. Some community may decide that keeping unmarried girls virginal may be consistent with their religious and community standards. That does not give them a right, in this country, to form a posse, hold girls down and perform a hymen check. That hymen, existent or not, belongs to a human being who has the right-even as a minor- to her own body.

Uh, D_NATURED, are you just ignoring the rest of what I am saying to continue this charade you are playing with Zenzoe, Ulysses and DRC? I AM THE ONE WHO IS STATING THAT RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE. ARE YOU? Zenzoe, Ulysses, and DRC are stating that rights are conditional--they won't answer those questions above any other way (and they probably won't answer them at all)....

You ignored all the other statements that I made around that one you picked out and decided to 'comment' on. Read it in the context that it was used:

And, I think that I have made my reasons for that known--I am not for any political authorization, or rationalization, of conditioning any right once that right has been determined to exist. I do consider its applicaiton as ABSOLUTE in every context and every content that it can be used--as Thomas Jefferson stated in promoting 'rights of conscience', as that being between 'that person and God'.....and, prior to this new era of 'conditioning all rights' (as, somehow, being the 'mature, sophisticated, and intellectualizing' thing to do), that is exactly what the Supreme Court has decided with 'rights to the person' when it has been determined to exist in such decisions as Loving vs. Virginia, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe vs. Wade, and Lawrence vs. Texas. And, when there is no RIGHT to the person to be applied ABSOLUTELY against any other 'community interest' to be imposed against it, then the Supreme Court has also determined that 'community interests' can supercede any 'right to the person' held against it--like what Bowers vs. Hardwick did before being reversed by Lawrence vs. Texas. And, if the Supreme Court hadn't judged 'corporations' as if 'a person deserving of rights' (in, as Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection, notes the Supreme Court write-up of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad did), we would still have 'community interests' superceding the 'rights of corporations'. But, I certainly don't see that as a rightful claim in its political context against the ABSOLUTENESS OF RIGHTS....

I'm not the one claiming 'community interest' as a way to impose against real individual rights. Can you actually get that through your head, D_NATURED--or how much discussion on this are you actually going to ignore? Let me address this another way and see if you can comment on it--it can even start as a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the point:

When the 'right to life' exists, the 'right to choose' against it is no longer absolute--the 'right to life' preempts any 'right to choose' against it in every setting where it applies. Do you agree with that? Or, again, would YOU let a mother 'too young to know what she was getting into' kill her offspring at any point? Even birth (or even later for that matter). If you follow that point, then, the whole point in this whole matter of elective abortion hinges on one issue--when does a human life with rights begin.....absolutely.....Do you agree with that?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

No you don't, or that PERSON with a bun in the oven would have your absolute and not your conditional support.

That person has my ABSOLUTE support to choose whether to keep the life of that offspring or not up until that offspring has the ABSOLUTE right to live. I'm NOT CONDITIONING ANYTHING HERE, D_NATURED. And, the only point that I see you and I have against each other is when to define that--or do you even define the ABSOLUTE right to life at birth? Or, should the 'right to life' of the offspring even be 'conditioned' then for whatever reason you allowed before this?

You see, another point to this that I think you are missing is that, as the whole issue of the absoluteness of rights to the person imply to me, at one point in this pregnancy there will be an issue where the 'right of conscience' must have an 'obligation of personal responsibility' for it to have any political pertinence in a just society. Despite what the 'conditioners' seem to imply here, you cannot have a just society based on the 'rights of conscience' (being as absolute as they are--like Jefferson's 'between that person and God' in any political context where they apply) without, also, recognizing its concurring 'obligation of personal responsibility' at some point. So, the whole point in 'drawing the line' between the pregnant mother's ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CHOOSE against the offspring's ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO LIFE is in recognizing that that mother HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT (as Jefferson would put it 'between her and God').

In other words, within the confines of the absolute rights to consider, she has a point to reach where her responsibility to the life of the child takes over from the right of her to end its life. THAT needs to stay intact--'conditioning it' away from that perspective leads to nothing ethically or morally pertinent in my view--especially having some 'political authority' claim a 'care and concern for the fetal viability' without such an 'authority' ALSO having a personal responsibility in the outcome. You cannot water down this decision and this responsibility by 'conditioning it'--either way....this 'right to choose' is just that--to 'choose' to whether you want this child or not--and the mother that is pregnant better 'choose'--because, that 'choice' is either get rid of that offspring or, now, be responsible for that offspring's life--nothing of 'community interest' can mitigate (or 'condition') that responsibility unless the one 'interested' (and 'conditioning the political authority to act in such interest') is actually taking an active and personal interest in the stake of its outcome. And, claiming it in any other way is a rather subtle, persistent, and hypocritical lie used to make the self-righteous feel better about themselves as the justification to authorize political impositions to 'condition the rights involved' in this case....and I see it as politically wrong and socially unjust.....I think our country being founded on Jefferson's premise that 'rights of conscience' (between that person and God) carrying the 'obligations of personal responsibility' (as to the outcome of applying such rights) as being the very harbinger of 'virtue' would agree with that point....and, as our framers pointed out, you cannot have a working democracy without the persons enacting it doing so virtuously--not 'piously'predetermined--but 'virtuously' endorsed--take the responsibility when you have it to end the life--or the responsibility to support it if you don't end it--that's the point of personal responsibility you have to take in the case of elective abortions--absolutely....its understanding should be so absolute....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

OK. This may be my last post because you are stuck in a loop. I will answer all of your questions but, before I do, let me request, no DEMAND, that you leave the names Zenzoe, Ulysses and DRC out of your response. Their opinions have nothing to do with mine. If you can't accept that, if you must weigh our voices against each other, this conversation is over. I'm trying to get through to you. I'll try them later.

OK, time to answer questions:

Quote "Kerry":1) Is the 'right to life' absolute when it has been determined to exist?

Sure, but who determines it? You? I only agree with that statement when life is determined by the criteria I mentioned. Namely, not being a womb dweller.

2) Is the 'right to choose' for the pregnant mother absolute when it has been determined to exist?

When the mother is still pregnant, there is only one life...hers. I defend the rights of the living being called "mother" absolutely. The fetus is not a life until it is an individual life. As long as it eats, drinks, breathes, defecates and urinates from and into her blood stream, it is not ready for rights, including life.

3) When it comes to elective abortion--or any 'choice' of the mother--is there any 'condition' to mitigate, adjust, or circumvent those two rights other than how to guage each of their political influences against each other?

No there isn't any condition under which I would mitigate, adjust or circumvent the rights of that woman. I believe in the absolute rights of a woman to choose. I don't care how pregnant she is or what her reason is. If she feels it's not a good time for her to give birth, that's good enough for me.

When you ask "or any choice of the mother", what other choice compares to the one we're debating? I can't think of another example of society demanding that someone allow a parasite to live in their body. What do you mean?

As I have stated as nauseum, I believe in the absolute right of a woman to choose not to deliver a baby she does not want. Furthermore, I believe that choice to abort should be carried out by medical professionals who will consider, first and foremost, the health and comfort of the woman. I don't know any way to articulate it that is any clearer. I know of no way to give women rights that are only as consistent as her menstrual cycle. I'd love to hear your explanation though, given it is presented in a way that is clear and comprehensible. And, just so you know, I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to learn to make a brief argument.

All right, there's my answers. The real debate between you and I can continue now without anyone using the "Z", "U" or "D" words, right? I can count on you to keep it focused, I hope. Here you have MY opinions, that in no way reflect-except by coincidence-the feelings of Zenzoe, Ulysses or DRC.

Again, if your response is long-winded and rambling, I'm out. I'd love to exchange ideas, but your method, so far, is torturous.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Their opinions have nothing to do with mine. If you can't accept that, if you must weigh our voices against each other, this conversation is over.

I'll quit doing that if you will quit saying that you are 'in agreement with them'--or 'respect their opinion'-or whatever it is that you have to say to get your position 'in line' with them, OK?

Now, let's see what you have to say for yourself:

Quote D_NATURED:
Quote "Kerry":

1) Is the 'right to life' absolute when it has been determined to exist?

Sure, but who determines it? You? I only agree with that statement when life is determined by the criteria I mentioned. Namely, not being a womb dweller

So, am I to take that as a 'Yes', D_NATURED? Why are you having to qualify that answer with respect to what you think that I think? The whole point is that the 'right to life' is absolute. Yes or no? When that is to be defined is, of course, the entire point behind the politics of elective abortions when it comes to the offspring's 'right to life' up against the mother's 'right to choose'. But, if you allow it to be 'conditioned' for anything that those who lay claim to 'political authority' want to 'conditon either right for', you'll not only lose these rights--you'll lose the politically foundational basis for all rights to be ABSOLUTE.

Quote D_NATURED:
Quote "Kerry?":

2) Is the 'right to choose' for the pregnant mother absolute when it has been determined to exist?

When the mother is still pregnant, there is only one life...hers. I defend the rights of the living being called "mother" absolutely. The fetus is not a life until it is an individual life. As long as it eats, drinks, breathes, defecates and urinates from and into her blood stream, it is not ready for rights, including life.

Again, am I to take that as a 'Yes'? What defines an 'individual life' in the context of the offspring that the mother carries is, once again, the entire point of the politics of elective abortions when it comes to the offspring's 'right to life' up against the mother's 'right to choose'. When even just one of the offsprings can make it on their own after coming out at 20 weeks gestation, is that to mean that none of the others are to get a chance? There is some rational basis here to disagree with your assessment in this, D_NATURED. There is NO rational basis to disagree with the ABSOLUTENESS of the mother's 'right to choose' and, when it has been determined to exist, the ABSOLUTENESS of the offspring's 'right to life' against that choice.....period....self-righteous conditioning of all rights, otherwise, notwithstanding....for any reason intent on 'community interests' (unless, of course, those 'in the community' are taking a PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE stake in this)...

Quote D_NATURED:
Quote "Kerry?":

3) When it comes to elective abortion--or any 'choice' of the mother--is there any 'condition' to mitigate, adjust, or circumvent those two rights other than how to guage each of their political influences against each other?

No there isn't any condition under which I would mitigate, adjust or circumvent the rights of that woman. I believe in the absolute rights of a woman to choose. I don't care how pregnant she is or what her reason is. If she feels it's not a good time for her to give birth, that's good enough for me.

Have you really seen me negate that point, D_NATURED? And, with you being able to allow 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if that is what the mother wants', YOU OWN IT. Good for you. Absolutely.....BUT:

Quote D_NATURED:

When you ask "or any choice of the mother", what other choice compares to the one we're debating? I can't think of another example of society demanding that someone allow a parasite to live in their body. What do you mean?

