https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/30/ireland-compensates-abortion-amanda-mellet-britain
QuoteGovernment agreed to pay compensation for trauma to Amanda Mellet after she was forced to obtain a termination of her pregnancy in England
Ireland has for the first time in its history compensated a woman for the trauma caused by forcing her to travel to Britain for an abortion.
Pro-choice campaigners in the Republic said the Fine Gael-led minority government's agreement on Wednesday to pay compensation to Amanda Mellet was highly significant.
Mellet and her husband James took their case all the way to the UN's Human Rights Committee after the couple were forced to obtain a termination of her pregnancy in England.
In 2013 Amanda Mellet became the first of three Irish women to formally ask the UN to denounce the prohibition on abortions in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities as "cruel and inhumane".
Under Ireland's strict anti-abortion laws, if Mellet and the other two women had remained in the Republic they would have been forced to give birth to babies who would be born dead.
Campaigners arguing for a referendum to repeal an amendment to the Irish constitution that gives full citizenship rights to the embryo after conception welcomed today's decision by the Dublin government.
Ailbhe Smyth, convenor of the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment and a longtime campaigner on reproductive rights, said: "To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time ever that the Irish government has compensated a woman for having to leave the country for an abortion. This is long overdue acknowledgement of the profound denial of women's right to autonomy in this country."
"The government must immediately ensure no other woman suffers similar human rights violations. The eighth amendment is a profound source of discrimination and national shame for Ireland. It is simply not good enough to pass the book to the Citizen's Assembly and not make any commitment to undertake the necessary constitutional and legislative reforms to end, once and for all, Ireland's violation of international human rights law and obligations under human rights conventions and treaties.
"We cannot, as a country, continue to oversee the violation of women's human rights. We're saying that women deserve better and Ireland can do much better."
In June the UNHRC ruled that by forcing Amanda Mellet to leave Ireland for an abortion in Britain, the Irish state had inflicted trauma and distress on her.
Ivana Bacik, an Irish Labour party senator and long term campaigner for abortion reform in Ireland, said the government's decision to accept the UNHRC ruling was a crucial step towards changing Ireland's abortion regime.
The Trinity College Dublin law lecturer said: "The UN Human Rights Committee's ruling in June of this year constituted an important acknowledgement that the highly restrictive Irish law on abortion violates the human rights of women. The government's acceptance of the ruling through the announcement of the compensation award, and Minister Harris's sincerity in apologising to Ms Mellet, are both welcome.
"But we need now to see official recognition that thousands of other women are being denied their basic human rights through being denied access to legal abortion in Ireland, due to the eighth amendment to the constitution. The UNHRC ruling in favour of Ms Mellet made clear the need for us to hold a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment."
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2016, 08:22:48 AM
"cruel and inhumane".
Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment
But is it unusual? :hmm:
Entering England is traumatic for Irish people. I have to say it makes no sense to outlaw abortion and then turn around and fund people's abortion trips abroad. But claiming abortion as a human right might be taking things too far, in most Euro countries aren't there limitations on abortions?
Also, why England? I guess similar laws exist in Northern Ireland?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 08:55:17 AM
Also, why England? I guess similar laws exist in Northern Ireland?
Abortion is also illegal in Ulster. The one thing the Catholics and Prots could agree on.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on December 01, 2016, 09:15:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 08:55:17 AM
Also, why England? I guess similar laws exist in Northern Ireland?
Abortion is also illegal in Ulster. The one thing the Catholics and Prots could agree on.
Federalism reigns in Her Majesty's Domains I see.
Let's break this down, shall we?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 08:55:17 AM
Entering England is traumatic for Irish people.
A woman is told that the child inside her is going to die. That it is malformed and isn't ever going to take a breath. She - and presumably her husband - were planning for a child in their lives, and instead have been told that this isn't going to happen for them. This is traumatic for most people in this situation.
But we're going to compound that with requiring - by law - that this woman continue to carry the pregnancy to term. Alternatively, she can leave her country and travel somewhere else entirely, among people she doesn't know instead of her own doctor who knows her and is aware of her circumstances. She's already in a very emotionally precarious state, mind you. So yes, this is traumatic.
QuoteI have to say it makes no sense to outlaw abortion and then turn around and fund people's abortion trips abroad.
It appears that they have been sued and this is part of the recompense. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but that's how I see it.
QuoteBut claiming abortion as a human right might be taking things too far,
They are, in fact, claiming that women have a right to be their own people first and incubators second. Bodily autonomy is absolutely a human right. Or it should be.
Quotein most Euro countries aren't there limitations on abortions?
This has been a way to appease those who refuse to grant women full bodily autonomy. It does not, in my opinion, make it right.
QuoteAlso, why England? I guess similar laws exist in Northern Ireland?
She was traveling somewhere to terminate a presumably wished-for pregnancy. Where she chose to go doesn't really matter, does it? But even so, a ferry ride from Dublin to Liverpool is probably easier than a drive up to Northern Ireland.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:21:10 AM
They are, in fact, claiming that women have a right to be their own people first and incubators second. Bodily autonomy is absolutely a human right. Or it should be.
I am undecided either way. I don't think it is absolutely that black and white. Ideally we should be working together to find stronger birth control technology to actually give women that right instead of having this grey area where we have rights for the incubators and the rights of the incubatee conflicting. But I have stated my opinion on that matter and I am endlessly frustrated "pro-life" people also seem to block that avenue.
But in any case I was only speaking of how their tactics might be effective in overturning the eighth amendment of the Irish Constitution from a political perspective. Taking such an extreme position might make that difficult.
QuoteShe was traveling somewhere to terminate a presumably wished-for pregnancy. Where she chose to go doesn't really matter, does it? But even so, a ferry ride from Dublin to Liverpool is probably easier than a drive up to Northern Ireland.
No it does not. I was merely curious if the abortion laws were different in England and Northern Ireland.
QuoteIt appears that they have been sued and this is part of the recompense. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but that's how I see it.
True. But last I checked suing should be based on laws and statutes correct?
QuoteA woman is told that the child inside her is going to die. That it is malformed and isn't ever going to take a breath. She - and presumably her husband - were planning for a child in their lives, and instead have been told that this isn't going to happen for them. This is traumatic for most people in this situation.
But we're going to compound that with requiring - by law - that this woman continue to carry the pregnancy to term. Alternatively, she can leave her country and travel somewhere else entirely, among people she doesn't know instead of her own doctor who knows her and is aware of her circumstances. She's already in a very emotionally precarious state, mind you. So yes, this is traumatic.
Obviously it would be. I was being silly.
Yes NI is also punitive on abortion. There was the story earlier this year about the teen whose roommates turned her in when she did a DIY abortion at home. They turned her in because she reportedly did not show enough remorse. Of course, she went DIY rather than try to afford expense of flying to England.
edit: here's link to when I posted that article.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13860.msg965393/topicseen.html#msg965393
In fact, you even commented on it. :P
Wow. That is terrible. Right out of Mississippi.
I was glad my wife and sister got their abortions before Texas started to adopt the SHAME SHAME SHAME laws. This was obviously long before I met my wife.
I have a simple litmus test on this one.
- Do you believe that a person should be required to give up his kidney - by law - to save his brother's life?
- Do you believe that it should be required by law that everyone donate blood once a month?
- Do you believe that there should be a required universal donor law where all those in death must be donors if possible?
If you think that any or all of the above are wrong, but you question a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, then you need to think long and hard about what you really believe. Because right now, women are being required to continue a life-threatening situation - by law - because they are not seen as having the same right to say no as everyone else does about the above situations.
And yeah, the smartest way to alleviate - or at least minimize - abortions is education and free birth control. But to do either of those things is to, once again, grant women bodily autonomy with the right to have sex when, where, and with whom she wants. And we can't have that, can we?
For pro-Life advocates, it's truly about controlling a woman's body in every possible way. They cry "what about the children", but they mean "that slut needs to pay for her sin".
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2016, 09:36:22 AM
In fact, you even commented on it. :P
:blush: I lack Raz's excellent memory of all past Languish threads.
QuoteFor pro-Life advocates, it's truly about controlling a woman's body in every possible way. They cry "what about the children", but they mean "that slut needs to pay for her sin".
For the hardest hard core this is true and it is really frustrating. But there is a squishy group that can be won over by the "what about the children" claims (or claims by the other side), and that is usually what decides the matter in these cases.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 09:48:40 AM
For the hardest hard core this is true and it is really frustrating. But there is a squishy group that can be won over by the "what about the children" claims (or claims by the other side), and that is usually what decides the matter in these cases.
And that infuriates me. What about the mother? Shouldn't her actual life rank higher than some potential for life?
I have a friend fighting for her life right now because she gave birth. She chose to get pregnant and to have the child, but what if she hadn't? What about all of those women whose lives are irrevocably changed - physically, emotionally, and mentally - because they were forced to carry a baby to term?
Sorry. This isn't against you, Valmy. It's just a sore point at the moment.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:44:02 AM
Do you believe that a person should be required to give up his kidney - by law - to save his brother's life?
As much as I'd love a kidney, it is possible to go on without them.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:52:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 09:48:40 AM
For the hardest hard core this is true and it is really frustrating. But there is a squishy group that can be won over by the "what about the children" claims (or claims by the other side), and that is usually what decides the matter in these cases.
And that infuriates me. What about the mother? Shouldn't her actual life rank higher than some potential for life?
I have a friend fighting for her life right now because she gave birth. She chose to get pregnant and to have the child, but what if she hadn't? What about all of those women whose lives are irrevocably changed - physically, emotionally, and mentally - because they were forced to carry a baby to term?
Sorry. This isn't against you, Valmy. It's just a sore point at the moment.
Don't worry. It wouldn't be the first time this year I have been hammered for my abortion views. Did I mention I am partially responsible for the holocaust of the 21st century? :lol:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 01, 2016, 09:53:43 AM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:44:02 AM
Do you believe that a person should be required to give up his kidney - by law - to save his brother's life?
As much as I'd love a kidney, it is possible to go on without them.
Not always.
https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/ (https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/)
My grandmother died because she had to get a back alley abortion; she had developed a medical problem that couldn't be operated on whilst she was pregnant. Her chances of death were pretty high if she had tried to bring the baby to term. My dad has no memory of her as a result, for his older siblings... it was much worse. In his last years my grandad wouldn't talk to one of my cousins because of her black boyfriend since it was a (heroic) West Indian doctor involved in the abortion.
And some people want this to happen in the 21st century?
Fuck those people.
I wonder when Ireland will finally legalise abortion. In recent decades Ireland has it seems broken records for the drop in religiosity (what harm a bit of kiddy fiddling can do...).
Meri is right. End of story.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:44:02 AM
But to do either of those things is to, once again, grant women bodily autonomy with the right to have sex when, where, and with whom she wants. And we can't have that, can we?
that will be the end of society as we know it. Things might get bad really quickly. As bad as Western Europe and Canada... ;)
Very good argument. I never thought of it this way. But it didn't change my opinion either, it's not my business what a woman does with her body.
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2016, 10:55:45 AM
Meri is right. End of story.
Unfortunately it isn't. At least not for millions of women down in my neck of the woods.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2016, 10:55:45 AM
Meri is right. End of story.
Unfortunately it isn't. At least not for millions of women down in my neck of the woods.
Or those in Ireland. :(
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2016, 10:55:45 AM
Meri is right. End of story.
Unfortunately it isn't. At least not for millions of women down in my neck of the woods.
That doesn't make Meri any less right.
Do you think your "it's not black and white" position helps or hinders the millions of women down in your neck of the woods?
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2016, 01:07:26 PM
Do you think your "it's not black and white" position helps or hinders the millions of women down in your neck of the woods?
I would say it is not relevant. The Supreme Court ruled and it is being undermined by the hard core supporters on the other side. Nobody I supported anyway. I send a monthly donation to Planned Parenthood FYI.
And yes I don't think abortions of potentially viable 3rd trimester babies is necessarily absolutely awesome. There might be some give and take and negotiation that should take place. But that is not what is happening. Abortion clinics are being shut down and SHAME SHAME SHAME laws are being passed. Nobody is consulting people like me about this topic. It is, presently, entirely binary.
I think you would like our law in England. The limit is 24 weeks unless the health of the mother is at risk. The vast majority are performed on the NHS pre-16 weeks. Importantly it is a law that has general support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom
It is an area that has avoided polarisation here so far, I hope that continues.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 01:55:20 PM
And yes I don't think abortions of potentially viable 3rd trimester babies is necessarily absolutely awesome. There might be some give and take and negotiation that should take place. But that is not what is happening. Abortion clinics are being shut down and SHAME SHAME SHAME laws are being passed. Nobody is consulting people like me about this topic. It is, presently, entirely binary.
I'm so sick of the whole "viable babies are killed in the 3rd trimester" argument. It's total BS.
Third trimester abortions are incredibly rare, and nearly always only to protect the mother's health or because the baby isn't going to live anyway. The vast majority of abortions - >91% of them according to PP - take place prior to 20 weeks pregnancy (viability is considered 26 weeks for most doctors), and those done in the 20-24 week margin are around 8% of all abortions performed. (http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin (http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin))
And the women that I've met who are against abortion rights are typically the worst of the "let them pay for their sins!" type. They managed to get to adulthood without making a mistake, so therefore, those who did should have to pay for it.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2016, 02:49:53 PM
I think you would like our law in England. The limit is 24 weeks unless the health of the mother is at risk. The vast majority are performed on the NHS pre-16 weeks. Importantly it is a law that has general support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom
It is an area that has avoided polarisation here so far, I hope that continues.
So many reasons to move to the UK....
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 01, 2016, 02:49:53 PM
I think you would like our law in England. The limit is 24 weeks unless the health of the mother is at risk. The vast majority are performed on the NHS pre-16 weeks. Importantly it is a law that has general support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom
It is an area that has avoided polarisation here so far, I hope that continues.
As opposed to Canada, where Parliament in the mid-80s decided that making a law on abortion was too hard, so they just gave up. There are no legal restrictions on abortions of any kind anywhere in Canada.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 03:12:20 PM
As opposed to Canada, where Parliament in the mid-80s decided that making a law on abortion was too hard, so they just gave up. There are no legal restrictions on abortions of any kind anywhere in Canada.
I wonder what the stats up there are on later-term abortions.
Remarkably, the numbers are very similar to US rates when looking at when abortions take place:
Table 4: Number and Percentage Distribution of Induced Abortions* Reported
by Canadian Hospitals†
(Excluding Quebec) in 2010, by Gestational Age in weeks
≤8 8,300 30.1%
9–12 11,191 40.6%
13–16 1,794 6.5%
17–20 846 3.1%
21+ 537 1.9%
Unknown 4,908 17.8%
Total 27,576 100.0%
https://www.cihi.ca/en/ta_10_alldatatables20120417_en.pdf (https://www.cihi.ca/en/ta_10_alldatatables20120417_en.pdf)
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:03:05 PM
I'm so sick of the whole "viable babies are killed in the 3rd trimester" argument. It's total BS.
Well if it ever becomes relevant we might debate that at some point. It is not even an argument per se, I was just saying where a line might hypothetically be drawn. If anybody were into drawing lines.
But right now it is, as I said, entirely binary. So it doesn't matter.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
So many reasons to move to the UK....
I don't get it. You are as likely to become pregnant as I am.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:22:45 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
So many reasons to move to the UK....
I don't get it. You are as likely to become pregnant as I am.
You don't get it. It's not about whether or not I can end a pregnancy. It's about whether or not I'm considered a fully functioning adult worthy of the same treatments and rights as you are. And right now, in the US, I'm not. This is a symptom, not the disease.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:26:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:22:45 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
So many reasons to move to the UK....
I don't get it. You are as likely to become pregnant as I am.
You don't get it. It's not about whether or not I can end a pregnancy. It's about whether or not I'm considered a fully functioning adult worthy of the same treatments and rights as you are. And right now, in the US, I'm not. This is a symptom, not the disease.
There are no legal restrictions to abortion in the US, except whatever stupid loopholes the states can dream up (and even then those are regulations on the clinics, not legal restrictions). I don't know how things are in Illinois, granted. There are in the UK. It is more restrictive. So, again, I don't get it. In what sense is the UK more considerate of you as a full functioning adult?
I thought you were referring to the fact it was covered by the NHS. So color me confused.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:17:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 03:12:20 PM
As opposed to Canada, where Parliament in the mid-80s decided that making a law on abortion was too hard, so they just gave up. There are no legal restrictions on abortions of any kind anywhere in Canada.
I wonder what the stats up there are on later-term abortions.
We don't even really know - they aren't required to keep statistics. Abortion rights activists say "trust us, they only happen with good reasons", but that reasoning is entirely between the woman and her doctor.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a pro-life activist. I'm on record saying that I accept Bill Clinton's position on abortion - that is should be "safe, legal and rare". BUt I much prefer the sounds of the UK's law than Canada's lack of one.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:30:57 PM
There are no legal restrictions to abortion in the US, except whatever stupid loopholes the states can dream up. I don't know how things are in Illinois, granted. There are in the UK. It is more restrictive. So, again, I don't get it. In what sense is the UK more considerate of you as a full functioning adult?
I thought you were referring to the fact it was covered by the NHS. So color me confused.
Valmy, this isn't about *me*. This is about how the US views women's rights regarding their own bodies.
A man working at Hobby Lobby can run out and get Viagra with just a script, and it's fully covered by his insurance, but a woman working there is denied birth control coverage because "religion". A man in Indiana can get a woman pregnant - multiple women at that - and walk away free and clear while she has to go through a day of testing where she's forced to get - and watch - an ultrasound, go through a "training" on fetal pain, wait 18 hours (so an overnight stay if she's had to drive into a city to get one since there are limited facilities outside the city), and then go through a painful procedure, but only IF she caught that she was pregnant before her 20th week. Because if she didn't catch it, she'll have to drive to Illinois to have it done, pay a considerable amount more, etc. Oh, and that's all true EVEN IF THE WOMAN'S LIFE IS ON THE LINE.
How can YOU not see that this makes me a second-class citizen to you? This isn't about whether or not an abortion is an option for me. This is about treating women as "less than" simply because we're fucking incubators and all you do is sperm production.
And here are the abortion laws in the US: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws (https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws)
Notice the line at the top where it says that 75% of abortions are on women below the poverty line. Why? Because this country also doesn't want to help take care of those children once they're born. No no no.... you must have the child, and once you do, fuck you and fuck it. Buh bye!
I thought the view of the US was that abortion was a guaranteed right under the Constitution. In the UK it is a restrictive law.
It sounds like that in the UK a woman in Northern Ireland has to cross over the England. So how are they better?
QuoteNotice the line at the top where it says that 75% of abortions are on women below the poverty line. Why? Because this country also doesn't want to help take care of those children once they're born. No no no.... you must have the child, and once you do, fuck you and fuck it. Buh bye!
Well look I am not claiming this country has the best social safetynet in the world but I was under the impression you get more welfare, foodstamps, and tax credits for children and child care and you get free education until 12th grade.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:49:25 PM
It sounds like that in the UK a woman in Northern Ireland has to cross over the England. So how are they better?
Most women in the UK are not in Northern Ireland. Seems like a bizarre aside.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 03:34:52 PM
We don't even really know - they aren't required to keep statistics. Abortion rights activists say "trust us, they only happen with good reasons", but that reasoning is entirely between the woman and her doctor.
Exactly as it should be.
QuoteDon't get me wrong - I'm not a pro-life activist. I'm on record saying that I accept Bill Clinton's position on abortion - that is should be "safe, legal and rare". BUt I much prefer the sounds of the UK's law than Canada's lack of one.
The laws as written in Canada appear to show that abortion there is on par with what's going on in the US in terms of late abortions. At least according to the stats that the CIH have on hand. Women don't have abortions for fun. And laws don't change the need for them.
What the US needs to do more of is education and free birth control. Want fewer abortions? That's how to do it.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2016, 03:51:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:49:25 PM
It sounds like that in the UK a woman in Northern Ireland has to cross over the England. So how are they better?
Most women in the UK are not in Northern Ireland. Seems like a bizarre aside.
My apologies, I thought we were talking about the principle of the thing. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:51:36 PM
What the US needs to do more of is education and free birth control. Want fewer abortions? That's how to do it.
I couldn't agree more. I have no idea why better and free birth control is not a major priority for people who want to end abortions.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2016, 03:51:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:49:25 PM
It sounds like that in the UK a woman in Northern Ireland has to cross over the England. So how are they better?
Most women in the UK are not in Northern Ireland. Seems like a bizarre aside.
My apologies, I thought we were talking about the principle of the thing. :mellow:
So the UK is less free because a small portion of the UK has less free laws? Don't pull that mellow shit.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:49:25 PM
I thought the view of the US was that abortion was a guaranteed right under the Constitution. In the UK it is a restrictive law.
It sounds like that in the UK a woman in Northern Ireland has to cross over the England. So how are they better?
Guaranteed until Trump gets his way and puts a pro-life judge on the bench. Guaranteed so long as you don't live in a state with highly restrictive laws. Guaranteed so long as you can afford it.
Abortions are across-the-board allowed in the UK (Northern Ireland being the exception), paid for by the state, and not subjective to a single Lord Ruler deciding the laws for women.
QuoteWell look I am not claiming this country has the best social safetynet in the world but I was under the impression you get more welfare, foodstamps, and tax credits for children and child care and you get free education until 12th grade.
Having raised four children in one of the more progressive states for "social safety nets", I can assure you that welfare doesn't pay for shit - IF you happen to be broke enough to qualify, which I never did, including foodstamps. The Tax Credits for children are going away, or hadn't you heard? And they're fairly recent, like in the past decade and a half or so. I never received free child care, and in fact had to stay home because it cost me more in child care than I made at my job. And that "free" education cost me $500 this fall for my daughter in fees, book rental, charges, etc. When I had all four kids, I had to beg the school district for a break, whereby they lowered the costs to $150/kid that I was able to pay over several months. Yeah, even with a school district "discount", I paid $600 every September for my kids to go to school. That was half of my paycheck that month. That's not even including school supplies or clothes.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2016, 03:54:54 PM
So the UK is less free because a small portion of the UK has less free laws? Don't pull that mellow shit.
I thought this was about the views of the US versus the views of the UK regarding abortion. Here it is a protected constitutional right. The states fuck with things by regulating the clinics, but that is not a reflections on rights in the US but how our federal system works.
In the UK there is no guarantee of abortion rights and it seems to be entirely under the control of the constituent countries. They can, if they want, entirely restrict it and England is more restrictive than the more permissive states in the US. So how is the UK better?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:58:43 PM
In the UK there is no guarantee of abortion rights and it seems to be entirely under the control of the constituent countries. They can, if they want, entirely restrict it and England is more restrictive than the more permissive states in the US. So how is the UK better?
But the UK is more permissive than 38 US states. That's more than half our country who sees women as incubators before people.
And in the UK, it's paid for by the state, so not dependent on individual income. That alone makes it far more permissive than the other 12 states, regardless of their 20-week rule. (Remember, 91% of all abortions take place in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy with 8% in the next four weeks. How many of those "late term abortions" are due to having to save up the money to have it done?)
And while you keep saying that it's a "constitutional right" for women, when you have 38 states creating laws that make them essentially impossible to get, it's a bullshit argument.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:46:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:30:57 PM
There are no legal restrictions to abortion in the US, except whatever stupid loopholes the states can dream up. I don't know how things are in Illinois, granted. There are in the UK. It is more restrictive. So, again, I don't get it. In what sense is the UK more considerate of you as a full functioning adult?
I thought you were referring to the fact it was covered by the NHS. So color me confused.
Valmy, this isn't about *me*. This is about how the US views women's rights regarding their own bodies.
A man working at Hobby Lobby can run out and get Viagra with just a script, and it's fully covered by his insurance, but a woman working there is denied birth control coverage because "religion". A man in Indiana can get a woman pregnant - multiple women at that - and walk away free and clear while she has to go through a day of testing where she's forced to get - and watch - an ultrasound, go through a "training" on fetal pain, wait 18 hours (so an overnight stay if she's had to drive into a city to get one since there are limited facilities outside the city), and then go through a painful procedure, but only IF she caught that she was pregnant before her 20th week. Because if she didn't catch it, she'll have to drive to Illinois to have it done, pay a considerable amount more, etc. Oh, and that's all true EVEN IF THE WOMAN'S LIFE IS ON THE LINE.
How can YOU not see that this makes me a second-class citizen to you? This isn't about whether or not an abortion is an option for me. This is about treating women as "less than" simply because we're fucking incubators and all you do is sperm production.
And here are the abortion laws in the US: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws (https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws)
Notice the line at the top where it says that 75% of abortions are on women below the poverty line. Why? Because this country also doesn't want to help take care of those children once they're born. No no no.... you must have the child, and once you do, fuck you and fuck it. Buh bye!
Meri, you know that I am in about 99% agreement with you on this, but I think you are radically over-stating the "second class citizen" bit. There is a difference in the law between men and women because the law is about biology, and men and women are biologically different in this regard. There can be no posible that could make the outcome of sex the same for men and women - that difference is what defines the terms!
Now, there are plenty of laws that do in fact attempt to make women second class citizens, and of course they need to be changed. But the fact that the outcome of some particular law or set of laws is different for men and women, especially in a subject that is completely about the very things that define our genders like procreation, doesn't mean that the intent MUST be to make women second class citizens.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:58:43 PM
In the UK there is no guarantee of abortion rights and it seems to be entirely under the control of the constituent countries. They can, if they want, entirely restrict it and England is more restrictive than the more permissive states in the US. So how is the UK better?
But the UK is more permissive than 38 US states. That's more than half our country who sees women as incubators before people.
And in the UK, it's paid for by the state, so not dependent on individual income. That alone makes it far more permissive than the other 12 states, regardless of their 20-week rule. (Remember, 91% of all abortions take place in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy with 8% in the next four weeks. How many of those "late term abortions" are due to having to save up the money to have it done?)
And while you keep saying that it's a "constitutional right" for women, when you have 38 states creating laws that make them essentially impossible to get, it's a bullshit argument.
Essentially impossible?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 03:53:12 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:51:36 PM
What the US needs to do more of is education and free birth control. Want fewer abortions? That's how to do it.
I couldn't agree more. I have no idea why better and free birth control is not a major priority for people who want to end abortions.
I have an idea!