I added 'any choice of the mother' to include AT BIRTH. Then, also? What if it is only one minute after birth--when, right before birth, you were all for 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains if that is what the mother wants'?

And, as far as this being a parasite, does that mean that the baby that survived after being born at 20 weeks was a parasite? Does that mean that any baby even still in utero after 20 weeks is a parasite not worth any consideration of a 'right to life'? Why does one get the right to live at 20 weeks and the other doesn't? Again, this is the entire point of the politics of elective abortions when it comes to the offspring's 'right to life' up against the mother's 'right to choose'--when does a human life with rights begin.....and there is some rational basis to say at 20 weeks if one human life started at that time outside the womb.....as I said, I agree with the Texas law--and the rational basis for it.

Quote D_NATURED:

As I have stated as nauseum, I believe in the absolute right of a woman to choose not to deliver a baby she does not want. Furthermore, I believe that choice to abort should be carried out by medical professionals who will consider, first and foremost, the health and comfort of the woman....

Aw, there you go adding 'health and comfort of the woman', again--probably for Zenzoe's benefit, isn't it? Does that make you feel self-righteous, also? What's that got to do WITH THE MOTHER'S CHOICE, D_NATURED? And, when it comes to any fetal 'right to life' in the late stages of pregnancy, how is the 'health and comfort of the woman' supposed to fit into ELECTIVE ABORTIONS if the whole point about the ELECTIVENESS OF THIS RIGHT IS ALL ABOUT CHOICE? Or, are you talking about 'choice' now? And, as far as the 'health and comfort of the woman' when it comes to late-stage abortions and any determined fetal 'right to life', C-sections are just as fast and just as safe as any late-stage abortion--unless, you wait to the very end to 'crush the fetal skull and suck out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'--in which case, how is that for 'the health and comfort of the woman'--especially considering how traumatic that would be to a woman that, otherwise, allowed the pregnancy to go all the way to term before 'deciding this'...by 'choice', right? Oh, that's right--'the health and comfort of the woman' is 'the choice' here, isn't it? Well, if THAT is the case, as I've said, that's not 'the choice of the mother' up against 'the life of the fetus', that's 'the life of the mother' up against 'the life of the fetus'.....

Quit playing this charade along with your other cohorts, D_NATURED....is this ABSOLUTE or not? Until that offspring gains a 'right to life', the mother's 'right to choose' is ABSOLUTE. Now, when that is is the entire point of the politics of elective abortions--when does a human life with rights begin....

Quote D_NATURED:

.....I don't know any way to articulate it that is any clearer. I know of no way to give women rights that are only as consistent as her menstrual cycle. I'd love to hear your explanation though, given it is presented in a way that is clear and comprehensible. And, just so you know, I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to learn to make a brief argument.

Why do you position yourself to argue this point as if I am not giving the mother any right to choose here, D_NATURED? I am ABSOLUTELY--until her offspring's 'right to life' absolutely removes it....I know how you don't seem to like 'long discussions about this' but you seemed to have missed my entire point on how this 'right to choose' eventually gets to an 'obligation of personal responsibility'--when that mother has the absolute context to do so, either make the choice to end that life or, when that 'right to life' has been determined to exist, be responsible now for its wellbeing....absolutely....

Quote D_NATURED:

Here you have MY opinions, that in no way reflect-except by coincidence-the feelings of Zenzoe, Ulysses or DRC.

Aw, see, you can't keep them out of 'your position' here, can you? You really do need to 'belong to that group', don't you? Hmm....could you 'crush the fetal skull and suck out its brains right before birth if the mother wants to'? Or, are you just saying that to Zenzoe to impress Zenzoe with how much 'you' are for 'the woman' (so Zenzoe won't claim that 'you' are 'misogynist' like 'me')? And, really, D_NATURED, what does anyone else's 'feelings' that aren't personally involved in the situation have to do with any of this? We are talking about the ABSOLUTENESS of political RIGHTS in the context in which they can be used, aren't we? Or, are we? Do you want to change your mind on how this is to be 'conditioned', D_NATURED?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And after 8 pages, this is why the Roman Catholic Church, and my position, that life begins at the sperm, and that is the place where we must outlaw the death and murder. I was right then, and Kerry is still trying to lay all the responsibility on the woman, when the simple, clean and completely moral position is to make the death, waste or wanton murder of any sperm a federal crime, punishable by at least 8 years in prison.

This way, we end unwanted pregnancies, we end abortions, and we end most of societies worst and most destructive activites. We place the responsibility where it belongs, with the men who place babies in places where they have no intention of caring for them.

But I am sure that Kerry is going to ignore the murder of 200 million lives the next time Kerry is a party to an non-pregnancy related ejaculation. I am sure Kerry will refuse to accept the one true Church's position on where life begins.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Kerry, if I understand your reasoning, you want to pit the "right to life" of a viable fetus against the "right of choice" for pregnant women. You agree that a woman has a right of "choice," but only up until the moment when a fetus becomes viable, at which time the right to life must supersede the mother's right to choose, because, in your belief, the right to life is an absolute, unalienable right, one above all others. Does this correctly state your position? Do I have that right?

If so, I must remind you that your framing does not fit my understanding of the issue: It is not a case of the right to life vs. the right to choose (or "right of choice"). Perhaps, the confusion arises because the feminists, the media and the law present the issue as between "pro-choice" and "pro-life." In fact, if you truly comprehend the reality that unsafe, unwanted, or dangerous pregnancies pose for women, you can see how such framing over-simplifies and misrepresents the issue. If you truly put yourself in the place of a pregnant person, you will realize that the issue isn't about life vs. choice; it is about life vs. life—the right to life of a fetus vs. the right to life of a woman. For, after all, all the aspects of life that the anti-abortion fanatics like to ascribe to a fetus, those lost to abortion —potentiality, complexity, humanity, feeling, precious life, autonomy, self-determination— also describe a pregnant person; deny the availability of abortion services to pregnant women, and you deny and risk the literal lives of mothers, as well as their potential lives.

This is the reason I keep telling you that in a confrontation between equivalent rights, the outcome should depend on whatever will be the greatest good over all, as well as whatever will cause the least suffering to all persons involved. That is, it must be thought out, not pre-determined. In a case, for example, where a woman has been diagnosed with cancer mid-way through her pregnancy, a cancer which, left untreated, will mean her death, you have to decide what is the most humane, ethical and rational medical decision? I cannot imagine any doctor thinking the fetus "has an inalienable right to life," so the mother must die, ignoring the mother's life entirely, and ignoring what chemotherapy and radiation therapy will do to a fetus (kill it anyway). So the only rational decision, the decision that causes the least suffering in that case would be a therapeutic abortion, so that the woman can begin treatment, without the complication of a pregnancy. Isn't that a no-brainer?

You insist you do not want a governmental authority making these decisions. But a political authority does not make the decision to abort a post-viability fetus; it is the woman in consultation with her doctor who comes to this decision. A woman goes to her doctor, or a clinic; she does not go to a court to ask for an abortion.

Come to think of it, I do believe some rights are inalienable: the right of sentient beings not to be tortured; the right of citizens not to be spied on by the government without legal warrant; the right of human beings to the integrity of their bodies; the right of persons not to be enslaved... I could go on, but it's getting late, and I have things to do...

D_NATURED: :-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry, if I understand your reasoning, you want to pit the "right to life" of a viable fetus against the "right of choice" for pregnant women.

I want to draw an absolute line between the mother's 'right to choose' and her offspring's 'right to life'. I like it with Texas law at 20 weeks--and understand its rationale (if one is given the right to live at 20 weeks, all should be offered the right to live at 20 weeks). I'm not entirely set against birth being that line (that is where Roe vs. Wade placed it--but restricted the absolute right of the mother to choose to only 12 weeks--giving the states the right to manage anything in between)--but, I AM against NOT recognizing that, when it is determined to exist, the 'right to life' supercedes anyone's 'right to choose' against it. And, I am also against any 'conditioning' of such rights away from their absolute considerations because I do believe that the 'rights of conscience' (especially considering elective abortions and the prospect of a new life) carrying the 'obligaitons of personal responsibility'. I do believe that if the mother knows that she cannot responsibly have this child, then it is an act of personal responsibility to end that offspring's life when such an offspring hasn't gained the 'right to life'. But, I also believe that it is the responsibility for the mother to take because at some point in this process, that offspring will gain the 'right to life'--now, the mother's responsible act would be to see to that child's wellbeing. I disagree vehemently to 'conditioning' any of that responsibility for any reason offered by someone who has no personal responsibility in its outcome--including political authority up until that offspring gains the 'right to life'--then, indeed, if that life is ended at that point, it's murder....the 'rights of conscience' really should carry such an 'obligation for personal responsibility'.

Quote Phaedrus76:

. I was right then, and Kerry is still trying to lay all the responsibility on the woman, when the simple, clean and completely moral position is to make the death, waste or wanton murder of any sperm a federal crime, punishable by at least 8 years in prison.

What is this? Maybe you missed my comment to D_NATURED: Why do you position yourself to argue this point as if I am not giving the mother any right to choose here? I am saying that, once pregnant, the only responsible choices for that mother to take are either end that pregnancy--or see to the wellbeing of the child--and, perhaps, one of the points that mother can consider in deciding on keeping or getting rid of that pregnancy is how much support she has. You really have a problem with that? How so?

Quote Zenzoe:

You agree that a woman has a right of "choice," but only up until the moment when a fetus becomes viable, at which time the right to life must supersede the mother's right to choose, because, in your belief, the right to life is an absolute, unalienable right, one above all others. Does this correctly state your position? Do I have that right?

I am saying that that offspriing, somewhere in this process, will gain the 'right to life'--and, when that offspring does, the mother (nor does anyone else) no longer has the choice to end it--and all that is left is the responsibility to see to its wellbeing (the 'rights of conscience' carry the 'obligation of personal responsibility'). The 'right to life' supercedes any 'right to choose' against it--absolutely. Otherwise, it's murder. You really disagree with that? How so?

Quote Zenzoe:

If you truly put yourself in the place of a pregnant person, you will realize that the issue isn't about life vs. choice; it is about life vs. life—the right to life of a fetus vs. the right to life of a woman.