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2016, 04:04:39 PM
Meri, you know that I am in about 99% agreement with you on this, but I think you are radically over-stating the "second class citizen" bit. There is a difference in the law between men and women because the law is about biology, and men and women are biologically different in this regard. There can be no posible that could make the outcome of sex the same for men and women - that difference is what defines the terms!
Now, there are plenty of laws that do in fact attempt to make women second class citizens, and of course they need to be changed. But the fact that the outcome of some particular law or set of laws is different for men and women, especially in a subject that is completely about the very things that define our genders like procreation, doesn't mean that the intent MUST be to make women second class citizens.
Except that the major argument against abortion for decades was that women shouldn't be having sex anyway. It wasn't until the 90s that the focus became about the baby itself. And if it really were about just biology, why aren't these same people pushing birth control and education? If it truly is about preventing abortions, why is that not the focus of all of the laws being passed, the money being spent, and the arguments put forth? Instead, the very same people fighting against abortion rights are also fighting against free birth control and education.
Sure, the biology is different. However, when you look at the bigger picture, it's not about biology at all.
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2016, 01:07:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2016, 10:55:45 AM
Meri is right. End of story.
Unfortunately it isn't. At least not for millions of women down in my neck of the woods.
That doesn't make Meri any less right.
Do you think your "it's not black and white" position helps or hinders the millions of women down in your neck of the woods?
I agree with some of what she's saying, but earlier in the thread she said there should be "no restrictions" on abortion rights (at least, she called those restrictions appeasements that violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy.) I frankly disagree, and I think many people (a vast majority) agree in America with some level of abortion restrictions. I think there's pretty consistent polling showing we as a society are more comfortable with abortion the earlier on in the pregnancy it occurs, and are more comfortable with it when it's medically necessary for the health of the mother. There are obviously absolutists who oppose it to the point of (literal) death for the woman, and ascribe it as "God's will" that sadly both mother and baby unavoidably had to die. There are obviously old puritan types who view abortion and birth control as bad because it sexually liberates women.
But I dunno, after week 10-11 or so the fetus has a brain, after week 24-25 the fetus is viable outside the womb. Both of those are developments I view with "moral concern", and killing that human life at that point is a lot different to me than any of the false equivalencies meri spelled out about things like forced blood donations or forced kidney transplants.
At the end of the day I believe, and I think most people believe, women have an ethical responsibility toward their fetus that is materially different than my ethical responsibility to donate a kidney or even blood. Some of that is simply unfair--women have a vastly harder road in reproduction than men, but I didn't design the species. It's regrettable that sometimes basic biology doesn't match some people's ideas of "fairness", but there it is.
Some of this discussion are people talking past each other. In America at least there's a huge focus on late term abortions, which statistically almost never happen, and are never allowed for "elective" reasons, they're all serious medical problems with the fetus or a risk to the mother's health from carrying to term. The vast majority of abortions in America happen very early in the development of fetal life, before it develops features (like a brain), or viability outside the womb, developments that to me present tough ethical questions that glib responses like yours don't answer, or even begin to answer.
I'm not just some man talking like this, my wife is a doctor and mother and while she's pro-choice, she's generally against abortion past 12-13 weeks, which is a common standard in many countries. Many physicians, that intimately understand fetal life, are so uncomfortable with abortion they won't perform it or touch it with a ten foot pole. In large swathes of the country it's a
majority opinion among women that abortion should be illegal.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 03:57:50 PM
Guaranteed until Trump gets his way and puts a pro-life judge on the bench. Guaranteed so long as you don't live in a state with highly restrictive laws. Guaranteed so long as you can afford it.
We will see on the Trump and Supreme Court thing.
QuoteAbortions are across-the-board allowed in the UK (Northern Ireland being the exception), paid for by the state, and not subjective to a single Lord Ruler deciding the laws for women.
I was not aware the US was a lordly dictatorship. And last I checked there are restrictions in England and those are subject to people making laws for women.
QuoteHaving raised four children in one of the more progressive states for "social safety nets", I can assure you that welfare doesn't pay for shit - IF you happen to be broke enough to qualify, which I never did, including foodstamps. The Tax Credits for children are going away, or hadn't you heard? And they're fairly recent, like in the past decade and a half or so. I never received free child care, and in fact had to stay home because it cost me more in child care than I made at my job. And that "free" education cost me $500 this fall for my daughter in fees, book rental, charges, etc. When I had all four kids, I had to beg the school district for a break, whereby they lowered the costs to $150/kid that I was able to pay over several months. Yeah, even with a school district "discount", I paid $600 every September for my kids to go to school. That was half of my paycheck that month. That's not even including school supplies or clothes.
That all sucks. What the hell is up with the fees? I don't think they are allowed to do that in Texas for anything related to actual school.
But I think we are getting outside of actual human rights here.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2016, 04:04:39 PM
Meri, you know that I am in about 99% agreement with you on this, but I think you are radically over-stating the "second class citizen" bit. There is a difference in the law between men and women because the law is about biology, and men and women are biologically different in this regard. There can be no posible that could make the outcome of sex the same for men and women - that difference is what defines the terms!
Now, there are plenty of laws that do in fact attempt to make women second class citizens, and of course they need to be changed. But the fact that the outcome of some particular law or set of laws is different for men and women, especially in a subject that is completely about the very things that define our genders like procreation, doesn't mean that the intent MUST be to make women second class citizens.
Except that the major argument against abortion for decades was that women shouldn't be having sex anyway. It wasn't until the 90s that the focus became about the baby itself. And if it really were about just biology, why aren't these same people pushing birth control and education? If it truly is about preventing abortions, why is that not the focus of all of the laws being passed, the money being spent, and the arguments put forth? Instead, the very same people fighting against abortion rights are also fighting against free birth control and education.
Sure, the biology is different. However, when you look at the bigger picture, it's not about biology at all.
A lot of the hardcore pro-life people genuinely believe contraception is immoral too, and promotion of sex (safe sex education) is immoral etc. I don't think they're un-genuine in their positions, they are just conservative religious positions that you disagree with. I think the thought of a cabal of old white men gleefully plotting to fuck over women may represent some of the more obnoxious pro-lifers, but I don't think it's as large a part of it is as it's made out to be.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2016, 04:06:35 PM
Essentially impossible?
In the state of Texas, one of the most populace and largest states in the Union, there are eight abortion clinics. Why? Because of the laws they've enacted that have made it nearly impossible for them to survive. (Must have admitting privileges, must have a set number of recovery rooms, etc.)
In Indiana, Louisiana, and now Texas, you are required to bury the remains of the fetus as if it were a living child. No word on any of those yet on who's responsible for paying for the burial or cremation, but it seems unlikely that the states are going to help with that at all. So, that's additional costs to an already expensive procedure that in Indiana and other states requires an overnight state near a facility. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/texas-burial-aborted-fetuses.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/texas-burial-aborted-fetuses.html?_r=0)
And all of this is getting worse, not better, for women. Read that article about Texas. They don't give a shit about the mothers. They don't care that every time a woman gets pregnant she's putting her life in danger.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:08:31 PM
Except that the major argument against abortion for decades was that women shouldn't be having sex anyway. It wasn't until the 90s that the focus became about the baby itself. And if it really were about just biology, why aren't these same people pushing birth control and education? If it truly is about preventing abortions, why is that not the focus of all of the laws being passed, the money being spent, and the arguments put forth? Instead, the very same people fighting against abortion rights are also fighting against free birth control and education.
Right. Right there with you.
QuoteSure, the biology is different. However, when you look at the bigger picture, it's not about biology at all.
Right. It is about legislating morality.
But damn those people really flip their shit over the 'baby murder' angle. Frustrating since, as you say, they are also against anything that would practically reduce the 'baby murder'.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2016, 04:04:39 PM
Meri, you know that I am in about 99% agreement with you on this, but I think you are radically over-stating the "second class citizen" bit. There is a difference in the law between men and women because the law is about biology, and men and women are biologically different in this regard. There can be no posible that could make the outcome of sex the same for men and women - that difference is what defines the terms!
Now, there are plenty of laws that do in fact attempt to make women second class citizens, and of course they need to be changed. But the fact that the outcome of some particular law or set of laws is different for men and women, especially in a subject that is completely about the very things that define our genders like procreation, doesn't mean that the intent MUST be to make women second class citizens.
Except that the major argument against abortion for decades was that women shouldn't be having sex anyway.
OK. I guess.
But that isn't the argument now, so why bring it up? It is a strawman.
People who are in favor, for example, of banning late term abortions in most cases, can do so without any arguments about whether or not women should be having sex.
Quote
It wasn't until the 90s that the focus became about the baby itself. And if it really were about just biology, why aren't these same people pushing birth control and education? If it truly is about preventing abortions, why is that not the focus of all of the laws being passed, the money being spent, and the arguments put forth? Instead, the very same people fighting against abortion rights are also fighting against free birth control and education.
To some extent that is true, and I've said the same myself on many occasions when the two topics overlap.
But just because that is the case for some people doesn't make it the vase for all, and it weakens your position to insist that the entirety of the other side is represented by the most radical of them. It's just like pro-lifers claiming that women want abortion to be legal because they want after the fact birth control and women who get abortions get them routinely.
Quote
Sure, the biology is different. However, when you look at the bigger picture, it's not about biology at all.
For some. For plenty it is absolutely.
I am in favor, for example, of banning third trimester abortions except in cases where the well being of the mother is in clear danger.
But I am confident my position on this is based on some rational and understood (by me anyway) ideas about life, individual rights, and liberty - and has nothing to do with whether or not I think women should be having sex.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:19:36 PM
And all of this is getting worse, not better, for women. Read that article about Texas. They don't give a shit about the mothers. They don't care that every time a woman gets pregnant she's putting her life in danger.
We will see. There is only so far they can push this.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2016, 04:18:17 PM
A lot of the hardcore pro-life people genuinely believe contraception is immoral too, and promotion of sex (safe sex education) is immoral etc. I don't think they're un-genuine in their positions, they are just conservative religious positions that you disagree with. I think the thought of a cabal of old white men gleefully plotting to fuck over women may represent some of the more obnoxious pro-lifers, but I don't think it's as large a part of it is as it's made out to be.
Their morals shouldn't dictate what I do with my body, and I'm pretty tired of having to make that argument.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2016, 04:06:35 PM
Essentially impossible?
In the state of Texas, one of the most populace and largest states in the Union, there are eight abortion clinics. Why? Because of the laws they've enacted that have made it nearly impossible for them to survive. (Must have admitting privileges, must have a set number of recovery rooms, etc.)
And that is bullshit. But that is 1, not 38. It is a real problem in Texas, and I am fully in support of fixing that, in Texas.
I don't think that makes abortion impossible in Texas however, essentially or otherwise.
What about the other 37 that make it "essentially impossible"?
Quote
In Indiana, Louisiana, and now Texas, you are required to bury the remains of the fetus as if it were a living child.
Stupid law, but doesn't make it essentially impossible.
Quote
No word on any of those yet on who's responsible for paying for the burial or cremation, but it seems unlikely that the states are going to help with that at all. So, that's additional costs to an already expensive procedure that in Indiana and other states requires an overnight state near a facility. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/texas-burial-aborted-fetuses.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/texas-burial-aborted-fetuses.html?_r=0)
More stupid laws, but they don't make it impossible. Just harder. And that is still only up to 3. Not 38.
Harder is not impossible.
Quote
And all of this is getting worse, not better, for women. Read that article about Texas. They don't give a shit about the mothers. They don't care that every time a woman gets pregnant she's putting her life in danger.
The issue I have here is that you are doing the exact same thing the most radical of the pro-life do - putting the debate into the context of radical extremes.
*Any* restriction is tantamount "essentially impossible" and any law anywhere is tantamount to it being everywhere.
I think this kind of radicalization of the discussion makes outcomes like Texas MORE likely rather than less, since you are lining up almost perfectly with the caricature of what the pro-life radicals want people to believe that that pro-choice population is all about.
At the end of the day, it comes down to a woman being allowed to decide for herself whether or not she continues being an incubator for a parasite that could kill her. Those are the cold, hard facts. Not bringing morality into it, that is what is being determined. Can I, as a fully rational adult, decide for myself if I use my body as an incubator for a parasite, or can I choose to not do so?
When you start talking about the 20-week rule or the "mother's life is in danger" caveats, you're changing the focus, and the dialog. It becomes about the baby and its rights. Except that it's not a baby, nor does it have rights yet. It is the potential for life, not life.
You all know that I love my children, and I still weep for the son that I lost (at 18 weeks). I would have had a dozen kids if I'd been physically capable of doing so. I adore kids.
But I firmly believe that my right as a human trumps the rights of potential humans. I firmly believe that so long as it's MY body that is at risk, and MY life that will be irrevocably changed, only I have the right to decide what and how I do it. There are ZERO laws in Canada on abortion, and the numbers are all still the same as they are in the US. There isn't a need to regulate a woman's body in any fashion. It's a feel-good way to say "think of the children", but in doing so people are ignoring the woman who has to bring that child to life. At the end of the day, only she should be deciding what the best options are for herself and her family.
Those facts don't sound particularly cold or hard. They sound like a point of view.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:30:38 PM
At the end of the day, it comes down to a woman being allowed to decide for herself whether or not she continues being an incubator for a parasite that could kill her.