When that actually does happen, I think a reasonable person would realize that, up to a certain stage in pregnancy, if the mother doesn't live, the fetus doesn't live--then, there is NO CHOICE. But, I thought that ELECTIVE ABORTIONS were all about CHOICE. Am I wrong in that assessment here, Zenzoe? By the way, after a certain stage in pregnancy (certainly at 32 weeks and beyond), if there is an indication to abort for whatever reason for the mother's benefit, there is an indication to induce the delivery or perform a C-section. Neither CHOICE is better than thr other unless you are having it be the mother's CHOICE--not some self-righteous bullshit on 'the health and wellbeing of the mother' MAKING THAT CHOICE FOR HER. But, of course, if that situation is in a state like Texas, that fetus has already gained some rights (in fact, thanks to the federal law against partial birth abortions, all across the nation, that fetus has gained some rights) before birth. Now, there is NO CHOICE--the option will be to induce labor or perform a C-section. But, here's the other little dirty secret, Zenzoe, in late stage pregnancies that even are to abort, THEY ARE INDUCED INTO LABOR. You see why THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in THE CHOICE of aborting vs. delivering in late term pregnancies? THE ONLY 'CONDITION' IN THIS IS THE MOTHER'S CHOICE--UP UNTIL HER OFFSPRING GAINS THE RIGHT TO LIFE. But, you do keep self-righteously claiming some 'condition' of the mother's 'health and wellbeing' in this--well, if that's the case, WHAT HAPPENED TO CHOICE IN THOSE CASES? Even if your 'example' is true, I would argue that a therapeutic abortion (in late stage pregnancies, mimicking exactly as if delivering the child with induction of labor--and sometimes even C-sections) is NOT the same thing as an ELECTIVE ABORTION.

Quote Zenzoe:

For, after all, all the aspects of life that the anti-abortion fanatics like to ascribe to a fetus, those lost to abortion —potentiality, complexity, humanity, feeling, precious life, autonomy, self-determination— also describe a pregnant person; deny the availability of abortion services to pregnant women, and you deny and risk the literal lives of mothers, as well as their potential lives.

Read above. I thought that ELECTIVE ABORTIONS WAS ALL ABOUT CHOICE. It's the recognition of that mother's CHOICE that offers her the most ability to face her own 'complexity, humanity, feeling, autonomy, self-determination'--but, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, IF SHE FAILS TO TAKE THAT CHOICE, THEN THE ONLY CHOICE SHE WILL HAVE LEFT IS TO SEE TO THAT CHILD'S WELLBEING ONCE THAT CHILD HAS GAINED THE RIGHT TO LIFE. Otherwise, if she takes the choice to end it then, it will be murder like it is with all other humans. Or, what are you offering otherwise, Zenzoe? Are you proposing that the state raise all unwanted children? And, somehow in your self-righteous 'conditional' delusions, you think that will be better? This mother needs to decide whether she wants this child or not at the time she has the RIGHT to make that choice and decision--and, then, act on it. 'Rights of conscience' really do carry 'obligations of personal responsibility'....

Quote Zenzoe:

This is the reason I keep telling you that in a confrontation between equivalent rights, the outcome should depend on whatever will be the greatest good over all, as well as whatever will cause the least suffering to all persons involved.

Yeah, but I don't remember you saying who gets to decide that--and for what premises that such reasoning will offer in that decision. Would the state raising unwanted children be 'the least suffering for all'? Is the mother 'suffering' to even have to make this CHOICE? And, certainly, let's don't talk about any 'suffering' of the fetus especially in late term pregnancies, right? I mean that's so 'misogynist', isn't it? Do you think that the fetus feels anything right before birth when D_NATURED offers to have someone 'crush the fetal skull and suck out its brains if the mother wants it'? Or, are you more concerned about 'the feelings and rights' of a dog being eaten in Asia, Zenzoe? Who's 'least suffering' is this decision to be made on?

Quote Zenzoe:

In a case, for example, where a woman has been diagnosed with cancer mid-way through her pregnancy, a cancer which, left untreated, will mean her death, you have to decide what is the most humane, ethical and rational medical decision? I cannot imagine any doctor thinking the fetus "has an inalienable right to life," so the mother must die, ignoring the mother's life entirely, and ignoring what chemotherapy and radiation therapy will do to a fetus (kill it anyway).

Again, Zenzoe, read above about that 'dirty little secret' that abortion carries in late term pregnancies--ie. it's just like delivering the child. Plus, once again, as I've stated over and over, if the life of the mother is threatened, the life of the fetus is threatened. If the mother is terminally ill with cancer, the fetus won't live. If the mother isn't terminally ill with cancer, then if that pregnancy is at a stage where the child could be induced or taken by C-section, they will induce or take the child by C-section. If it's too early in pregnancy to do that, the mother can opt to abort--but, guess what, Zenzoe, in almost every case that I can remember even when abortion was possible, the mother opts to keep the child. Your so-called 'example' has NOTHING to do with ELECTIVE ABORTION ISSUES--except for in your own self-righteous and delusional understanding of this issue. Or, are you now saying that ELECTIVE ABORTIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CHOICE? They do have to do with choice--but, they also have to do with the responsibility of taking that choice--end the pregnancy or be responsible for that child's wellbeing. That's the choice.

Quote Zenzoe:

So the only rational decision, the decision that causes the least suffering in that case would be a therapeutic abortion, so that the woman can begin treatment, without the complication of a pregnancy. Isn't that a no-brainer?

Again, ELECTIVE ABORTIONS deal with CHOICE, do they not? And, once again, in late term pregnancies, the procedure that aborts is EXACTLY THE SAME as the procedure that delivers. Got that, yet? The only difference may be that 'the fetal skull is crushed and the brains sucked out' in the late term abortion. Now, who's 'suffering' are you (rather self-righteously) talking about?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry, most states have laws prohibiting or restricting elective abortions after viability. The abortions obtained after viability are therapeutic abortions. Abortions after viability, therefore, are done to protect and preserve the LIFE AND HEALTH of the mother, or where the fetus is not alive. That is to say, the right to life of the mother is the inalienable right we're talking about in post-viability abortions. Thus, your framing is wrong. It is NOT a matter of right to life of a fetus vs. right of choice of the mother. IT IS NOT LIFE VS. CHOICE AT ALL. It is life vs. life, and, sorry, but the mother, being a fully grown, developmentally advanced, whole individual with full citizen status, must be the winner, where her life and health is endangered.

Why do you keep saying I don't indicate who is to decide? I've said it many times—the woman in consultation with her doctor decides.

While I appreciate D_NATURED's position, which absolutely supports a woman's right to the integrity of her own body, I nevertheless recognize the validity of regulating elective abortion after viability. I agree that such laws pose difficulties with regard to possible Constitutional rights of privacy, but I am able to accept a compromise, which gives respect to a healthy, developing fetus and a healthy pregnancy. It is not, however, that I would grant that fetus superior rights over the mother, if her life and health are endangered.

I write these things, knowing you, Kerry, will not do anything but continue to defy a reasonable discussion here. You will stick to your "rights of life" against "rights of choice" argument, from here to eternity, and continue to act as if elective abortions are allowed all the way to term. Thus, I cannot help but wonder if your opinions are not skewed by some religious underpinnings.

In any case, please don't annoy me with your extreme examples of fetal medical tortures. I trust doctors to be humane and rational when performing therapeutic abortions. Do not confuse medical necessity with sadism.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
I want to draw an absolute line between the mother's 'right to choose' and her offspring's 'right to life'. I like it with Texas law at 20 weeks--and understand its rationale (if one is given the right to live at 20 weeks, all should be offered the right to live at 20 weeks). I'm not entirely set against birth being that line (that is where Roe vs. Wade placed it--but restricted the absolute right of the mother to choose to only 12 weeks--giving the states the right to manage anything in between)--but, I AM against NOT recognizing that, when it is determined to exist, the 'right to life' supercedes anyone's 'right to choose' against it.

So, you're not entirely set against birth being that line? Good. That's a start.

Birth is the only line to use, Kerry, and that's because any other "line" is arbitrary, first of all, and, secondly, imposes on another's right to life. The 20 week or 12 week "lines" ignore that the "person" being protected can only be protected in that way-by the law- while enutero. Once they are born, they no longer pose a threat to their mother's life-barring an atypical degree of infantile blood lust, weapons skill and thoughts of matricide.

You keep using the word "determine", as in "when it is determined to exist, the 'right to life' supercedes anyone's 'right to choose' against it.". Who does the determining, Kerry, and what arbitrary method of determination would you use? Obviously, it's not the actual pregnant woman who'd make that determination. That would be far too unfair to the tad pole, right? I'm guessing men in black robes are your preferred determiners. Is that about right, arbitrary Kerry?

Many women and "viable" fetuses alike have died inexplicably before or during birth which, by it's very nature, is hazardous. Obviously, if those fetuses had been determined by your method, it would be a failure of the law and of medicine to adequately prevent those deaths, because what good is a law that doesn't protect anyone? Thus, any determination we make is a presumptuous, chicken-counting exercise. Birth is one of those things that is NOT a given at any point in the process.And, when it happens, there's no going back. Birth is a binary state, Kerry. You are born or you are not. The line is not arbitrary and does not assume a life that is not a certainty.

Don't get me wrong, I like the word determine too. I use it in the following way, however: I would absolutely give women the right to determine how and by whom their body is used or occupied. Utter, absolute rights to ones own body are what I advocate. Anything less than that is...well...not enough.

OK, I've stated my case again and now I'm going. I have no doubt that you will utterly ignore the entirety of argument and reply with some whiny bull shit. I'm sure you will ignore that your definition of life is arbitrary and not absolute. You will ignore that "viability" and "conception" are equally arbitrary, when discussing a being that relies ABSOLUTELY upon another for survival. And, I expect you to ignore Zenzoe's points about society deciding which of the two lives rights it will protect and the ultimate outcome arguments. I have finally reached the point of understanding just who I'm dealing with. I surrender. You win.

I now believe that whenever Kerry, or the judges he appoints, define a fetus as being a life, that the law should punish women for not wanting to be pregnant after that date, even if it's the most life threatening point of pregnancy when they've made their decision. As long as the fetus is really small and the woman doesn't have any side effects of her pregnancy, she should be able to remove it. If, however, the fetus is big enough and dangerous enough to her, she should just regret having sex and wait for the thing to come out and hope she lives through it. Is that about right, douche bag?

Sorry, Zenzoe, I can't keep on banging my head against Kerry's tad pole religion. He tells me in one sentence that he believes in absolute rights and then turns around and questions the arbitrary line where that right should be drawn. He disagrees utterly with your argument and then makes a similar but stupider one without any of the legal nuance for himself, all while declaring some of the most thoughtful people on this forum to be self righteous. I can't take it!