No, actually it does NOT just come down to that, and calling a human fetus a "parasite" is exactly the kind of ridiculousness that the radical pro-life crowd latches onto so they can restrict access to abortions from baby killers who think human babies are parasites.
Couching an argument in ridiculously emotive terms that leave no room for the other side to make reasoned arguments makes you feel good, but works against your own goals.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:30:38 PM
But I firmly believe that my right as a human trumps the rights of potential humans.
Ok then.
So that being the hard and fast fact why does the UK deciding the rights of the potential human trumps your at 24 weeks represent something better?
After all in Texas, if you can jump through the stupid hoops, you can get your abortion whenever.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:30:38 PM
But I firmly believe that my right as a human trumps the rights of potential humans.
The kicker is in the definition of "human".
I absolutely reject the idea that there is some magic that happens during the act of childbirth that makes a non-human parasite become human.
The things that I think define humanity do not change in those few moments.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2016, 04:11:56 PM
I agree with some of what she's saying, but earlier in the thread she said there should be "no restrictions" on abortion rights (at least, she called those restrictions appeasements that violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy.) I frankly disagree, and I think many people (a vast majority) agree in America with some level of abortion restrictions. I think there's pretty consistent polling showing we as a society are more comfortable with abortion the earlier on in the pregnancy it occurs, and are more comfortable with it when it's medically necessary for the health of the mother. There are obviously absolutists who oppose it to the point of (literal) death for the woman, and ascribe it as "God's will" that sadly both mother and baby unavoidably had to die. There are obviously old puritan types who view abortion and birth control as bad because it sexually liberates women.
"Many" people may agree with your assertions, but it still all stems from laws curtailing a woman's right to decide for herself what is right for her, and there is a very long history of laws doing just that against women.
QuoteBut I dunno, after week 10-11 or so the fetus has a brain, after week 24-25 the fetus is viable outside the womb. Both of those are developments I view with "moral concern", and killing that human life at that point is a lot different to me than any of the false equivalencies meri spelled out about things like forced blood donations or forced kidney transplants.
How are those "false equivalencies"? And as has been pointed out, less than 1% of abortions are done after the 24th week. This is true even in Canada where there are no laws. Why? Because a woman who's carried a child that far along wants it. It's incredibly rare to not know before 20 weeks that you're pregnant. Laws aren't necessary for something that isn't happening, except as a stepping stone to bring even more laws into play. (Slippery slope argument, to be sure, but it's been shown how that works for for the pro-life crowd by the laws that have been enacted in the last five to ten years. It was their game plan.)
QuoteAt the end of the day I believe, and I think most people believe, women have an ethical responsibility toward their fetus that is materially different than my ethical responsibility to donate a kidney or even blood. Some of that is simply unfair--women have a vastly harder road in reproduction than men, but I didn't design the species. It's regrettable that sometimes basic biology doesn't match some people's ideas of "fairness", but there it is.
Why do you not have an ethical responsibility to save another person's life if you have the opportunity to do so? What if it was required that you gave up a kidney for your child? Or your parent? And why is there an ethical responsibility for a woman toward a fetus? It's not a person. She's not met the thing yet. Hell, it's not uncommon for a mother to have zero affection for their newborns until after the child shows a personality. You're imposing that ethical responsibility on women that they may or may not feel.
QuoteSome of this discussion are people talking past each other. In America at least there's a huge focus on late term abortions, which statistically almost never happen, and are never allowed for "elective" reasons, they're all serious medical problems with the fetus or a risk to the mother's health from carrying to term. The vast majority of abortions in America happen very early in the development of fetal life, before it develops features (like a brain), or viability outside the womb, developments that to me present tough ethical questions that glib responses like yours don't answer, or even begin to answer.
But when you look at the stats, women already take those things into account. They already choose earlier abortions rather than later. Partially because it's easier and less costly, but also because they don't think of it as a "child" yet. And, quite frankly, it's a hell of a lot easier on her body with fewer complications. Women are reasonable about this all on their own. They don't need laws to dictate it.
QuoteI'm not just some man talking like this, my wife is a doctor and mother and while she's pro-choice, she's generally against abortion past 12-13 weeks, which is a common standard in many countries. Many physicians, that intimately understand fetal life, are so uncomfortable with abortion they won't perform it or touch it with a ten foot pole. In large swathes of the country it's a majority opinion among women that abortion should be illegal.
No, you really are just some man talking like this. You have more education and more perspective on it, but you really are just a guy. And for all the talk about how it sucks that women got the shitty end of the biological stick on this, it also means that men will never be in a position to fully understand it.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:30:38 PM
When you start talking about the 20-week rule or the "mother's life is in danger" caveats, you're changing the focus, and the dialog. It becomes about the baby and its rights. Except that it's not a baby, nor does it have rights yet. It is the potential for life, not life.
Well I think thats a completely ridiculous position. That's why a lot of the discussion revolves around late term abortions. These are situations where the baby is likely viable outside of the womb. I don't see how you can argue that such a baby is only "the potential for life".
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:44:07 PM
How are those "false equivalencies"? And as has been pointed out, less than 1% of abortions are done after the 24th week. This is true even in Canada where there are no laws. Why? Because a woman who's carried a child that far along wants it. It's incredibly rare to not know before 20 weeks that you're pregnant. Laws aren't necessary for something that isn't happening, except as a stepping stone to bring even more laws into play. (Slippery slope argument, to be sure, but it's been shown how that works for for the pro-life crowd by the laws that have been enacted in the last five to ten years. It was their game plan.)
I don't really understand the "well there are very few late term abortions". The frequency of an action shouldn't determine whether something is allowed or not. Transgendered people are a incredibly tiny minority of people - so surely it's okay to discriminate against them? Or the number of infanticides that takes place these days is incredibly low - so why do we need a law to prevent people from killing babies after they are born?
It isn't that late term abortions aren't happening. They are. A small number is still not the same as zero.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2016, 04:35:27 PM
No, actually it does NOT just come down to that, and calling a human fetus a "parasite" is exactly the kind of ridiculousness that the radical pro-life crowd latches onto so they can restrict access to abortions from baby killers who think human babies are parasites.
Couching an argument in ridiculously emotive terms that leave no room for the other side to make reasoned arguments makes you feel good, but works against your own goals.
Because I'm tired of it being about the baby. I'm tired of the argument turning away from the mother and her rights. I'm tired of being dismissed for the sake of something that may or may not be worth saving. I know that I'm worth saving. I know that my life is worth something, and I'm damn tired of being told that it only is if...
I've been listening to that crap my whole life, and I'm so damn sick of being dismissed for a clump of cells that could kill me. And that's not hyperbole. I nearly died with Jeremy AND with Riley. There's a reason they took my uterus, and it wasn't because I was tired of it.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2016, 04:37:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:30:38 PM
But I firmly believe that my right as a human trumps the rights of potential humans.
The kicker is in the definition of "human".
I absolutely reject the idea that there is some magic that happens during the act of childbirth that makes a non-human parasite become human.
The things that I think define humanity do not change in those few moments.
On this we agree. I don't believe that a child should be aborted after viability unless it or its mother will die if left in. I don't believe that abortion should be birth control. I don't believe that a clump of parasitic cells aren't important.
But what I believe and what should be law are two entirely different things.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:49:13 PM
I've been listening to that crap my whole life, and I'm so damn sick of being dismissed for a clump of cells that could kill me. And that's not hyperbole. I nearly died with Jeremy AND with Riley. There's a reason they took my uterus, and it wasn't because I was tired of it.
I don't get the connection. You wanted them to be born correct? Did you request an abortion to save your life and you were forced to go through with it?
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 04:45:19 PM
Well I think thats a completely ridiculous position. That's why a lot of the discussion revolves around late term abortions. These are situations where the baby is likely viable outside of the womb. I don't see how you can argue that such a baby is only "the potential for life".
Because they aren't living on their own yet. They are, as yet, not alive. They are still part of the mother, part of her body, and her life. They can still kill her. They are not their own lives yet, but an extension of hers.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 04:48:42 PM
I don't really understand the "well there are very few late term abortions". The frequency of an action shouldn't determine whether something is allowed or not. Transgendered people are a incredibly tiny minority of people - so surely it's okay to discriminate against them? Or the number of infanticides that takes place these days is incredibly low - so why do we need a law to prevent people from killing babies after they are born?
It isn't that late term abortions aren't happening. They are. A small number is still not the same as zero.
My point is that they are so rare as to be not worth making a law about. And they're rare because few doctors will do them and few mothers want them. Not to mention that those 1% that are done have been shown time and again to be almost entirely for the safety and well-being of the mother, or because the child isn't viable.
As for the infanticide argument, that's silly. Killing a person is illegal. There isn't a need for an additional law against killing infants in particular. If there are laws on the books about that, it was in order to add more time to the punishment, not because it's a different crime.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 04:55:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 04:49:13 PM
I've been listening to that crap my whole life, and I'm so damn sick of being dismissed for a clump of cells that could kill me. And that's not hyperbole. I nearly died with Jeremy AND with Riley. There's a reason they took my uterus, and it wasn't because I was tired of it.
I don't get the connection. You wanted them to be born correct? Did you request an abortion to save your life and you were forced to go through with it?
Because you can't think beyond yourself on this. Have I had to do this? No. Do other women? Yes. This fight isn't for me, personally, Valmy. This fight is for all women. In winning the fight of bodily autonomy for women, however, I am breaking down at least one barrier toward women's equality.
And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:01:27 PM
Because you can't think beyond yourself on this. Have I had to do this? No. Do other women? Yes. This fight isn't for me, personally, Valmy. This fight is for all women. In winning the fight of bodily autonomy for women, however, I am breaking down at least one barrier toward women's equality.
I can't? I donate my own money to planned parenthood every month :lol:
How does that benefit me?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.
My point is that it's adding morality and laws to a topic where they shouldn't be. Either a woman has the right to decide for herself how she treats her body or she doesn't. That's the stand that Canada has taken, as I understand it. (I believe that prostitution is also legal there?) To add laws regarding late-term abortions or for the safety of the mother is to change directions in reasoning.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 05:04:55 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:01:27 PM
Because you can't think beyond yourself on this. Have I had to do this? No. Do other women? Yes. This fight isn't for me, personally, Valmy. This fight is for all women. In winning the fight of bodily autonomy for women, however, I am breaking down at least one barrier toward women's equality.
I can't? I donate my own money to planned parenthood every month :lol:
How does that benefit me?
Every time I make a point, you ask me if it directly affects me. You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that I don't have to have this directly affect me for it to still be important to me.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2016, 05:08:38 PM
I don't understand the "it's rare so it should be legal" argument.
:contract:
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.
My point is that it's adding morality and laws to a topic where they shouldn't be. Either a woman has the right to decide for herself how she treats her body or she doesn't. That's the stand that Canada has taken, as I understand it. (I believe that prostitution is also legal there?) To add laws regarding late-term abortions or for the safety of the mother is to change directions in reasoning.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:00:02 PM
As for the infanticide argument, that's silly. Killing a person is illegal. There isn't a need for an additional law against killing infants in particular. If there are laws on the books about that, it was in order to add more time to the punishment, not because it's a different crime.
You're wrong, actually.
Even the lowest form of homicide, manslaughter, can carry a sentence of life imprisonment. Infanticide however carries a maximum sentence of five years. Infanticide, while being it's own separate offence, is actually also a form of defence to a murder/manslaughter charge, given the greatly diminished penalty.
I know you'll just LOVE the reasoning for this: infanticide applies only to a mother killing their own newly born child. The reasoning is that such a woman is not fully recovered from the process of giving birth, and thus her mind is disturbed, and thus her moral culpability is diminished.
:)
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
Every time I make a point, you ask me if it directly affects me.
Wait. No you make a point I don't understand so I ask for clarification. Why would the UKs more restrictive laws be better? Why would you almost dying in a place where you could have gotten an abortion if you wanted one be an example of how you have heard about the rights of the fetus your whole life? Did somebody say something? Were you referring to something else?
QuoteYou seem to be having a difficult time understanding that I don't have to have this directly affect me for it to still be important to me.
You would be wrong. It does not affect me but I feel quite strongly about it.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:09:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2016, 05:08:38 PM
I don't understand the "it's rare so it should be legal" argument.
:contract:
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.
My point is that it's adding morality and laws to a topic where they shouldn't be. Either a woman has the right to decide for herself how she treats her body or she doesn't. That's the stand that Canada has taken, as I understand it. (I believe that prostitution is also legal there?) To add laws regarding late-term abortions or for the safety of the mother is to change directions in reasoning.
Is that an explanation?
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.
My point is that it's adding morality and laws to a topic where they shouldn't be. Either a woman has the right to decide for herself how she treats her body or she doesn't. That's the stand that Canada has taken, as I understand it. (I believe that prostitution is also legal there?) To add laws regarding late-term abortions or for the safety of the mother is to change directions in reasoning.
Well that is a different point entirely.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:00:02 PM
As for the infanticide argument, that's silly. Killing a person is illegal. There isn't a need for an additional law against killing infants in particular. If there are laws on the books about that, it was in order to add more time to the punishment, not because it's a different crime.
You're wrong, actually.
Even the lowest form of homicide, manslaughter, can carry a sentence of life imprisonment. Infanticide however carries a maximum sentence of five years. Infanticide, while being it's own separate offence, is actually also a form of defence to a murder/manslaughter charge, given the greatly diminished penalty.