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Came across these comments

from Chomsky regarding abortion,

from the film "Lake of Fire."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5RU2LqA1FQ

Preston's picture
Preston
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And here is Gloria Steinem on the need for

women to "seize the means of reproduction."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmFxFmrcngk&feature=share

Preston's picture
Preston
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What I conclude from this long thread is that while one, and even several, can have sane views about abortion, a "sane conversation" is far more elusive. That this is a highly emotional issue is evident; but there is a big difference between the concern women have about having others run their bodies and minds and "concern" about a casual or callous approach to life and pregnancey. Were all the areas where we sanction the taking of lives approached with the care and scrutiny we have given abortion, even in a far from sane culture war, we would be a very peaceful and just society. We are not, and to make abortion the Big Issue is to divert attention from the far more important issues of war and economic justice. How we care for the living ought to be reflected in our care for pregnant women and families; but there is no moral integrity in sentimentalizing the fetus and ignoring the child.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yeah, I'm about done too, D_NATURED. But I liked many of the points you made with your last comment, especially about how hazardous birth itself can be; I would add that pregnancy poses many hazards to women as well, something people don't think about much. It's all supposed to be one big, happy event all the way through. However, I would mention that natural birth itself, under calm, supportive, non-stressful conditions, for most women, is not the agony the media and movies make it out to be. In fact, it can be an exquisite, joyous experience. Way too many women have been propagandized to the contrary by the medical industry, so that too many are opting for C-sections, which can be more dangerous than natural birth. For example, in Brazil now, upwards of 90% of women have C-sections.

Quote Ina May Gaskin, midwife,:

I remembered the lecture on birth that I had been invited to give to a roomful of psychology students in Brasília a couple of days earlier. Each one of the women students who were mothers had had C-sections. When I told the class that it was possible for women to give birth vaginally without anesthesia and to enjoy such experiences, most looked at me in disbelief. When I showed them a photo of an unmedicated woman giving birth with a look of ecstasy on her face, only the men in the class had the courage to look at it. Several seemed interested in knowing more. What took me aback was that each of the women closed her eyes and refused to take even a glimpse of the photo, even though I had assured them that the woman had required no stitches and lost no blood during the process of giving birth. Unlike some US women of the same age whom I had previously shown the photos, these young Brazilian students had become so deeply afraid of giving birth that any sense of curiosity about how this woman’s body had accomplished it was overwhelmed by fear and a superstitious and unquestioning faith in technology. That’s real fear.

While it is true that in several of the countries with high C-section rates many healthy women are actively choosing to have C-sections that aren’t medically necessary, it can be argued that in the majority of such cases, their choices aren’t truly choices because they are based upon superstitions about technology and surgery, coupled with erroneous assumptions and fears about their own bodies and the process of birth. The same goes for those women who submit to choices made by their husbands or other family members, and those who have been persuaded by popular media and rather recent cultural fashions with no scientific basis that C-sections are safer than vaginal birth. In most cases, this is not true, and C-sections come with greater dangers for mother and child. It is time for people to be educated about this fact. Too much surgery is dangerous, and this is one of the reasons for the relatively high maternal death rates in the countries mentioned above. In contrast, countries that trust the natural process of birth and where midwives attend most of the births have better results. Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark,Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, the four countries of the United Kingdom (UK), and at least twenty-eight other countries all do better in this respect than we do in the US, although even these countries are being affected by the increasing use of birth technologies that tend to undermine the confidence of many women in their innate ability to give birth. When cesarean surgery becomes the norm for birth, maternal death rates inevitably rise. We now find ourselves in a situation in the US and in many other parts of the world where women are increasingly being denied what is perhaps the most powerful and primal experience a woman can have: the right to give birth without the use of medical interventions unless these prove necessary. Women have been taught to believe that they must sacrifice themselves in important ways in order to have a baby—that the greater good for the baby means that the mother must submit herself to greater risk, even if that means a C-section for which there is no medical reason. For instance, many women are taught to think that it is automatically dangerous to a baby to be born vaginally if the cord is wrapped around the neck, when in fact almost all babies with the cord around the neck (perhaps one-fifth of all births) can safely be born vaginally. Others are taught that there is something so inherently dangerous about being forty-two weeks pregnant that justifies the induction of labor, even though that often leads to a C-section; in fact, an “estimated due date” is a guess that turns out to be wrong more often than most people realize. My intention in this book is to call for greater involvement of women in the formulation of maternity care policy and in the education of young women and men about birth. Women who are fully informed about the capacities of women’s bodies should lead the way, and all women who care about social justice and human rights should be involved. The way a culture treats women in birth is a good indicator of how well women and their contributions to society are valued and honored. Of course, fathers, husbands, brothers, and all other men who care about the women in their lives need to be involved as well. This should happen in every country, but it is particularly important that the involvement of a partnership of mothers and midwives be increased in those countries in which there either too few of the interventions that are sometimes needed during the process of birth or too many of these interventions, because both kinds of system errors cost women their lives. http://www.scribd.com/doc/60467880/Excerpt-Birth-Matters-by-Ina-May-Gaskin

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe, while I appreciate very much your desire to demythologize the birth agony images, and as I totally agree about fear of birth as a reason to choose a C section, I would caution against stigmatizing those who need to have one. My adorable grandson and his my daughter, his mom, are here because of C section and both would probably have died from Louie's insistence upon being Mr. Sideways. She is pregnant with his sister, to be named later, and is scheduled for a mid-April repeat because in for one make it necessary thereafter.

I want to make all this as free of stigma and natural as we can think of it together. I am a total fan of the choice of the mother ruling, and I want social and cultural positives for her decision instead of coercion and necessitous conditions ruling. Much as I love nature, I want medical expertise available as needed and not avoided out of some idealism.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Yeah, I'm about done too, D_NATURED. But I liked many of the points you made with your last comment, especially about how hazardous birth itself can be; I would add that pregnancy poses many hazards to women as well, something people don't think about much. It's all supposed to be one big, happy event all the way through. However, I would mention that natural birth itself, under calm, supportive, non-stressful conditions, for most women, is not the agony the media and movies make it out to be. In fact, it can be an exquisite, joyous experience. Way too many women have been propagandized to the contrary by the medical industry, so that too many are opting for C-sections, which can be more dangerous than natural birth. For example, in Brazil now, upwards of 90% of women have C-sections.

You better quit agreeing with anything I said or you'll give Kerry a conniption. He is so certain that we're on opposite sides of this argument that he will not hear anything else. As I said to him, I don't care if you and I disagree. I'd just let you do whatever you want with your body and it wouldn't be an issue. If you were a pregnant woman, I would be the last person you'd be concerned about, no matter what you believe about abortion.

Yes, the pro lifers ignore the threat that pregnancy is to the lives of women. They don't care so much about the lives of fornicators, apparently. They, of course, blame women for having sex in the first place. I wonder if they'd have given Mary (the virgin) a pass on having an abortion, seeing as how it was thrust upon her?

I love DRC'S comments but know that any pro-lifer worth his salt would call his comment a red herring. They would say he is trying to distract the conversation away from the sensible discussion of tad pole rights and attempting to draw a larger social picture that is irrelevant. He (DRC) is right, though. A conversation about protecting fetuses while we, as a nation, willingly and recklessly allow, through our own wars and poverty (both preventable), the deaths of many WANTED children is ass-backwards.

The pro-lifers are not the brightest bulbs in the box, obviously. The notion that we need to preserve the fictitious fetal right to life while we engage in so many money making industries that destroy life, by their very existence, is a problem for their side. Fortunately, ideologues don't need evidence to be self righteous. Kerry, however, is not an ideologue. He is just willing to bravely go where no man should ever go. Namely, into a woman's womb for the purpose of drawing a line somewhere between embryo and life. But this is not a struggle for life, as DRC points out, it is a struggle for power.

Congratulations, Kerry, you passionately argue against women and for their oppressors, even as you claim to be separate from them. Your lack of caring for the end result of what you desire is your unwitting badge of membership in a group that would prosecute and execute women for seeking an abortion. That, ,to me, is astounding for someone who claims to be a physician. I guess that "do no harm" thing only applies to tad poles.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote DRC:

Were all the areas where we sanction the taking of lives approached with the care and scrutiny we have given abortion, even in a far from sane culture war, we would be a very peaceful and just society. We are not, and to make abortion the Big Issue is to divert attention from the far more important issues of war and economic justice.

While I appreciate your comment's overall sensibility, DRC, I have to wonder about that part of it, above. Haven't you, perhaps unintentionally, subordinated the lives of women —reproductive rights being central to their lives— to the "far more important issues" of war and economic justice—i.e., to guy stuff? Do you not consider women to be an important half of the human population and citizenry?

If you are interested in a peaceful and just society, how can that happen for women —half of the population— unless they can control their reproductive destinies? The right to abortion is not a side issue to women, DRC; it is centrally important. To describe the abortion issue as a diversion from "important issues" is a slap in the face to women. War and economic justice are not the only issues worth discussing. Social justice has importance too.

You cannot judge a society to be just, or free, or sane, if women's issues are considered to be unworthy of discussion. You cannot begin to find peace, where women are not free and equal.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I can't seem to keep up here.

DRC, the quote I posted was from a lengthy book excerpt, where the author did mention she had no desire nor intention to stigmatize women who choose C-sections. It is not my intention either. Still, we must be careful to support natural birth, where it is possible to do so.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote DRC:

Were all the areas where we sanction the taking of lives approached with the care and scrutiny we have given abortion, even in a far from sane culture war, we would be a very peaceful and just society. We are not, and to make abortion the Big Issue is to divert attention from the far more important issues of war and economic justice.

While I appreciate your comment's overall sensibility, DRC, I have to wonder about that part of it, above. Haven't you, perhaps unintentionally, subordinated the lives of women —reproductive rights being central to their lives— to the "far more important issues" of war and economic justice—i.e., to guy stuff? Do you not consider women to be an important half of the human population and citizenry?

If you are interested in a peaceful and just society, how can that happen for women —half of the population— unless they can control their reproductive destinies? The right to abortion is not a side issue to women, DRC; it is centrally important. To describe the abortion issue as a diversion from "important issues" is a slap in the face to women. War and economic justice are not the only issues worth discussing. Social justice has importance too.

You cannot judge a society to be just, or free, or sane, if women's issues are considered to be unworthy of discussion. You cannot begin to find peace, where women are not free and equal.