I know you'll just LOVE the reasoning for this: infanticide applies only to a mother killing their own newly born child. The reasoning is that such a woman is not fully recovered from the process of giving birth, and thus her mind is disturbed, and thus her moral culpability is diminished.
:)
Oh for fucks' sake.... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 05:09:54 PM
Wait. No you make a point I don't understand so I ask for clarification. Why would the UKs more restrictive laws be better? Why would you almost dying in a place where you could have gotten an abortion if you wanted one be an example of how you have heard about the rights of the fetus your whole life? Did somebody say something? Were you referring to something else?
I was explaining how "could kill the mother" isn't hyperbole, using my experiences as an example. I could have pulled stats about how 18 mothers die for every 100,000 deliveries instead. I chose a more personal route. :P
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.
My point is that it's adding morality and laws to a topic where they shouldn't be. Either a woman has the right to decide for herself how she treats her body or she doesn't. That's the stand that Canada has taken, as I understand it. (I believe that prostitution is also legal there?) To add laws regarding late-term abortions or for the safety of the mother is to change directions in reasoning.
Not really. In Canada the SCC struck down the existing abortion law in the 1980s. They didn't make such a wide-sweeping ruling as to say that there was an unfettered right to an abortion, but merely that the laws as written were unconstitutional, and they invited Parliament to write a new one. The government of the day had committee meetings, but they were so divisive they ultimately threw up their hands and never even submitted a bill to parliament. That's the opposite of Canada taking a stand - it's the absence of a stand.
As for prostitution... being a prostitute is legal. Purchasing the services of a prostitute is not. The intent is to go after johns.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:12:09 PM
Oh for fucks' sake.... :rolleyes:
I knew you'd like that one. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 05:22:09 PM
Not really. In Canada the SCC struck down the existing abortion law in the 1980s. They didn't make such a wide-sweeping ruling as to say that there was an unfettered right to an abortion, but merely that the laws as written were unconstitutional, and they invited Parliament to write a new one. The government of the day had committee meetings, but they were so divisive they ultimately threw up their hands and never even submitted a bill to parliament. That's the opposite of Canada taking a stand - it's the absence of a stand.
Why haven't they taken up that banner since then? I mean, that was three decades ago. There have been ample opportunities to bring it up again, and yet they haven't. Why not?
QuoteAs for prostitution... being a prostitute is legal. Purchasing the services of a prostitute is not. The intent is to go after johns.
I get that reasoning, and it's thrown around here in Illinois a lot. But I disagree with it. An adult should be allowed to sell sex, and an adult should be allowed to buy sex. I seriously don't understand the laws on this.
Few things:
1. Not to focus on the pedantic, but a fetus is certainly alive, by every standard definition in biology. I doubt there's a biologist in the world who would say a fetus isn't life. It isn't "viable life outside the womb" until a certain point in fetal development where modern medicine can keep a premature baby alive and get it to healthy life in the NICU. Lots of things cannot live on their own, but they're still life (various bacterias etc.)
2. Most ethicists talking about abortion focus on personhood. Depending on your beliefs, a fetus isn't a person until x time. For devout Catholics this is basically at the moment of conception. For many who take a more scientific view on it, it's some time around viability. The more hardcore pro-choicers (like you apparently) believe a fetus isn't a person until the instant it is fully outside the woman's body. I think the U.S. Supreme Court did a pretty good job in Roe, they said that in the third trimester (the time, in the era of Roe, when babies could be viable outside the womb--it's a little earlier now) since the fetus was viable outside the womb the State had a compelling interest in fetal life to step in and protect it. The Roe court acknowledge the rights of fetal life prior to that point, but held that since the fetus and the woman were inextricably linked prior to the third trimester, the privacy rights of the woman to handle her medical affairs trumped the fetus's rights, but post-viability (and the later Casey ruling shifted us off the trimester system to one of medical viability) this rights weighing, in the minds of the court, comes out differently.
For me, I largely agree with Roe, you largely don't. You either believe personhood starts at birth, or that personhood doesn't "matter" before birth versus the woman's rights. I take a different view.
3. The comparisons to kidney donation and blood transfusions are materially different because those would be requirements I sacrifice something to save the life of a stranger. My argument is a mother has an intrinsic ethical responsibility to her fetus and to her child, once it is born. I fully recognize this is "unfair" in a ton of ways, but I view it as "biology isn't fair" in various ways between men and women, and this is simply one of them.
I'm sympathetic to the desire that the abortion debate be solely about the woman, but I care about women and babies (including the unborn, past a certain point of fetal development), and while I recognize the political reasons you'd like me to just care about the woman, that isn't going to happen. I think it's not going to happen for a lot of people (including most women--your position of no restrictions on abortion at all I bet isn't supported by even 30% of American women--and this isn't just an appeal to numbers, we live in a democracy, numerical support matters.)
Bisquick is so smart. I agree 100% with that last post.
One additional definition of personhood which appeals to me is the beginning of electrical activity in the brain. Can't remember when it is, but it's either at the end of the 1st or the 2nd trimester.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:12:09 PM
Oh for fucks' sake.... :rolleyes:
I knew you'd like that one. :hug:
How old is that law? My understanding is that infanticide and exposure/abandonment used to be absolutely epidemic. I would understand why they would have a special category just for that.
I think we need to be careful about making viability outside the womb the basis for abortion's legality. That is going to be a moving target as medicine improves. Right now a fetus around 23 weeks has a ~10-35% chance of living. At 22 weeks we're getting in the 0-10% territory.
Imagine an era of synthetic incubators that we could start 'saving' babies at say 15 or 20 weeks at the cost of millions of dollars per kid. Are we going to ban abortions after that new viability point in the early to mid second trimester? Or are we going to have rooms upon rooms full of baby incubators in Texas to bring these unwanted (probably heavily Hispanic and black) fetuses to term? Might be a good time to become an extremely-premature NICU specialist. But I doubt Texas wants to add so many expensive, new Democrat voters to the voting rolls.
For me the better answer is more education, IUDs for all (I feel they are the best form of birth control), and availability of the morning after pill OTC. Abortion ideally would be a very rare medical procedure for tragic situations where the fetus has a terrible defect, the pregnancy is a risk to the mother or etc. I'd much prefer that to theoretical large farms of premies in advanced incubators.
Obviously the people who oppose these common sense things for moral reasons, I take issue with.
I think I largely agree with OvB, but I would quibble on some of the details. A few points:
1) I may not be legally required to risk my life to save another person's life, but it's not legal for me to deliberate end another person's life in most cases, either. As someone said upthread, a lot hinges on one's definition of personhood. I'm not really sure exactly where I stand on that issue. My position used to be that since we can't know for sure, we probably should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt. I now feel that while that might be ethically sound, it probably isn't a practical stance.
2) Speaking as a Christian, I have absolutely no problem with people practicing birth control. I know there are some groups that feel otherwise, but in my experience the vast majority of American Protestants would agree with me. Even people who strongly feel that sex should be confined to marriage mostly feel that, given that some people are obviously having sex outside of marriage, it's better if they use birth control than if they don't. Even among American Catholics, my sense is that most of them are OK with birth control, even if the Church itself disagrees. Polls I have seen tend to back that up.
3) That said, why should birth control be free? Pretty much nothing else is, why should birth control be an exception?
4) I also don't have a problem with sex education. OTOH, I think lack of responsibility rather than lack of education is the reason for many if not most unplanned pregnancies. And yes, the lack of responsibility is as much on the man as on the woman. (As an aside, I think I've mentioned this before, but in my high school we had a poster aimed at the male students which said, "If you were the one who got pregnant, wouldn't you use protection then?". All of the guys pretty much mocked the poster, for the obvious reason that the guy isn't the one who gets pregnant.)
5) Men can't just father a child and walk away free and clear. That used to be the case, but not now with deadbeat dad laws. I don't claim to know how effective those laws actually are. I'm sure that they're not 100% effective (has any law ever been 100% effective), and I do know that enforcement varies a lot by state, but I don't know the details.
6) If 75% of abortions are performed on women below the poverty line, that suggests to me that:
a) upon finding out she has an unplanned pregnancy, a well-off woman might well decide to go ahead and have the baby because she can afford to take care of it, whereas a poor woman might wisely conclude that she can't afford a child, 'and that
b) statements that current restrictions on abortion are onerous are overblown if so many poor women are able to obtain them.
7) If the law in Texas says that an aborted fetus must be buried the same as if it were a living child, doesn't that mean that you can't legally bury an aborted fetus there? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that it's not legal to bury a living child, even in Texas. Or a living adult, for that matter. Unless they're a professional escape artist performing a show. :)
Yeah, on that last bit, I know what Meri meant, but I couldn't resist.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2016, 07:53:06 PM
3) That said, why should birth control be free? Pretty much nothing else is, why should birth control be an exception?
Because making it free saves an enormous amount of public money. It is like needle exchanges; yeah, they cost public money, but they save a fuckton more public money. You don't even need the rationale that you want to reduce abortions to justify free birth control.
Quote3) That said, why should birth control be free? Pretty much nothing else is, why should birth control be an exception?
To prevent abortions of course. I mean presuming reducing those is something people would be interested in.
Or what grumbles said.
Right, I think I'm one of the more conservative posters here and am definitely not on the "Free shit for x" train, generally. But stuff like publicly funding sex education, IUDs, that's like a public investment that is guaranteed to pay a huge return, it's almost stupid not to do it, from a fiscal perspective.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2016, 07:52:26 PM
For me the better answer is more education, IUDs for all (I feel they are the best form of birth control), and availability of the morning after pill OTC. Abortion ideally would be a very rare medical procedure for tragic situations where the fetus has a terrible defect, the pregnancy is a risk to the mother or etc. I'd much prefer that to theoretical large farms of premies in advanced incubators.
Obviously the people who oppose these common sense things for moral reasons, I take issue with.
Yep, pretty much. Though I have reservations with IUDs. When they go wrong, admittedly rarely, they go terribly wrong. I'd be all for the matchstick five-year hormonal therapy, though.
When you guys are talking about sex education, are you talking about "BTW, a girl can get pregnant if you don't use protection," or are you talking about convincing kids not to get pregnant?
Because I have a hard time believing there's folks out there that don't know how you make babies, and I don't think you can really convince a couple that doesn't give a damn to cover up.
I think just teaching kids that a) condoms are cheap b) don't be embarrassed to go buy them, helps at least some. Obviously people would prefer not to use condoms, but at least as long as birth control pills are prescription only, it's going to be hard for the sub-18 year olds to get them, at least if they don't have really progressive parents. I wouldn't underestimate just how dumb a lot of people are, Yi, and I do think safe sex education has been shown to at least make a dent in the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
I'm not anything close to a doctor, but I just threw IUD out there as a free solution because they're both long lasting and effective, and I have "minor concerns" about any medication that dramatically alters anyone's hormonal profile (if the person is otherwise healthy.) I'm not convinced that regular BC pills long term hormonal effects haven't been downplayed a little bit, I think for example, the risk of stroke doubles in women who take hormonal BC versus those who do not. Not scare mongering, I think the pill is still very safe "all things considered", and it's doubling the risk of something that is already very low. But that was really just short hand, I'd be fine with government giving away any form of birth control that is medically accepted, and reasonably priced (i.e. not some crazy theoretical magic pill that costs $100,000/dose.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2016, 05:55:53 PM
Few things:
1. Not to focus on the pedantic, but a fetus is certainly alive, by every standard definition in biology. I doubt there's a biologist in the world who would say a fetus isn't life. It isn't "viable life outside the womb" until a certain point in fetal development where modern medicine can keep a premature baby alive and get it to healthy life in the NICU. Lots of things cannot live on their own, but they're still life (various bacterias etc.)
I tried to be specific about this, but maybe I failed. I consider a fetus "life". I do not, however, consider it independent life until it is no longer alive because its mother is alive. Which is different than "viable life outside the womb", because until it is actually outside the womb, it's not an independent life.
Quote2. Most ethicists talking about abortion focus on personhood. Depending on your beliefs, a fetus isn't a person until x time. For devout Catholics this is basically at the moment of conception. For many who take a more scientific view on it, it's some time around viability. The more hardcore pro-choicers (like you apparently) believe a fetus isn't a person until the instant it is fully outside the woman's body. I think the U.S. Supreme Court did a pretty good job in Roe, they said that in the third trimester (the time, in the era of Roe, when babies could be viable outside the womb--it's a little earlier now) since the fetus was viable outside the womb the State had a compelling interest in fetal life to step in and protect it. The Roe court acknowledge the rights of fetal life prior to that point, but held that since the fetus and the woman were inextricably linked prior to the third trimester, the privacy rights of the woman to handle her medical affairs trumped the fetus's rights, but post-viability (and the later Casey ruling shifted us off the trimester system to one of medical viability) this rights weighing, in the minds of the court, comes out differently.
You misunderstand. I actually believe that a fetus is a person the moment that it can survive outside the mother. I don't, however, believe that the fetus has the same rights as the mother until it actually *is* out of the mother.
QuoteFor me, I largely agree with Roe, you largely don't. You either believe personhood starts at birth, or that personhood doesn't "matter" before birth versus the woman's rights. I take a different view.
3. The comparisons to kidney donation and blood transfusions are materially different because those would be requirements I sacrifice something to save the life of a stranger. My argument is a mother has an intrinsic ethical responsibility to her fetus and to her child, once it is born. I fully recognize this is "unfair" in a ton of ways, but I view it as "biology isn't fair" in various ways between men and women, and this is simply one of them.
I'm sympathetic to the desire that the abortion debate be solely about the woman, but I care about women and babies (including the unborn, past a certain point of fetal development), and while I recognize the political reasons you'd like me to just care about the woman, that isn't going to happen. I think it's not going to happen for a lot of people (including most women--your position of no restrictions on abortion at all I bet isn't supported by even 30% of American women--and this isn't just an appeal to numbers, we live in a democracy, numerical support matters.)
I don't think that my view will ever be the majority view in the United States. Nor do I think that it's my job to convince people that I'm right. What I want is for people to consider women to be more important than as simply an incubator. I'll consider that a win right now.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2016, 08:12:20 PM
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2016, 07:53:06 PM
3) That said, why should birth control be free? Pretty much nothing else is, why should birth control be an exception?
Because making it free saves an enormous amount of public money. It is like needle exchanges; yeah, they cost public money, but they save a fuckton more public money. You don't even need the rationale that you want to reduce abortions to justify free birth control.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 01, 2016, 08:25:06 PM
Right, I think I'm one of the more conservative posters here and am definitely not on the "Free shit for x" train, generally. But stuff like publicly funding sex education, IUDs, that's like a public investment that is guaranteed to pay a huge return, it's almost stupid not to do it, from a fiscal perspective.
Yep. Make it free, easy to get, and safe. Educate, educate, and educate. All of these have a proven track record in lowering abortion rates, as well as a number of other issues like STDs, general health, etc. Why
wouldn't you make this free?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2016, 08:54:34 PM
When you guys are talking about sex education, are you talking about "BTW, a girl can get pregnant if you don't use protection," or are you talking about convincing kids not to get pregnant?
Because I have a hard time believing there's folks out there that don't know how you make babies, and I don't think you can really convince a couple that doesn't give a damn to cover up.
Good sex education teaches about a lot more than "insert peg B into hole A". It goes into how to talk about sex with your partner, what do you personally believe is acceptable and what isn't, how do you use a condom, what types of birth control types are there and what are the pros and cons of each, alternative sexual partners (LGBTQ), and that saying no is a valid option. And there are plenty of studies that show that kids who've had good sex ed classes are not only less likely to end up pregnant, but are also less likely to be raped, taken advantage of by someone, or to get STDs.
My kids' church spends an entire year teaching 7th and 8th graders about what it means to be a sexually active person. They go through the emotional, physical, and mental changes that happen, the repercussions, the positive aspects, and basically all of the things that kids that age need to learn but rarely do. It's adult led, but the kids have a lot of leeway to talk about things that they want to bring up, too.
Basically? It's the kinds of conversations that parents should be having with their kids but rarely feel comfortable doing so
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2016, 08:54:34 PM
When you guys are talking about sex education, are you talking about "BTW, a girl can get pregnant if you don't use protection," or are you talking about convincing kids not to get pregnant?
Because I have a hard time believing there's folks out there that don't know how you make babies, and I don't think you can really convince a couple that doesn't give a damn to cover up.
I think proper sex education certainly would cover the issues associated with pregnancy and sex in general (hetero sex as well as homo sex) for both sexes. After all, the proper purpose of sex education isn't just to teach students how to avoid pregnancy, but how to deal with sex throughout their lives.
I think that properly educated individuals will understand that you have to treat sex and sexual relations something like you regard cars or motorcycles: useful in their proper place, but nothing to be treated lightly or taken for granted.
Edit: in other words, what Meri said.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:28:25 PM
Yep. Make it free, easy to get, and safe. Educate, educate, and educate. All of these have a proven track record in lowering abortion rates, as well as a number of other issues like STDs, general health, etc. Why wouldn't you make this free?
Because unplanned pregnancy is the single most consistent means--across all demographics regardless of race, geography, religion--of perpetuating and maintaining poverty.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 01, 2016, 09:45:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:28:25 PM
Yep. Make it free, easy to get, and safe. Educate, educate, and educate. All of these have a proven track record in lowering abortion rates, as well as a number of other issues like STDs, general health, etc. Why wouldn't you make this free?
Because unplanned pregnancy is the single most consistent means--across all demographics regardless of race, geography, religion--of perpetuating and maintaining poverty.
Yeah... *sigh* It does a damn fine job of keeping people in their place, doesn't it?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:12:09 PM
Oh for fucks' sake.... :rolleyes:
I knew you'd like that one. :hug:
How old is that law? My understanding is that infanticide and exposure/abandonment used to be absolutely epidemic. I would understand why they would have a special category just for that.
Criminal law in the UK exists almost entirely in the common law.
In Canada in the late 19th century it was decided that we should write down the criminal law - to codify it if you will. That led to the Criminal Code. I believe the provisions on infanticide remain essentially unchanged since then.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2016, 10:25:37 PM
That led to the Criminal Code. I believe the provisions on infanticide remain essentially unchanged since then.
That's not correct. Infanticide released their album a full two years before they started their side project, Criminal Code.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:50:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 01, 2016, 09:45:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:28:25 PM
Yep. Make it free, easy to get, and safe. Educate, educate, and educate. All of these have a proven track record in lowering abortion rates, as well as a number of other issues like STDs, general health, etc. Why wouldn't you make this free?
Because unplanned pregnancy is the single most consistent means--across all demographics regardless of race, geography, religion--of perpetuating and maintaining poverty.
Yeah... *sigh* It does a damn fine job of keeping people in their place, doesn't it?
Pregnancy was actually invented in the 1920's for the express purpose of suppressing women. Before that, children were just found under leaves of cabbage or delivered via shorebirds.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2016, 10:49:28 PM
Pregnancy was actually invented in the 1920's for the express purpose of suppressing women. Before that, children were just found under leaves of cabbage or delivered via shorebirds.
Don't you have somewhere to be?
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 10:53:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2016, 10:49:28 PM
Pregnancy was actually invented in the 1920's for the express purpose of suppressing women. Before that, children were just found under leaves of cabbage or delivered via shorebirds.
Don't you have somewhere to be?
Not for 11 hours. Do you believe a person's right to their body is absolute?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2016, 10:57:54 PM
Not for 11 hours. Do you believe a person's right to their body is absolute?
I'm sure that there are exceptions, but I do believe that in general, yes, a person's bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 11:02:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2016, 10:57:54 PM
Not for 11 hours. Do you believe a person's right to their body is absolute?
I'm sure that there are exceptions, but I do believe that in general, yes, a person's bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.
What exceptions?
I can't think of any, but I assume that this is a game of "gotcha'" and that you'll tell me something that should be an exception. Easier to just let you do that then try to think of them on my own.
I was thinking that in the old days Hortlund would be here Hortlunding this thread up. It would be about 50 pages by now.
But fortunately we still have Raz!
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 11:21:35 PM
I was thinking that in the old days Hortlund would be here Hortlunding this thread up. It would be about 50 pages by now.
But fortunately we still have Raz!
If Hortlund were here, I would have stepped out well before this point. Raz is essentially harmless.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 11:20:53 PM
I can't think of any, but I assume that this is a game of "gotcha'" and that you'll tell me something that should be an exception. Easier to just let you do that then try to think of them on my own.
Any principle that can easily be easily abused tremendous evil is not a good principle. And I can think of a lot of evil.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2016, 11:37:12 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 11:20:53 PM
I can't think of any, but I assume that this is a game of "gotcha'" and that you'll tell me something that should be an exception. Easier to just let you do that then try to think of them on my own.
Any principle that can easily be easily abused tremendous evil is not a good principle. And I can think of a lot of evil.
Right.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2016, 05:01:58 PM
And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.
My point is that it's adding morality and laws to a topic where they shouldn't be. Either a woman has the right to decide for herself how she treats her body or she doesn't.
That is, frankly, bullshit.
Rights are not absolute. There is a general right that people have a right to do as they please with their bodies of course, but it, like all rights, is limited when that right comes into conflict with the rights of other humans, or even with the reasonable norms of society.
You don't have the right to do anything you like with your body, so this, *again* couching of the terms of the debate in absolutes like "I either have the right to kill my baby up to the instant the umbilical is cut or you are saying women are second class citizens without rights at all" type of argument is counter productive to your own cause.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2016, 06:59:53 PM
Bisquick is so smart. I agree 100% with that last post.
One additional definition of personhood which appeals to me is the beginning of electrical activity in the brain. Can't remember when it is, but it's either at the end of the 1st or the 2nd trimester.
Yep, that pretty well encapsulated my views on abortion as well.
I think the more relevant distinction for fetal protection is when its brain wave patterns become noticeably and distinctly human, when we can determine that this being is having thought patterns that clearly distinguish it from animal level intelligence and awareness, and hence can suffer greater than animal level of harm.
Meri, here is how to make your argument without creating a stereotype for people like Price to hang their idiocy on:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/opinions/trump-hhs-birth-control-filipovic-opinion/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/opinions/trump-hhs-birth-control-filipovic-opinion/index.html)
QuoteThese things -- good health, strong relationships, healthier children, pleasurable experiences -- should be on offer for all women, not just those who can afford to plan their pregnancies. But the future of women's health under President Trump, and HHS Secretary Price, looks grim: Price's plan turns sex for pleasure into a luxury item and puts our health at risk. And it sends women a clear message: That partaking in a full range of human enjoyment and physical experience isn't for us, and that we exist instead to reproduce.
Should we be surprised? Trump's own behavior implies our role as women is to be professional beauties he can ogle and rate onstage, or simply bodies he can grab if he feels like it. Women's sovereignty over our own bodies, let alone our pleasure, has never seemed to matter to Trump, personally, professionally or politically. Price's nomination is just one peek at what Trump's notorious misogyny will look like when it's translated into policy.
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 08:54:31 AM
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.
I think you might be being sarcastic here :hmm:
Meh. She doesn't care. It's clearly she views it only through the lens of women's rights and power. Consequences be damned.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Meh. She doesn't care. It's clearly she views it only through the lens of women's rights and power. Consequences be damned.
How dare she. She really should learn how to moderate her point of view so it will be palatable to...err...well, I can't exactly think why she needs to do that.
Sometimes dialog can only take us so far :P
The funny thing is we all agree on like 99% of the issues. This must be like what those Church Councils were like.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Meh. She doesn't care. It's clearly she views it only through the lens of women's rights and power. Consequences be damned.
How dare she. She really should learn how to moderate her point of view so it will be palatable to...err...well, I can't exactly think why she needs to do that.
Presumably because she wants to actually convince people.
If she wants to just feel offended and worked up over being oppressed, she can go on arguing that a fetus is a parasite, and not agreeing with that is arguing that women have no rights.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:18:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Meh. She doesn't care. It's clearly she views it only through the lens of women's rights and power. Consequences be damned.
How dare she. She really should learn how to moderate her point of view so it will be palatable to...err...well, I can't exactly think why she needs to do that.
Presumably because she wants to actually convince people.
If she wants to just feel offended and worked up over being oppressed, she can go on arguing that a fetus is a parasite, and not agreeing with that is arguing that women have no rights.
But who is she trying to 'convince' Languish? I don't think Meri is a reproductive rights activist or a politician.
Not particularly. As has been noted, 70% or more of Americans believe that abortion should be, in the words of Bill Clinton, safe, legal, and rare. I hold onto that as hope that it will remain safe and legal. The other 30%? There is no convincing them, and it's not really my job to try.
The thing of it is, I've done the moderate, temperate, quietly convincing thing for years, and honestly? I'm tired of it. It did no good, and all it did was make me sick that I had to kindly argue that while yes, I am an incubator, really, who I am as a person might want to come into the picture, too, don't you think? And no, they didn't think so because THINK OF THE CHILDREN. Hell, I was once told that there should be laws about what a woman could do while pregnant, like making it a felony if she smoked, drank, or took Tylenol while she was pregnant. That for nine months, give or take, we should have zero rights to what we do if there is any risk to the child at all. And that conversation was with trusted people whom I love and who love me. Men, of course, who would never have any idea what toll pregnancy already takes on a person.
At the end of the day, it should be no one else's business what I, or any other woman, do with our bodies. It just shouldn't. And I'm done with giving any quarter on it.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:26:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:18:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Meh. She doesn't care. It's clearly she views it only through the lens of women's rights and power. Consequences be damned.
How dare she. She really should learn how to moderate her point of view so it will be palatable to...err...well, I can't exactly think why she needs to do that.
Presumably because she wants to actually convince people.
If she wants to just feel offended and worked up over being oppressed, she can go on arguing that a fetus is a parasite, and not agreeing with that is arguing that women have no rights.
But who is she trying to 'convince' Languish? I don't think Meri is a reproductive rights activist or a politician.
Noe of us are, so presuambly we are debating things on Languish that we find meaningful and relevant to one another.
If we are all just hear to listen to ourselves talk, then fine. But I certainly change my views on things in part based on what people on Languish convince me of, and I presume that some others do as well. To the extent that I find others opinions interesting and even worthy of consideration when it comes to forming my own views, *their* willingness to be convinced enters into that metric as well. I engage in discussion in good faith, and my interest in others point of views is largely dependent on their doing the same.