I'm not accusing DRC of being so disconnected, but it is difficult for some men to understand that women should, by their physical nature, have a right that men cannot have or exercise. They are special in that way while deserving the equal protection of the law.

If it is not a priority of society to respect an individuals pysical being, war and financial exploitation are inevitable. The former kills people the fast way and the latter the slow but they are both a contradiction to humanity. The right to ones own person and-as Kerry says-the right to life are fundamental to anything resembling a society that functions for people. Where women are marginalized at whatever arbitrary point is desired by the community, there is no safety to anyone's liberty.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

I'm not accusing DRC of being so disconnected, but it is difficult for some men to understand that women should, by their physical nature, have a right that men cannot have or exercise. They are special in that way while deserving the equal protection of the law.

If it is not a priority of society to respect an individuals pysical being, war and financial exploitation are inevitable. The former kills people the fast way and the latter the slow but they are both a contradiction to humanity. The right to ones own person and-as Kerry says-the right to life are fundamental to anything resembling a society that functions for people. Where women are marginalized at whatever arbitrary point is desired by the community, there is no safety to anyone's liberty.

Absolutely. I wish I'd said that. And I would add, next to the word "marginalized," the words, rendered invisible, shunted aside...

Of course, I don't know DRC is "so disconnected." I doubt it. Still, how about if his sentence had read, "...to make child pornography [or insert racism, religious intolerance, or any other supposed "side issue"] the Big Issue is to divert attention from the far more important issues of war and economic justice." Could it stand scrutiny?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm hoping to interject some different, if not longer, perspectives. I refuse to waste any more time on the persistent proponent of medievalism, so this is for D_NATURED, Zenzoe, and DRC.

First, I don't think DRC was trying to marginalize women. And even though I'm male, I fail to see how war and economic justice are solely male issues. I don't think the divisions of Soviet Red Army women soldiers fighting the Nazis during WWII were more interested in women's rights than they were in killing Germans and driving them out of their country. But if there were no war, they wouldn't have had to be there. They could have been at home, fighting for social justice. So war, of necessity, superseded women's rights as a national concern. It's always been that way for women warriors, everywhere. Same goes for all women non-combatants, including those personified by iconic composites such as Rosie the Riveter. War must, of necessity, supersede social justice as a concern for all humanity; if you're on the losing side of a war, the victors may, but most likely won't, let you even begin to achieve any degree of social justice.

While I have no quarrel whatsoever with either D_NATURED'S or Zenzoe's positions on women's rights, I disagree with the idea that social justice supersedes war and economic justice as a concern for either men or women. During a war, the civilian populaces of both sides suffer loss of social justice that they wouldn't otherwise suffer if there were no war, yet they make money in the war industries while forfeiting that same social justice. During a war, there's almost no unemployment. Witness Woodrow Wilson's suspension of civil rights during WWI and Abraham Lincoln's abuses of Constitutional rights during the Civil War, and all the concomitant abuses which came with both. Yet America enjoyed nearly full employment. And since women make up half of the populace of the world, they suffer half of all the ill effects of all wars; that's inescapable.

Concern for economic justice must supersede concern for social justice, because without economic justice, social justice is impossible to achieve. It's also true, but to a much lesser degree of overall societal impact, that without social justice, economic justice is hard to achieve. The reason for this is that it's impossible for laws or manners to be economically neutral. Political activity and agitation for social justice can't be pursued (short of revolution) by people preoccupied with hunger, sickness, or homelessness; thus, economics inescapably and necessarily supersedes social justice, sociology, and cultural anthropology as a baseline determinant of human behavior and activity. In short, no matter which gender, "it's all about the money." I'm not implying that I think that's the way it should be, only that it's the way it is.

So, while I unequivocally support full reproductive autonomy and freedom for women, I can't agree that gender-specific issues of social justice for either men or women supersede the need for global peace and economic justice. Unless a society and/or nation state is victorious in its wars and its people experience a liveable degree of economic justice, it cannot and will not provide a stable cultural environment wherein social justice concerns can even be broached and addressed. The latter depends upon the former, so the former supersedes the latter.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

What I conclude from this long thread is that while one, and even several, can have sane views about abortion, a "sane conversation" is far more elusive. That this is a highly emotional issue is evident; but there is a big difference between the concern women have about having others run their bodies and minds and "concern" about a casual or callous approach to life and pregnancey. Were all the areas where we sanction the taking of lives approached with the care and scrutiny we have given abortion, even in a far from sane culture war, we would be a very peaceful and just society. We are not, and to make abortion the Big Issue is to divert attention from the far more important issues of war and economic justice. How we care for the living ought to be reflected in our care for pregnant women and families; but there is no moral integrity in sentimentalizing the fetus and ignoring the child.

And once again, someone is leaving out the right to life of, and failure to sentimentalize the moral integrity of the sperm! Or something. How dare you sir, have you no shame? The Roman Catholic Church, through the old man with the tall funny hat has stated that life begins with the sperm. If we outlawed and ended all the murders of spermazoan citizens, then this whole idea of choice or life is irrelevant, and the burden is borne by men.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

And once again, someone is leaving out the right to life of, and failure to sentimentalize the moral integrity of the sperm! Or something. How dare you sir, have you no shame? The Roman Catholic Church, through the old man with the tall funny hat has stated that life begins with the sperm. If we outlawed and ended all the murders of spermazoan citizens, then this whole idea of choice or life is irrelevant, and the burden is borne by men.

Quote Ulysses:

Unless a society and/or nation state is victorious in its wars and its people experience a liveable degree of economic justice, it cannot and will not provide a stable cultural environment wherein social justice concerns can even be broached and addressed. The latter depends upon the former, so the former supersedes the latter.

Quote General Jack D. Ripper:

He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

All precious bodily fluids aside, all kidding aside —and I was kidding, Ulysses, when I said war and economic justice were "guy stuff," or "male issues," as you say (though I can understand why you would not take it as my little joke)— what I meant, in response to DRC's comment about the subject of abortion being a "diversion" from more important issues, was that all issues are important; no hierarchy of issues exists, because it's all intertwined. That is, it's all very much like the chicken/egg question—who knows what comes first? And I don't think DRC is the sort of person to marginalize anybody. He's a deep thinker and one of the good guys, like you, as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, I do believe a case can be made for social justice as being right up there with the other issues. Random questions: What makes people warlike, anyway? What accounts for greed and the desire for economic power over others? What makes for inequality, the sort of self-interested enrichment of the few at the expense of the rest of us? How does an imbalance of power and wealth contribute to a justification for war, to a war machine bent on dominating neighboring states?

Why are the countries with greater equality less likely to go to war? That is to say, put a list together of the most warlike nations alongside a list of the most peaceful nations, and you're going to see a correlation between equality —gender and class— and peace. (Do I need to "count the ways?" I trust not.)

How does the oppression of women in any society correlate with that society's inclination for war? Apparently, it does. If you look at the least peaceful nations —Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Israel, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, Pakistan, Russia, Zimbabwe— you're going to find societies where women are oppressed in one way or another.

In short, I don't think you can discount social justice at all. I also don't think you can remove the social status of women from an equation that reveals a cycle of abuse, moving from family to local group to larger society. A woman deprived of control over her life cannot provide the kind of nurturance children need to grow into peace-loving, healthy individuals. What do children raised in poverty and abuse, without future prospects, deprived of education often do? They join the military. They become instruments of war. What do children raised in middle-class families with hope for the future, with educations do? They raise a stink over war and economic injustice, as stink called the OWS movement.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Back to the "sane" conversation point. I thought I was clear about my criticism of the abortion issue, and that my criticism is the intrusion into the rights of women to decide themselves and to have the means to have the chosen abortion. The Catholic Church has some very good teaching material on war, economic justice and justice for Third World people. It also has a bunch of misogynist crapheads in the College of Cardinals whose choice to make gayness and abortion their leading social issues pisses me off deeply.

I do not think that gay rights or abortion ought to be an issue because they ought to be accepted as basic civility in a democracy. Those who make them issues are the problem, and the fact that I do not think they ought to be issues does not minimalize the error of those who wage this form of religious warfare. The Culture War has been about the politics of conscience, something we need to eliminate entirely.

It is the bearing of power that we ignore in our "moral agenda." War is, after all, a matter of national security and covert intelligence that we have to trust our leaders to know and interpret. This means that we have to go along with them rather than criticize their context. We can be against war as a moral principle, but it will get no practical consideration as we deal with Iran and the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, the idea that we ought not to be identifying our national interests with access to oil on the other side of the globe does carry strategic weight. I think we need to beef up our moral realism in these arguments and address what it means to be citizens of an empire that is doing what empires do.

I want to attack the Culture War as bogus, and its issues as "invented." There is no reason to stand in the way of gay love and marriage, and there is no good reason to interfere with a woman's choice about her pregnancy. Whatever discussion about abortion and public policy there might be needs to be apart from her choice. I am also offended by the ban on my tax money going to support the healthcare of women choosing abortion. Even if it pulls the rug out from under all the rhetoric about government funded abortions, I think it concedes too much to their bs agenda. Just because a bunch of religious folk have a big concern about abortion does not make their concern worth bending public policy around.

Anyway, I know that I am responsible for how I am heard when I speak, and it applies to writing as well. The problem is that people will read things I have no idea they could think I think. The idea that abortion is a trivial issue to those attacked by Culture Warriors is as far from my thinking as I could imagine. The same is true for the victims of homophobia even if the issue is nonsense at its base.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

DRC, you're right—I took you to mean one thing, when you meant another. Or, so it appears, unless I have misread you again. When you said, "...to make abortion the Big Issue is to divert attention from the far more important issues of war and economic justice," you weren't referring to progressives making abortion the Big Issue; you were referring to such as the Catholic Church —and conservative, anti-abortion types, in general— and those folks making abortion and homosexuality the Big Issues at the expense of "larger" issues. Anyway, that's what I'm getting now, in part, from what you said. And I would agree—their obsession with such "red flag" issues diverts their attention, even their consciousness, away from the wide landscape of ethical and moral issues, where the issues of abortion and homosexuality reside as subsets.

I would still defend the notion of social justice —where the issues of abortion and homosexuality belong— as being up there, equally, with war and economic injustice as important issues. I don't have to explain George Lakoff's theories to anybody here, but just as a reminder, consider how so many of the ills of human society —war, economic injustice, inequality, the war on women, etc.— stem from what he refers to as the "strict father values" of the conservative mind-set. Essentially, it is this mind-set, where punishment, dominance over weaker Others, and male-top-down hierarchy are valued above all, that makes for militarism, the prison-industrial-complex, laissez-faire capitalism, etc., as well as the oppression of women, in the end, which demands that pregnant women stay pregnant in some sort of revenge against our sexual freedom (that hideous threat to male dominance).