Meri apparently is telling me that my opinions about her opinions are not interesting to her, since they challenge her views and tone. Shrug. Ok. As I said, noted. I will afford her views with rather less weight in the future, since apparently discussion is not her goal here, she just wants to vent and have people agree with her, like Raz or siege. Which is fine, that is what some people want out of languish, but it isn't what keeps me posting.
Different drummers and all that.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:26:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:18:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Meh. She doesn't care. It's clearly she views it only through the lens of women's rights and power. Consequences be damned.
How dare she. She really should learn how to moderate her point of view so it will be palatable to...err...well, I can't exactly think why she needs to do that.
Presumably because she wants to actually convince people.
If she wants to just feel offended and worked up over being oppressed, she can go on arguing that a fetus is a parasite, and not agreeing with that is arguing that women have no rights.
But who is she trying to 'convince' Languish? I don't think Meri is a reproductive rights activist or a politician.
Noe of us are, so presuambly we are debating things on Languish that we find meaningful and relevant to one another.
If we are all just hear to listen to ourselves talk, then fine. But I certainly change my views on things in part based on what people on Languish convince me of, and I presume that some others do as well. To the extent that I find others opinions interesting and even worthy of consideration when it comes to forming my own views, *their* willingness to be convinced enters into that metric as well. I engage in discussion in good faith, and my interest in others point of views is largely dependent on their doing the same.
Meri apparently is telling me that my opinions about her opinions are not interesting to her, since they challenge her views and tone. Shrug. Ok. As I said, noted. I will afford her views with rather less weight in the future, since apparently discussion is not her goal here, she just wants to vent and have people agree with her, like Raz or siege. Which is fine, that is what some people want out of languish, but it isn't what keeps me posting.
Different drummers and all that.
I think people can post on Languish for different reasons and that's okay. That doesn't make Meri more akin to Siege simply because she doesn't want to join your debating society. ;)
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:35:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:26:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:18:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Meh. She doesn't care. It's clearly she views it only through the lens of women's rights and power. Consequences be damned.
How dare she. She really should learn how to moderate her point of view so it will be palatable to...err...well, I can't exactly think why she needs to do that.
Presumably because she wants to actually convince people.
If she wants to just feel offended and worked up over being oppressed, she can go on arguing that a fetus is a parasite, and not agreeing with that is arguing that women have no rights.
But who is she trying to 'convince' Languish? I don't think Meri is a reproductive rights activist or a politician.
Noe of us are, so presuambly we are debating things on Languish that we find meaningful and relevant to one another.
If we are all just hear to listen to ourselves talk, then fine. But I certainly change my views on things in part based on what people on Languish convince me of, and I presume that some others do as well. To the extent that I find others opinions interesting and even worthy of consideration when it comes to forming my own views, *their* willingness to be convinced enters into that metric as well. I engage in discussion in good faith, and my interest in others point of views is largely dependent on their doing the same.
Meri apparently is telling me that my opinions about her opinions are not interesting to her, since they challenge her views and tone. Shrug. Ok. As I said, noted. I will afford her views with rather less weight in the future, since apparently discussion is not her goal here, she just wants to vent and have people agree with her, like Raz or siege. Which is fine, that is what some people want out of languish, but it isn't what keeps me posting.
Different drummers and all that.
I think people can post on Languish for different reasons and that's okay.
I think that is exactly what I just said...
But I have very little interest in being your dragon for you to play white knight to, and Meri deserves more respect than being cast as your damsel in distress.
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 09:31:44 AM
Men, of course, who would never have any idea what toll pregnancy already takes on a person.
Well maybe someday we grow all of our babies in Fate's vats and nobody will ever be pregnant again. Then this will no longer be an issue.
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 09:31:44 AM
Men, of course, who would never have any idea what toll pregnancy already takes on a person.
Again, a completely ridiculous comment.
men can NEVER have ANY idea? Never? None at all?
We are, because we are men, incapable of simple observation and learning from our senses? We, because we are men, are incapable of empathy with our wives and lovers?
And pregnancy NEVER has ANY effect on men at all? We NEVER have ANY say of any kind in that life?
I thought Meri is demanding that we DO NOT consider women to just be incubators, but apparently being an incubator is the complete and total experience that 100% informs everything that is *possible* to know about pregnancy and it "toll", such that men are and must be completely ignorant of it.
This is all ridiculous of course. It is taking the argument from one absolutely idiotic extreme straight to the other. And again, it just empowers the one extreme to paint everyone not in their extreme to be in the other extreme. This is, right here, a *perfect* example of how positional polarization happens.
You either inhabit MY extreme, or by definition you inhabit the other, because the structure of the debate is setup so that there is no possible middle ground. Because "Men,
of course, who would
never have
any idea...."
I'm still trying to get rid of my pregnancy weight :(
To be fair Meri had some particularly horrendous pregnancies.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:33:50 AM
Meri apparently is telling me that my opinions about her opinions are not interesting to her, since they challenge her views and tone. Shrug. Ok. As I said, noted. I will afford her views with rather less weight in the future, since apparently discussion is not her goal here, she just wants to vent and have people agree with her, like Raz or siege. Which is fine, that is what some people want out of languish, but it isn't what keeps me posting.
Different drummers and all that.
Wow. Okay.
You're not arguing about my points, but rather how I share them. That's not a debate, Berk. You've made it clear that you disagree with my stance and why. I disagree with yours. Okay, fine. Not a big deal. As I stated, I don't expect people to change their mind on this. I presented my opinion, my reasons for my opinion, and listened to yours. That I don't really feel a need to be told that my
style of presentation isn't to your liking. I assure you that there are any number of times where your
style of presentation and debate isn't to my liking, either. But I don't feel a need to condescendingly coach you on how to make yourself more pleasing to me.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2016, 09:57:50 AM
To be fair Meri had some particularly horrendous pregnancies.
So did my wife. Our first child was lucky to live through his first night, we had a mis-carriage (sorry, SHE had a miscarriage I guess), then Julie nearly died giving birth to my son. Like, literally almost died while I was sitting next to her as she bled out and the surgeon went through the roof in the operating room trying to keep her alive.
Of course, I only know this because she told me so, being a man I was incapable of ever understanding any of it. I just sat there with a stupid grin on my face wondering why nobody wanted to light up a cigar right there in the OR... :P
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 09:31:44 AM
Men, of course, who would never have any idea what toll pregnancy already takes on a person.
Again, a completely ridiculous comment.
men can NEVER have ANY idea? Never? None at all?
We are, because we are men, incapable of simple observation and learning from our senses? We, because we are men, are incapable of empathy with our wives and lovers?
And pregnancy NEVER has ANY effect on men at all? We NEVER have ANY say of any kind in that life?
I thought Meri is demanding that we DO NOT consider women to just be incubators, but apparently being an incubator is the complete and total experience that 100% informs everything that is *possible* to know about pregnancy and it "toll", such that men are and must be completely ignorant of it.
This is all ridiculous of course. It is taking the argument from one absolutely idiotic extreme straight to the other. And again, it just empowers the one extreme to paint everyone not in their extreme to be in the other extreme. This is, right here, a *perfect* example of how positional polarization happens.
You either inhabit MY extreme, or by definition you inhabit the other, because the structure of the debate is setup so that there is no possible middle ground. Because "Men, of course, who would never have any idea...."
I'm sorry. Did I do that wrong again? Oh dear me. Let me rephrase that in a more pleasing manner for you.
Nope, sorry, I can't.
No, Berk, you can't. Anymore than I have any idea what it's like to physically be a man. I can presume, I can empathize, I can even take some pretty good guesses having raised three boys, but nope. No idea what it's really like to be a man. Physically, you are alien to me.
And while you may
think you understand, there are a million little things about being pregnant that we just don't share. They just are. We deal with them. So to have two men who've never had to give up so much as a candy bar for a pregnancy tell me that I should pretty much turn my body over to the state while I'm carrying a child, it was a bit rich.
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 10:05:47 AM
No, Berk, you can't. Anymore than I have any idea what it's like to physically be a man.
To be fair to him though non of us are saying anybody should be forced to go through a pregnancy. We are all for early term abortions or birth control. None of us are for forcing somebody to care for a child they erm...incubated...if they do not want to.
I will say you take a wildly anarchistic and libertarian view on this topic that goes farther than I would...but plenty of people have wildly anarchistic and libertarian views.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2016, 09:57:50 AM
To be fair Meri had some particularly horrendous pregnancies.
So did my wife. Our first child was lucky to live through his first night, we had a mis-carriage (sorry, SHE had a miscarriage I guess), then Julie nearly died giving birth to my son. Like, literally almost died while I was sitting next to her as she bled out and the surgeon went through the roof in the operating room trying to keep her alive.
Of course, I only know this because she told me so, being a man I was incapable of ever understanding any of it. I just sat there with a stupid grin on my face wondering why nobody wanted to light up a cigar right there in the OR... :P
I'm sorry, Berk. I didn't know that. And of course you went through all of that with her. There's no question of any of that, and that it hurt you.
But it's not the same as being the one in the situation. You worried for her and your children, but the toll on her was greater. You are a good husband and father, so that miscarriage probably hurt like hell (my ex can't say the same), but do you doubt that it affected her differently? Do you doubt that any of that affected her differently?
That's my point. Not that you don't care or that it doesn't matter to you. Only that you can't fully understand how it affects us. OUR lives are put in danger, not our spouse's. OUR worlds are turned upside down internally and externally. It's not just having to deal with someone else's issues. This isn't watching someone you love suffer. This is suffering. And there is a massive difference and gives a very different perspective on the matter.
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 09:59:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:33:50 AM
Meri apparently is telling me that my opinions about her opinions are not interesting to her, since they challenge her views and tone. Shrug. Ok. As I said, noted. I will afford her views with rather less weight in the future, since apparently discussion is not her goal here, she just wants to vent and have people agree with her, like Raz or siege. Which is fine, that is what some people want out of languish, but it isn't what keeps me posting.
Different drummers and all that.
Wow. Okay.
You're not arguing about my points, but rather how I share them.
I am arguing both - I am saying that some of your points, things like men never having any understanding, or that a fetus is a parasite, are simply not defensible or reasonable, and focusing on such not true and polarizing points damages your entire position.
Quote
That's not a debate, Berk.
Of course it is. Nothing I am saying is not challengeable. You can argue that in fact it is perfectly reasonable to consider a fetus on the verge of birth as nothing more than a parasite, and you HAVE argued that men in fact can have no real opinion on any of this because we can NEVER have ANY understanding of it anyway.
Those are not particularly defensible responses, IMO, but there is nothing about my responses to your positions that make them impossible to attack. Just hard, because your positions that I've objected to are rather ridiculous.
Quote
You've made it clear that you disagree with my stance and why. I disagree with yours. Okay, fine. Not a big deal. As I stated, I don't expect people to change their mind on this. I presented my opinion, my reasons for my opinion, and listened to yours. That I don't really feel a need to be told that my style of presentation isn't to your liking. I assure you that there are any number of times where your style of presentation and debate isn't to my liking, either. But I don't feel a need to condescendingly coach you on how to make yourself more pleasing to me.
If you feel I am saying things that are both not accurate, and damaging to my own argument, then I more than invite you to tell me so, and convince me that my approach is counter productive.
And I expect, that in a given discussion, if I engage only with those who agree with me, while giving condescending sarcastic remarks to those that do not, then I won't be surprised if people conclude that I am not much interested in actual discussion, but just want to vent and be validated. Which, as I said, is fine. That is what some people want out of a place like Languish.
In either case, I won't get all faux offended at being "condescended" to. That dog won't hunt, I don't treat you any differently than I treat anyone else on Languish.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2016, 09:11:22 PMI tried to be specific about this, but maybe I failed. I consider a fetus "life". I do not, however, consider it independent life until it is no longer alive because its mother is alive. Which is different than "viable life outside the womb", because until it is actually outside the womb, it's not an independent life.
I think we at least agree with the biology, if not the broader terminology. I'd argue an infant isn't "independent life" either, most species infants will certainly die if abandoned, for example.
QuoteYou misunderstand. I actually believe that a fetus is a person the moment that it can survive outside the mother. I don't, however, believe that the fetus has the same rights as the mother until it actually *is* out of the mother.
Alright, I didn't correctly state your view--but that's largely because you had indicated in plain wording that restrictions on abortion are just an "appeasement" and went on to say they violate women's rights. But if you're saying a woman should be able to abort a fetus a week before the due date "because she feels like it" (not for medical situations), then I'd argue you're not acknowledging the fetus has any rights. If you are against that sort of abortion, then you're in agreement with abortion restrictions which you had previously said you disagreed with.
FWIW, I don't think the fetus has the same rights as the mother even when it's born. Not for a good 18, heck even 21 years.
QuoteI don't think that my view will ever be the majority view in the United States. Nor do I think that it's my job to convince people that I'm right. What I want is for people to consider women to be more important than as simply an incubator. I'll consider that a win right now.
I certainly agree it isn't your job to convince anyone of anything, if you don't choose to do so. But I think you're basically poisoning the well by assuming the mainstream position on abortion just views women as incubators. You're presuming a hell of a lot about a lot of people with that attitude, with little basis upon which to rest that presumption.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:42:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:35:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:26:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:18:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Meh. She doesn't care. It's clearly she views it only through the lens of women's rights and power. Consequences be damned.