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Phaedrus makes a good argument, but how do you sell it to a demographic whose majority lives mostly below the Mason-Dixon and goes to family reunions to pick up girls?

I have no real quarrel with Zenzoe's points. I just don't agree with her overall emphasis. I do think we need to agitate unceasingly for social justice, as well as peace and economic justice. I simply diverge in believing what's of equal import. I think that war and economic justice are macro issues and that social justice is a paramount micro issue within any already established society.

Without being condescending and imposing 10,000 words upon others, an anecdote comes to mind. I think it illustrates my position on this pretty well.

Uncle Joe Stalin was at some dinner with other heads of state. He told somebody that he planned to do something or other that would have far-reaching political and economic consequences.

"I don't know if you really want to do that," said another leader. "The Pope doesn't think you ought to."

Uncle Joe smiled.

"Oh," he said. "Well, how many divisions does the Pope have?"

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This endless debate is hypocritial at best. Those who say they value "life", in this case, the life of an unwanted human embryo, will routinely ignore the millions of unwanted "life" outside the womb already here in orphanages, foster care, in horrifically abusive situations as are now coming out and finally being exposed. If we as a species chose to focus our energy into the care,nurtuting,feeding,education of the millions of unwanted children here and now, then maybe a female of childbearing age ( 12-45 ) may see the value in brining a new "life" into this world. If we as a species truly valued "life" there would be no war, lies, stealing,murder, rape or abuse.

We don't and here we are. We are simply not that evolved......yet.

The law of supply and demand far outweighs some absurdly hypocritial "moral" ideals. Making abortion illegal again will be as effective as making marajuana illegal. A waste of time and money.

One of the main reasons there was a push for abortions legality was that many girls and women died from botched back alley abortions. The question that apparently still rises is who's "life" is more important? The female of child bearing age already here or a zygote. Women or girls are not "baby making machines". They are wives,mothers,sisters,aunts,and daughters.

If any religious entity who choses to to be actively involved in any legislation and ignore this country's long standing policy of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, then it would be time that they paid their full fair share in taxes.

Everyone has the right to their opinions,but keep them out of our lives. If we as a species wanted to do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies, then support free family planning centers where education is the best tool. The question to really ask is in who's best interest is it to create more unwanted humans. But think further about the anti abortion meme, If the government or banks who fincance uneccessary wars need more soldiers in 18 years, more cheap labor or more people at the bottom of the pyramid to preserve their status, that may provide a more comprehensive answer to this hopelessly, endless debate.

Who will pay for the medical, education, food for unwanted children in stressed economic enviornments? The taxpayer is already stretched to the limits and our social welfare sytems are bursting at the seams. Again, reality supercedes the delusional,self righteous "moral" ideology.

Abortion isn't an easy decision for most women. Education, affordable availabilty of birth control at free or low cost family planning centers would be an excellent way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion as an primary means of birth control.

There are many reasons unwanted pregnancies exist and they are a private issue. If it's not your unwanted pregnancy, then it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. It's a right to privacy issue that was resovled in 1972.

Lzbz's picture
Lzbz
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:

Phaedrus makes a good argument, but how do you sell it to a demographic whose majority lives mostly below the Mason-Dixon and goes to family reunions to pick up girls?

I have no real quarrel with Zenzoe's points. I just don't agree with her overall emphasis. I do think we need to agitate unceasingly for social justice, as well as peace and economic justice. I simply diverge in believing what's of equal import. I think that war and economic justice are macro issues and that social justice is a paramount micro issue within any already established society.

Without being condescending and imposing 10,000 words upon others, an anecdote comes to mind. I think it illustrates my position on this pretty well.

Uncle Joe Stalin was at some dinner with other heads of state. He told somebody that he planned to do something or other that would have far-reaching political and economic consequences.

"I don't know if you really want to do that," said another leader. "The Pope doesn't think you ought to."

Uncle Joe smiled.

"Oh," he said. "Well, how many divisions does the Pope have?"

But, Ulysses, what do we have to do to discourage the Uncle Joes of this world from arising to power in the first place? Consider his childhood, for example:

The man who the world would come to know as Joseph Stalin was ... the third child born to Vissarion Dzhugashvili, a poor shoemaker, and his wife Yekaterina, who augmented her husband's income by working as a domestic servant. However, the young Iosif was the only one of their offspring to survive infancy. Vissarion was an abusive, hard-drinking man, who eventually failed as an independent artisan and left his family to work in a factory in Tiflis, the capital of Georgia, when his son was five years old. For the rest of Stalin's childhood, Joseph and Yekaterina lived in the home of a priest, Father Charkviani, where the pious, hard-working woman attempted to ensure that her only son would be well-educated enough to escape the drudgery of a lower- class existence. [Zenzoe's bolds]

Poverty, child abuse, parental drunkenness, abandonment of the father figure, lower-class status...and who knows what the priest had in mind for him... What effect on the same child do you think a middle-class, nurturing, secure childhood would have had? Do you think, given a socially just childhood, he would have grown up to be the power-hungry murderer he turned out to be?

Not that those are the only factors involved in the making of a political madman, or the politics of mad empires. I'm just saying, remove the fear, the suffering, the struggle, and you remove the pathology. War is pathology, right?

Unless you think children are born bad (as conservatives think), my position is something to consider, yes?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It's more than worth considering, Zenzoe. The negative expectations inherent in much religion and authoritarianism is not going to produce a positive social outcome. If society is modeled upon the notion that people are evil in their natural state, the world will take on a different, more frightening appearance. That is the danger of religion because while it can provide personal inspiration, it can also provide some murderous mob inspiration.

Ideas can be as harmful to society as viruses. The way to win the battle for humanity, though, is not to ban religions. The answer is to make a better one and a better one and a better one, until you invent one that is not dogmatic or false or harmful to consumers. It is not religion, per se, that is the enemy of humanity it is stupidity, greed and apathy. Those qualities can be posessed by anyone. Religion can just be a lubricant to idiocy.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote=Ulysses]Phaedrus makes a good argument, but how do you sell it to a demographic whose majority lives mostly below the Mason-Dixon and goes to family reunions to pick up girls?

I have no real quarrel with Zenzoe's points. I just don't agree with her overall emphasis. I do think we need to agitate unceasingly for social justice, as well as peace and economic justice. I simply diverge in believing what's of equal import. I think that war and economic justice are macro issues and that social justice is a paramount micro issue within any already established society.

Without being condescending and imposing 10,000 words upon others, an anecdote comes to mind. I think it illustrates my position on this pretty well.

Uncle Joe Stalin was at some dinner with other heads of state. He told somebody that he planned to do something or other that would have far-reaching political and economic consequences.

"I don't know if you really want to do that," said another leader. "The Pope doesn't think you ought to."

Uncle Joe smiled.

"Oh," he said. "Well, how many divisions does the Pope have?"

But, Ulysses, what do we have to do to discourage the Uncle Joes of this world from arising to power in the first place?

Regrettably, that's currently impossible, because to accomplish it, you'd have to eliminate many of the archetypally negative aspects of basic human nature. Not to get too tangential here, but I think that in 100 years, they'll be genetically engineering everybody, and people's pscyological makeups will be determined by their genes; but that's a different discussion. The fact is that they're here; it's not productive to speculate how they could've been different when we have to deal with them here and now, as they are. Not that it shouldn't be discussed, and I'll not argue against any positions which support social justice.

The man who the world would come to know as Joseph Stalin was ... the third child born to Vissarion Dzhugashvili, a poor shoemaker, and his wife Yekaterina, who augmented her husband's income by working as a domestic servant. However, the young Iosif was the only one of their offspring to survive infancy. Vissarion was an abusive, hard-drinking man, who eventually failed as an independent artisan and left his family to work in a factory in Tiflis, the capital of Georgia, when his son was five years old. For the rest of Stalin's childhood, Joseph and Yekaterina lived in the home of a priest, Father Charkviani, where the pious, hard-working woman attempted to ensure that her only son would be well-educated enough to escape the drudgery of a lower- class existence. [Zenzoe's bolds]
Poverty, child abuse, parental drunkenness, abandonment of the father figure, lower-class status...and who knows what the priest had in mind for him... What effect on the same child do you think a middle-class, nurturing, secure childhood would have had? Do you think, given a socially just childhood, he would have grown up to be the power-hungry murderer he turned out to be?
Who knows? Your point is certainly valid. But seeing as how Stalin, like the rest of us, was condemned to live in the time into which he was born, I fear that, regardless of his home life, and considering that he was born a peasant, he wouldn't have experienced much social justice in any case under the Romanov Czars, had the Russian Revolution (through force of arms -- war) not taken place. If you want to argue that the Czars should've been benevolent and not done what they did to precurse revolution, no argument here. But, sincerest Good Luck with that one -- you'll need it.

Not that those are the only factors involved in the making of a political madman, or the politics of mad empires. I'm just saying, remove the fear, the suffering, the struggle, and you remove the pathology. War is pathology, right?
Yes. You would remove the pathology from all but those who are born evil (and some simply are, though not the majority). We only differ on what should be addressed first in order to end wars. War is a form of madness, carried on mostly (but not always) for the benefit of those who already own the lion's share of everything at the time war starts; that's one of its economic components. I think that the actual fighting in all wars should be done by officers, from the rank of first lieutenant up. Wouldn't be many wars.

Unless you think children are born bad (as conservatives think), my position is something to consider, yes?
Absolutely. I'd be the last to simply dismiss it or ignore it in any discussion such as this one. We just differ on priorities, not in the desire to see similarly positive outcomes.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry, most states have laws prohibiting or restricting elective abortions after viability. The abortions obtained after viability are therapeutic abortions. Abortions after viability, therefore, are done to protect and preserve the LIFE AND HEALTH of the mother, or where the fetus is not alive. That is to say, the right to life of the mother is the inalienable right we're talking about in post-viability abortions. Thus, your framing is wrong. It is NOT a matter of right to life of a fetus vs. right of choice of the mother. IT IS NOT LIFE VS. CHOICE AT ALL. It is life vs. life, and, sorry, but the mother, being a fully grown, developmentally advanced, whole individual with full citizen status, must be the winner, where her life and health is endangered.

Zenzoe, why are you describing therapeutic abortions in the context of elective abortions--and, then, stating that 'my framing' is wrong? In ELECTIVE ABORTIONS, this contention is with the mother's RIGHT TO CHOOSE over the life of the fetus--and that is appropriate when that fetus does not have the RIGHT TO LIFE. In therapeutic abortions, it has NOTHING to do with the mother's RIGHT TO CHOOSE over the fetus's life, it has to do with the mother's life. And, if the mother's life is at risk, the fetus's life is at risk. If this is in a late enough stage of pregnancy (at least passed 32 weeks), an attempt will be made to deliver the child--by induction or C-section--NOT ABORT IT--unless you are in a state where THAT CHOICE IS ALLOWED. But, again, here is the dirty little secret in late stage pregnancies, the methods of aborting follow exactly the same sequences as if inducing delivery--the only difference may be in trying to do so in a way that ends the fetus's life before going into labor (like high concentration salt solution injections into the uterus)--or, as D_NATURED likes to describe, 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains' during the delivery (but before birth unless you are also saying that, after birth, the offspring does not have the absolute RIGHT TO LIFE that supercedes the mother's--or anyone's--RIGHT TO CHOOSE against it)--even, in some cases, requiring C-sections to extract them out when the other interventions don't work or cause dangerous complications....

You are the one framing this wrong, Zenzoe. You are the one that claims to be in line with the mother being able to 'control her body' in choosing what to do with her pregnancy--then, claiming something about 'the care and concern over the viabiliy of the fetus'--then, claiming something to do with 'the health of the mother'. Just about throwing every curve you can to prevent from addressing THE CHOICE when it is a choice and acknowledging THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE when it is a responsibility to address--absolutely. Your 'conditions' are a farce--both in the way this issue of absolute rights in the mother's 'right to choose' up against her offspring's 'right to life' once it has been determined to exist is to be addressed and in the way in which such cases are handled practically--especially in late term pregnancies.

Quote Zenzoe:

Why do you keep saying I don't indicate who is to decide? I've said it many times—the woman in consultation with her doctor decides.

Well, you say that here, but, when you discuss it, you put a whole lot into that 'decision' in your descriptions in order to try to 'condition all rights' than just the choice of the mother up against any determined right to life of the fetus (and that determined 'right to life' of the fetus will be something that the doctor will HAVE TO consider--that's if the doctor wants to keep his or her license to practice intact--and, if it is determined to exist, it will ONLY rightfully be removed if, in some extraordinary circumstance that cannot be handled by an induced delivery, the mother's life is really in eminent and immediate danger). But, as such, if it's not about the mother's 'right to choose'--and it's more about the mother's 'right to life' against the fetus's 'right to life'--IT'S NOT AN ELECTIVE ABORTION--because THAT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICE. You are sanctimoniously and self-righteously trying to 'condition' this with 'the health of the mother' as if that represented AN ELECTIVE ABORTION--which it does not. Perhaps in trying to avoid the whole point that D_NATURED does describe--crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth IF THE MOTHER WANTS IT. Could you crush a fetal skull in and suck its brains out for any reason? Could you allow it to be done by anyone else for any reason? THAT'S THE POINT OF ELECTIVE ABORTIONS--your attempts to claim that 'I' am 'framing this wrong' notwithstanding....

Quote Zenzoe:

While I appreciate D_NATURED's position, which absolutely supports a woman's right to the integrity of her own body, I nevertheless recognize the validity of regulating elective abortion after viability. I agree that such laws pose difficulties with regard to possible Constitutional rights of privacy, but I am able to accept a compromise, which gives respect to a healthy, developing fetus and a healthy pregnancy. It is not, however, that I would grant that fetus superior rights over the mother, if her life and health are endangered.

But, then, you are improperly introjecting the mother's 'right to life' up against any other absolute right of the fetus to life in a discussion on ELECTIVE ABORTIONS--which concerns ONLY the mother's 'right to choose' up against the fetus's 'right to life'--and, when a 'right to life' has been determined to exist, no 'right to choose' against it is a valid and just decision--even if the mother's 'right to choose', otherwise, is absolute (Ie. 'against all community interests--or impositions of political authority--otherwise'). And, as you claim that 'I' am 'framing this wrong', it is you who is trying to adjust the fetus's 'right to life' in the case of abortions by exerting something that you 'condition' as the 'health of the mother'--as you continue to fail to realize that, in late stage pregnancies, labor will have to be induced either way--with abortion or a preterm delivery--whether that is for 'the health of the mother' or not--and you continue to fail to acknowledge that, if an abortion is decided for 'the life of the mother' up against the 'life of the fetus', THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT AN ELECTIVE ABORTION, anyway.....

Quote Zenzoe:

I write these things, knowing you, Kerry, will not do anything but continue to defy a reasonable discussion here.

Reasonable? How are you reasonably comparing therapeutic abortions with elective abortions? How are you reasonably comparing the rights of dogs that can be eaten in Asian communities with the absolute human rights to life and choice against any imposition of 'community interest'?

Quote Zenzoe:

You will stick to your "rights of life" against "rights of choice" argument, from here to eternity, and continue to act as if elective abortions are allowed all the way to term. Thus, I cannot help but wonder if your opinions are not skewed by some religious underpinnings

Read above. As I said before, even atheists can be self-righteous by not recognizing what is reasonable in this argument of rights of choice against rights of life. The only distinction to make is when does a human life with rights begin....but, what you seem to like to do is rather self-righteously proclaim that 'all rights are conditional'--but you ignore explaining who or what gets to determine such 'conditions'--and why.....is that also a tactic of those who want this all to be 'conditioned' and, somehow, based on something you say is 'community interest'--but, in your self-righteous and condescending manner, not having to explain what that 'interest' is--especially up against anything of the nature of human rights, otherwise?

Quote Zenzoe:

In any case, please don't annoy me with your extreme examples of fetal medical tortures. I trust doctors to be humane and rational when performing therapeutic abortions. Do not confuse medical necessity with sadism.

My examples? That is how D_NATURED--who claims to be 'agreeing with you'--described it. Wow, the 'group think' goes deep here--even when there is no rational component to it (more like a 'masculine/feminine' affront--D_NATURED's macho 'crush the fetal skull and suck out it brains right before birth'' as support for 'the mother's choice' up against Zenzoe's acquiesing 'care and concern for fetal viability' and 'care for the mother's health' as an excuse for ELECTIVE abortions--and such conditioning against rights--without once addressing this issue AS D_NATURED DESCRIBES IT AS THE MOTHER'S CHOICE).

And, as far as doctor's humaneness goes, in late stage pregnancies, I know that almost all of them would rather induce a delivery than an abortion at that point--unless any extraordinary circumstances offer them (and the mother) NO CHOICE.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:

But, Ulysses, what do we have to do to discourage the Uncle Joes of this world from arising to power in the first place?

Regrettably, that's currently impossible, because to accomplish it, you'd have to eliminate many of the archetypally negative aspects of basic human nature...

...Yes. You would remove the pathology from all but those who are born evil (and some simply are, though not the majority).

You see, that's where we differ: I don't believe in a "basic human nature," an archetype that predetermines any particular characteristic. My understanding is that human beings may possess certain genetic characteristics, genes for this or that, but whether or not any particular gene is "expressed" depends on a complex interaction between many different genes AND the environment (and other factors) of the individual person. That is, for example, a person may have a genetic capacity for violence, but whether the genes responsible for such violent behavior actually do activate depends on what happens to the individual in her environment—how she is raised, whether she is abused, etc. This is nearly word for word what Richard Dawkins has to say here on the subject (starting @ 4:20 min. into the interview): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HYr53gJiNI —just so that I don't appear to be plagiarizing anybody.

Simply put, I don't believe in the "evil seed." Call me naive, but I think all babies are born innocent and good, and, given love, respect, caring guidance and nurturance, will develop into healthy, non-violent individuals. Abuse, corporeal punishment, neglect, grinding poverty, humiliation—those are the things that create bad people. When whole segments of our society (the religious right, in particular) believe babies are born bad and must have the evil beat out of them, even as infants, that sadomasochistic, power-hungry mind-set spreads, and what you get is a large population ready and eager for the next war, ready and eager to imprison huge segments of Others, ready and eager for whatever authoritarian policy you can imagine, including denying women access to abortion services.

But, yes, they're here. Now. The question becomes, what do we do with them when the revolution begins? (I'm joking. Partly.) Stalin, and other socialist "reformers," conducted murderous purges. The French Revolution—purges, "off with their heads." I sometimes say out loud, when a particularly heinous conservative appears on TV, "Off with his head!" That's how violent my imagination can be, you see. But, how does the non-violent transition to a just, peaceful society begin, when the spirit of authoritarianism is so relentlessly, intelligently successful? And, is it true, as The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo pointed out, that they only understand one thing... (I'm in the middle of the trilogy/books)

Later...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There is a lot wrong with the "demon seed' point of view, particularly its cynicism about the "evil ones." We are all human, and I believe we carry all the potentials. While I am all for positive nurture and love, the problem I have with the causative argument is that it is not universal or manageable. There are survivors of abuse and neglect/oppression, and their are failures coming from "the best homes." Just what goes wrong in their lives, where their ability to love became impaired and then perverted, is hard to generalize into policy. The personal stories may be useful case studies of how the best intentions went awry, or how the worst did damage. Survivor tales also have lessons to learn from, and we can gladly support strong pro-child family policies by taking care of families instead of putting them out onto the streets.

American "culture" teaches violence instead of peace. We talk about civil behavior, but we reward thuggery. Success is foreclosing on neighbors to make a lot of bucks. Even if people have stopped believing that "greed is good," they still think it runs the world and serve its demands. They have just given up on the idea that God really loves them or anyone other than the elites. It is why they need to punish hope and scoff at the idea of justice.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Birth is the only line to use, Kerry, and that's because any other "line" is arbitrary, first of all, and, secondly, imposes on another's right to life.

Aw, look, Zenzoe, now you got D_NATURED, who, previously, was all for 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth IF THE MOTHER WANTED IT', to, now, claim this has something to do with the mother's 'right to life'. Are you happy now? Self-righteously content in throwing so many rational curves in this discussion that you even have the macho D_NATURED now confusing the 'concern over the life of the mother' in this issue of ELECTIVE ABORTIONS--AND THE CHOICE OF THE MOTHER....

Quote D_NATURED:

Who does the determining, Kerry, and what arbitrary method of determination would you use?