How dare she. She really should learn how to moderate her point of view so it will be palatable to...err...well, I can't exactly think why she needs to do that.
Presumably because she wants to actually convince people.
If she wants to just feel offended and worked up over being oppressed, she can go on arguing that a fetus is a parasite, and not agreeing with that is arguing that women have no rights.
But who is she trying to 'convince' Languish? I don't think Meri is a reproductive rights activist or a politician.
Noe of us are, so presuambly we are debating things on Languish that we find meaningful and relevant to one another.
If we are all just hear to listen to ourselves talk, then fine. But I certainly change my views on things in part based on what people on Languish convince me of, and I presume that some others do as well. To the extent that I find others opinions interesting and even worthy of consideration when it comes to forming my own views, *their* willingness to be convinced enters into that metric as well. I engage in discussion in good faith, and my interest in others point of views is largely dependent on their doing the same.
Meri apparently is telling me that my opinions about her opinions are not interesting to her, since they challenge her views and tone. Shrug. Ok. As I said, noted. I will afford her views with rather less weight in the future, since apparently discussion is not her goal here, she just wants to vent and have people agree with her, like Raz or siege. Which is fine, that is what some people want out of languish, but it isn't what keeps me posting.
Different drummers and all that.
I think people can post on Languish for different reasons and that's okay.
I think that is exactly what I just said...
But I have very little interest in being your dragon for you to play white knight to, and Meri deserves more respect than being cast as your damsel in distress.
Sure, you said it in a dismissive tone but okay same thing.
Also, puhleeze. I'm a black knight if anything. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2016, 10:10:07 AM
To be fair to him though non of us are saying anybody should be forced to go through a pregnancy. We are all for early term abortions or birth control. None of us are for forcing somebody to care for a child they erm...incubated...if they do not want to.
I will say you take a wildly anarchistic and libertarian view on this topic that goes farther than I would...but plenty of people have wildly anarchistic and libertarian views.
I don't think anyone in this thread has said that abortion should be illegal. I wasn't arguing that abortion should be legal, really, either. I think the general consensus is that it should be.
How it should be is an area of contention far more so than whether it should be.
My argument is one of treatment of women in the whole process. It's an argument that I'm not going to win. Definitely not here, and probably not many places. And yes, it's definitely a libertarian view on the subject. I have many libertarian views on things, in particular when it comes to personal rights. But at least the conversation was had. At least the perspective was presented - however unpleasingly done. It's not often that anyone even addresses the idea much less debates it, so I'll consider that a win.
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 10:18:37 AM
My argument is one of treatment of women in the whole process. It's an argument that I'm not going to win.
Is it? They have the majority vote. They have the power to completely decide this issue (and, frankly, every issue) regardless of what we think about it.
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 10:11:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2016, 09:57:50 AM
To be fair Meri had some particularly horrendous pregnancies.
So did my wife. Our first child was lucky to live through his first night, we had a mis-carriage (sorry, SHE had a miscarriage I guess), then Julie nearly died giving birth to my son. Like, literally almost died while I was sitting next to her as she bled out and the surgeon went through the roof in the operating room trying to keep her alive.
Of course, I only know this because she told me so, being a man I was incapable of ever understanding any of it. I just sat there with a stupid grin on my face wondering why nobody wanted to light up a cigar right there in the OR... :P
I'm sorry, Berk. I didn't know that. And of course you went through all of that with her. There's no question of any of that, and that it hurt you.
But it's not the same as being the one in the situation. You worried for her and your children, but the toll on her was greater. You are a good husband and father, so that miscarriage probably hurt like hell (my ex can't say the same), but do you doubt that it affected her differently? Do you doubt that any of that affected her differently?
That's my point. Not that you don't care or that it doesn't matter to you. Only that you can't fully understand how it affects us. OUR lives are put in danger, not our spouse's. OUR worlds are turned upside down internally and externally. It's not just having to deal with someone else's issues. This isn't watching someone you love suffer. This is suffering. And there is a massive difference and gives a very different perspective on the matter.
Different isn't the question though.
I am not arguing against your claim that it is different. It is of course different. Nor can I even pretend to completely understand he pain. Having a life inside you has to be a profoundly defining experience.
I am arguing against your claim that "Men, of course, who would never have any idea what toll pregnancy already takes on a person."
That is not a claim that they cannot fully understand, it is a claim that they HAVE NO IDEA.
Which comes to the crux of our entire disagreement throughout this thread. On the basics, we completely agree.
What I object to, and my objections is not an attempt to condescend, is the argument, which I see as an argument fundamentally for MY SIDE, is actually harmful to our shared position. It is like being in favor of equal rights for blacks, and having someone stand up and say that a good way of addressing the imbalance of power might be to shoot some white cops, and see how they like it...
Now, I may not be able to fully understand what it means to be black in America, but i am quite capable of understanding how radicalizing positions actually results in harm to a cause. I don't mean this theoretically either - this is something that is actually happening, and has happened, and will continue to happen within the debate about abortion and women's reproductive rights in America.
We are both proxies for a larger ongoing fight.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 02, 2016, 10:14:00 AM
I think we at least agree with the biology, if not the broader terminology. I'd argue an infant isn't "independent life" either, most species infants will certainly die if abandoned, for example.
No, it's rather specific. If the mother dies, the child dies if it's still inside her. If it's out, others can take on the task of caring for it.
QuoteAlright, I didn't correctly state your view--but that's largely because you had indicated in plain wording that restrictions on abortion are just an "appeasement" and went on to say they violate women's rights. But if you're saying a woman should be able to abort a fetus a week before the due date "because she feels like it" (not for medical situations), then I'd argue you're not acknowledging the fetus has any rights. If you are against that sort of abortion, then you're in agreement with abortion restrictions which you had previously said you disagreed with.
There are two things at play here. What I believe to be true, and what I believe should be legislated.
I do have serious issues with a woman having an abortion "just because" once the fetus is viable. I think that's morally reprehensible and outside my ken. I honestly struggle with the idea that a woman would have an abortion past 18 weeks, as I feel that it is too close to - using your terms - personhood for my liking.
At the same time, I believe that a fetus should not have any rights until it is an independent life. As such, there should be no laws that prevent the above from happening.
Quote
I certainly agree it isn't your job to convince anyone of anything, if you don't choose to do so. But I think you're basically poisoning the well by assuming the mainstream position on abortion just views women as incubators. You're presuming a hell of a lot about a lot of people with that attitude, with little basis upon which to rest that presumption.
Fair enough. It's been my experience that anti-Choice people care primarily about controlling the woman than caring for the child, but I live in a fairly conservative section of the country. I concede that my perspective might be skewed. But to claim that few feel that way is also underselling them. I assure you that there are a large swatch of the population who do care more about punishing the woman for having had sex than for caring for the child.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2016, 10:22:49 AM
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 10:18:37 AM
My argument is one of treatment of women in the whole process. It's an argument that I'm not going to win.
Is it? They have the majority vote. They have the power to completely decide this issue (and, frankly, every issue) regardless of what we think about it.
Women do not vote as a block. That was just proven with this election. In fact, women tend to be their own worst enemies when it comes to things like this.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 10:23:17 AM
Different isn't the question though.
I am not arguing against your claim that it is different. It is of course different. Nor can I even pretend to completely understand he pain. Having a life inside you has to be a profoundly defining experience.
I am arguing against your claim that "Men, of course, who would never have any idea what toll pregnancy already takes on a person."
That is not a claim that they cannot fully understand, it is a claim that they HAVE NO IDEA.
Which comes to the crux of our entire disagreement throughout this thread. On the basics, we completely agree.
What I object to, and my objections is not an attempt to condescend, is the argument, which I see as an argument fundamentally for MY SIDE, is actually harmful to our shared position. It is like being in favor of equal rights for blacks, and having someone stand up and say that a good way of addressing the imbalance of power might be to shoot some white cops, and see how they like it...
Now, I may not be able to fully understand what it means to be black in America, but i am quite capable of understanding how radicalizing positions actually results in harm to a cause. I don't mean this theoretically either - this is something that is actually happening, and has happened, and will continue to happen within the debate about abortion and women's reproductive rights in America.
We are both proxies for a larger ongoing fight.
That's fair. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? :P
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 10:32:26 AM
Women do not vote as a block. That was just proven with this election. In fact, women tend to be their own worst enemies when it comes to things like this.
To be fair most voting demographics are.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:14:56 AM
Noted.
On this topic, I have found Meri as resistant to logic as Raz is to most things. Engaging fanatics on the topic of fanaticism is a waste of lifespan.
Back to the issue at hand, as a matter of policy/law, I find it weird that Ireland doesn't allow abortion save for rare cases (and many physicians apparently refuse to perform them even in those scenarios), and yet the government in its courts can be held liable for transporting a person overseas to do something illegal under domestic law?
That'd be like me suing to get the government to pay for my sex tourism in some Southeast Asian country where the age of consent is 12, or something.
Or was this case specifically one in which, under Irish law, the abortion should've been performed, and just wasn't? That would at least make sense from a government liability perspective.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 02, 2016, 11:06:17 AM
Back to the issue at hand, as a matter of policy/law, I find it weird that Ireland doesn't allow abortion save for rare cases (and many physicians apparently refuse to perform them even in those scenarios), and yet the government in its courts can be held liable for transporting a person overseas to do something illegal under domestic law?
That'd be like me suing to get the government to pay for my sex tourism in some Southeast Asian country where the age of consent is 12, or something.
Or was this case specifically one in which, under Irish law, the abortion should've been performed, and just wasn't? That would at least make sense from a government liability perspective.
Yeah I was astonished by that as well.
It appears to have come down as an edict from the UN Human Rights Committee, rather than through the Irish courts. The Irish courts paid the bill because the UNHR committee told them they had to.
I really don't want to hear all this whining about not knowing what it's like to be pregnant when women have no earthly idea what it's like to deal with a raging 40 minute boner in 10th grade Geometry class. Now that is discomfort.
At least preggers can stretch out, try dealing with that shit in new Toughskins. :mad:
Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2016, 11:16:55 AM
It appears to have come down as an edict from the UN Human Rights Committee, rather than through the Irish courts. The Irish courts paid the bill because the UNHR committee told them they had to.
Ah ok. That makes more sense.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2016, 11:32:32 AM
I really don't want to hear all this whining about not knowing what it's like to be pregnant when women have no earthly idea what it's like to deal with a raging 40 minute boner in 10th grade Geometry class. Now that is discomfort.
At least preggers can stretch out, try dealing with that shit in new Toughskins. :mad:
You wore Toughskins in high school??
Quote from: derspiess on December 02, 2016, 11:35:51 AM
You wore Toughskins in high school??
Not everybody had 7 pairs of Levis :mad:
Unlike your entitled lily white cracker as, we were plain people, poor people, proud people; salt of the earth.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2016, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Meh. She doesn't care. It's clearly she views it only through the lens of women's rights and power. Consequences be damned.
How dare she. She really should learn how to moderate her point of view so it will be palatable to...err...well, I can't exactly think why she needs to do that.
not convincing just consistent
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2016, 11:44:07 AM
we were plain people, poor people, proud people; salt of the earth.
You know...morons.
Yeah, women have no idea what it's like to go through male puberty, and all the chafing that comes from jerking off 5 times a day for 2 years.
Two years?
Quote from: grumbler on December 02, 2016, 10:48:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2016, 09:14:56 AM
Noted.
On this topic, I have found Meri as resistant to logic as Raz is to most things. Engaging fanatics on the topic of fanaticism is a waste of lifespan.
I don't even need to post!
Well you walked into that one Raz :P
abortion laws seem to have reached a point of decent compromise given how much of the country oppose them.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 02, 2016, 03:45:49 PM
abortion laws seem to have reached a point of decent compromise given how much of the country oppose them.
I am not sure what this means. A compromise would mean that something has been settled and agreed upon, at least temporarily. We may just happen to be in a place in the struggle where you feel things are in a good place but things are not staying here.
it's a national compromise created by SCOTUS--a fundamental right that's restricted. not everyone is satisfied with that compromise, but that can happen with compromises.
I don't see how SCOTUS could do away with a fundamental right. It's never (iirc) happened before, and there's not much legal justification for it.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 02, 2016, 04:00:05 PM
it's a national compromise created by SCOTUS--a fundamental right that's restricted. not everyone is satisfied with that compromise, but that can happen with compromises.
Exactly what kind of restrictions are permissible hasn't been settled at all.
QuoteI don't see how SCOTUS could do away with a fundamental right. It's never (iirc) happened before, and there's not much legal justification for it.
They didn't actually say that there is a fundamental right to abortion, exactly.
Quote from: dps on December 02, 2016, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 02, 2016, 04:00:05 PM
it's a national compromise created by SCOTUS--a fundamental right that's restricted. not everyone is satisfied with that compromise, but that can happen with compromises.
Exactly what kind of restrictions are permissible hasn't been settled at all.
QuoteI don't see how SCOTUS could do away with a fundamental right. It's never (iirc) happened before, and there's not much legal justification for it.
They didn't actually say that there is a fundamental right to abortion, exactly.
The last point is the key one. The "right to abortion" isn't really a right to abortion, it is a right to privacy in making medical decisions where there is no compelling state interest. There are all kinds of restrictions on the right to privacy.