When it comes to the mother's RIGHT TO CHOOSE when there is no fetal RIGHT TO LIFE, I have no one 'arbitrarily' making that decision for her, D_NATURED. It's the mother--absolutely. But, now, D_NATURED, before we get into our differences on how the fetal 'right to life' is to be determined, let me ask you a question: Do you think that a human 'right to life', once that has been determined to exist, IS ARBITRARY? At one point, you didn't want any 'line' drawn here--but, now, it does appear that you see one 'line' drawn at birth, correct? Then, as I've asked you to comment on before, while you previously condoned (but, even as macho as you propose to be, you didn't say you could do it yourself, did you?) 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wanted it', are you also for doing the same to that offspring even if it is just one minute after birth?

Now, I've made my point about my agreement with Texas law at 20 weeks. If 'one person' has the 'right to life at 20 weeks' (and has lived at that point), then I do agree that all persons should be allowed such a right--especially up against ANY CHOICE of the mother (that, previous to this determined 'right to life' of her offspring, was absolute) . While it may take some extraordinary efforts to try to save a life at that point, and many lives won't live at that point, I think that if one has lived at that point, all get to have a right to that possibility. Of all rights otherwise considered so absolutely, the 'right to life' is the most fundamental right to have because, without it, you can have no other rights....the only distinction in the issue of ELECTIVE abortions to make here is when does a human life with rights begin.....

Quote D_NATURED:

You keep using the word "determine", as in "when it is determined to exist, the 'right to life' supercedes anyone's 'right to choose' against it.". Who does the determining, Kerry, and what arbitrary method of determination would you use? Obviously, it's not the actual pregnant woman who'd make that determination. That would be far too unfair to the tad pole, right? I'm guessing men in black robes are your preferred determiners. Is that about right, arbitrary Kerry?

You'd be guessing wrong. But, are we in agreement that such a determination is to be made at some point in this process, right D_NATURED? There will eventually be a line drawn and a 'right to life' to contend with the mother's 'right to choose'. But, now, even you, the macho D_NATURED 'crushing fetal skulls and sucking out brains if the mother wants it', have acquired the misrepresentations of Zenzoe who likes to confound the mother's 'right to choose' against the mother's 'life and health' in this discussion about ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. Tell me, D_NATURED, and try not to be 'arbitrary' about it, are you for 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains even right before birth if the mother wants it'? Or, have you now backed off OWNING THAT with the machismo you previously described it as and now only do so 'for the life and health of the mother'--just like Zenzoe?

And, y'all are the ones wanting 'me' to be reasonable? I at least know enough about the reasoning of this issue of elective abortions to know that it really does come down to the mother's 'right to choose' up against the fetus's 'right to life' once that 'right to life' has been determined to exist. But, if that is 'at birth', then what happened to this 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it', D_NATURED? Have you ventured too far in your macho support for the mother's wishes up against your 'agreement' with Zenzoe and her 'care and concern for the viability of the fetus'--yet, her 'conditioning' that up against something called the 'life and health of the mother' without once recognizing that, in late stages of pregnancy, both abortions and preterm deliveries require inductions--and, in some situaitons, both may require emergency C-sections (in other words, absent 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains' or killing the fetus somehow before the procedure begins, in late stages of pregnancy, there is no difference between an induced birth and an induced abortion). So, again, D_NATURED, have you backed off OWNING your description of 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'? And, if you have, what are you putting in the place of the mother deciding to abort at that stage FOR ANY REASON that doesn't, in some respects, appear arbitrary and have 'someone else' deciding this? And, certainly, if it is to 'condition all rights' as Zenzoe wants to, what 'condition' are you expressing this for that doesn't represent another 'right'? It's that form of 'arbitrary decision-making' (that disregards the support and guarantee of rights) that I am against....are you? The ONLY REASON that I would allow anything acting as a POLITICAL AUTHORITY to intervene on that mother's otherwise absolute 'right to choose' the outcome of her pregnancy is the intervention of another right--in this case, the 'right to life' of the fetus (wherever that 'line' is drawn)--and I would 'condition' it in no other way, otherwise....and, like Zenzoe loves to do, quit misrepresenting this issue as if it is the mother's 'right to life' up against the fetus's 'right to life' because THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTIVE ABORTIONS--no matter how self-righteously Zenzoe tries to approach it as if it does....

Quote D_NATURED:

Many women and "viable" fetuses alike have died inexplicably before or during birth which, by it's very nature, is hazardous.

So what? The 'risks' of preterm induction and the 'risks' of late-term abortions ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. Don't try to be as self-righteous in this as Zenzoe, D_NATURED. It doesn't become you--unless you are now backing down off of your 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' stand....and, if you are backing off that, when would you say that the mother should be able to have the 'fetal skull crushed and the brains sucked out' FOR ANY REASON? And, what reason against the mother being able to CHOOSE to do that would you say is appropriate if it is not a fetal RIGHT TO LIFE to contend against? Is that some more of Zenzoe's vague proclamations over 'the care and concern of fetal viability' (without a right to life) that is to 'decide' this issue? If so, who or what gets to do that, D_NATURED--and how is that any less arbitrary than doing it for a determined and defined fetal RIGHT TO LIFE? I would argue that it is MORE ARBITRARY if not done as a contention against another right.....what do you say?

Quote D_NATURED:

Sorry, Zenzoe, I can't keep on banging my head against Kerry's tad pole religion.

Aw, there you go misrepresenting a late stage pregnancy as if it were a tadpole--and this is all supposed to be based on 'reason'. Is that the 'masculine reasoning' you like to offer, D_NATURED, of 'crushing the fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it'--or the more acquiesing 'feminine reason' that Zenzoe proposes (and you are now adopting) in having something called the 'care and concern of fetal viability' (but, of course, that has no 'arbitrary components' to it, does it, D_NATURED?) up against the 'life and health of the mother'. You may have missed that part of my discussion in centering this on 'rights' as I compared your masculine 'conviction without care' up against Zenzoe's 'care without conviction'. But, you know, for me, I do have a 'religious position' to that--it's not quite the type that DRC likes to promote because it is guaged more towards an 'internal consistency' to thought and conduct than the more exoteric religious elements harbor. I believe that the most profound statement that I have ever read that is consistent with such an 'internally consistent' premise (especially considering individual rights to each individual) is verse 22 in the Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi Library version):

Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."

They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then you will enter (the kingdom)."

I know how Zenzoe likes to claim that 'the men are to be men' and 'the women are to be women' (and, when it comes to dogs, they will still be nervous before being eaten despite any rights Zenzoe is 'so concerned over' for them). However, when it comes to the individual rights of all individuals, how does that rather 'social distinction' play out when it concerns the relation of rights between the sexes? Another famously 'reversed Supreme Court decision' did claim that, with the races, unlike the previous decision of them being 'separate but equal', this decision proclaimed that 'separate is inherently unequal' when it came to racial segregation. Is it different when claiming any individual rights as far as the male and female genders are concerned? In these instances, they can be 'separate but equal'? Or, does separate inherently make them 'unequal' as far as individual rights are concerned? Even something as 'feminine' as pregnancy? Is the female to have 'care and concern for fetal viability' as the male is all for 'crushing the fetal skull in and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' as, somehow, rationally displaying the extent of this right? Is 'conditionally approaching human rights' rational--or reasonable?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, after skimming over the rest of the statements in this thread, the one that I believe deserves the most comment comes from Preston's youtube insertion here of Gloria Steinem--especially with her assessment that I took that 'changes in society start with the family'--something she related to that women weren't given equal status in society until they were given equal status in the family.

But, let me extrapolate that issue on 'family dynamics relating to social dynamics and individual rights' to be included in the very point that I am trying to make with this issue of elective abortions, the individual rights involved, and what obligations of personal responsibility that I think this entails--and I do believe it can extrapolate to how such issues can reflect the dynamics involved in the system in which it exists. I think there are very few things that can alter the dynamics of a family any more than a pregnancy--especially an unplanned pregnancy and certainly an unwanted pregnancy. And, while there seems to be many in this culture (and certainly those on this thread) that are trying, somehow, to conceptualize 'community interest' away from 'personal rights and responsibilities', I thnk it is those very issues of the 'rights of conscience' requiring 'obligations of personal responsibility' that set forth how personally responsible those in the society are set to be (if that is to be anything that 'I' see as a 'just society')--and, just like the framers of our country, I do see such a responsibility in person in line with such rights of person being the only thing that can get a truly functioning democracy based on such rights to work--any misrepresentations of these being acted upon can remove such an empetus of community geared towards individuality.

Responsibility of person cannot be handled as a 'community' that vaguely tries to 'condition' it into something else--politically, that can produce irresponsible actions and statements from the ones given the capacity to politically impose as well as the ones being politically imposed upon. And, as far as personal responsibilities with family goes, nothing says that as forthrightly as a pregnancy--especially an unplanned pregnancy and, even more so, an unwanted pregnancy. To 'let that pregnancy go on' (and 'condition away' the rights and responsibilites this is really all about) without confronting one's own position of not wanting it is the irresponsible thing to do--especially if not wanting that child factors into not caring for that child. And here is where the right to life of that child factors into the mother's right to choose in that pregnancy. The mother--and any support network that she may or may not have--will have to factor into that 'choice' the obligation to care for that child's life, otherwise, if the choice is not made before that life has been established. There is no way to whitewash this into 'conditions on rights'. The only responsible choice is to decide to end the pregnancy or be responsible for that child's wellbeing--and be determined and as absolute as the rights used to consider such choices and obligations in doing so. It's in the very 'socially conditioning away all personal responsibilities' that I believe is one main element that is ruining the very fabric of community that some 'community-minded' seem to not acknowledge--as a democratically just society, 'social coherence' cannot be done without recognizing the extent of individual rights and the individual integrity that involves--and nothing says that more in the family unit than a pregnancy. And whitewashing this issue doesn't honestly address its responsibilities--either take the right to end the pregnancy when you have that right--or take the responsibility of the wellbeing of its outcome as a life. That is the only personally and socially responsible position to take....and, while some may claim that 'speaking in terms of indiviudal rights' isolates the individual, missing the point of the 'obligations of personal responsibility' those rights entail as being what 'ties the individual into the community' as well as establishes the basis for any truly just community, and society, to function....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

How our republic could die in the age of Trump - in a stunning parallel to the fall of Rome

Thom plus logo The American republic could die, just like Rome. Wavering for some time on the verge of becoming a complete oligarchy, America is on the verge of flipping from a democratic republic to a strongman or autocratic form of government, something that's happened to dozens of democracies in the past few decades, but never before here.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system