It’s inauguration day, and in a fine old American tradition, every event must be associated with a commercial tie-in. Krispy Kreme dougnuts is offering a free choice of a doughnut in honor of the change in presidents.
Did you hear that? Free choice of a doughnut?
Get it? Choice?
Yeah, I know, most of you aren’t obsessive lunatics, so it’s not obvious. You need to see the press release sent out by the American Life League.
The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that ‘choice’ is synonymous with abortion access, and celebration of ‘freedom of choice’ is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.
Buying a doughnut is now interpreted as endorsing abortion. This is insane.
Unfortunately, another fine American tradition is the compounding of the insanity. Krispy Kreme caved and rewrote their advertising copy to carefully spell out at the end that “the Inauguration Day promotion is not about any social or political issue.”
I’m sorry, world. Some Americans are flaming morons, and the rest of us fall ass-over-ankles to cater to them.
that’s right up there with Malkin’s freakout over a paisley scarf in a Dunkindonuts ad.
what’s up with the rightwing hatred for donuts?
Is this for real? Krispy Kreme could not advertise freedom of choice of a doughnut without offending the pro-lifers? Unnnn-believable.
I saw that earlier. It’s hard to believe they were for real. So, any use of the word “choice” MUST be a reference to abortion?! I guess that means any use of the word “life” must be a reference to anti-abortionists.
[W]hat’s up with the rightwing hatred for donuts?
Donuts are smarter than wingnuts. Donut holes, in fact, are smarter than wingnuts. And one of the many things wingnuts hate is anything smarter than them.
This is a good thing. The wackier they get, the more they marginalize themselves.
One would hope.
You know, by contrast Australia feels a lot safer than the US. We may have all sorts of deadly creatures, but at least we don’t have a large evangelical movement.
Stuff like this makes my brain hurt. I’m boycotting Krispy Kremes for being stupid.
(I’ve not bought krispy kreme donuts ever. If I did happen to see one and the fresh donut sign was on, I wouild probably announce an end to my boycott and declare it a success as I walked in the door.)
I think ‘some’ may be an understatement.
Jeez, wasn’t Pepsi the “choice” of a new generation? I didn’t see the fundies getting their knickers all twisted then.
Personally I think its not really about the word “choice”, they’ve just got it on for doughnuts and I am disgusted by discrimination against any foodstuffs. .. Pastryists.
Last I heard, you guys don’t have a proper R-18 for video games either, meaning the region often gets the neutered version of titles like GTA4, Dead Space, and Fallout 3. Courtesy of MP Michael Atkins
I responded with this: “Fortunately, for all of us who love those hot, sugary, glazed Krispy Kreme donuts that are particularly yummy when they are warm…”
Please spare us your pro-carbohydrate propaganda, leading to obesity, diabetes, and death. Are you really pro-life, or just pro-natalist?
GTA4 wasn’t censored on PC (w00t for PC gaming!), Dead Space was released as is and Fallout 3 was censored all around the globe because of that bastard! The Fallout 3 issue was quite absurd, they didn’t object to the violence or all the other fucked-up shit in the game, they just objected to the word morphine. The laws here are very inconsistent.
It’s an odd situation, for any law on media regulation to change, all states and territories must agree to the changes. All current attorney generals apart from Michael Atkinson agree, so South Australia is holding us back. Now it could be that South Australia can impose further restrictions, but the parliament as it stands would not vote for that. So Atkinson is doing whatever is in his power to stop any law from passing. It’s really quite childish of him, but what can we do? I’m not a South Australian and this guy likes playing up his moral crusade.
The Fallout 3 issue was quite absurd, they didn’t object to the violence or all the other fucked-up shit in the game, they just objected to the word morphine.
The word morphine? Seriously?
“.. so South Australia is holding us back.”
hee,hee
Damn, America.
Can’t you go one year without doughnut-related alarmism? Rachel Ray is spinning in her scarf right now.
So if I understand this right, those “school choice” vouchers right-wingers are so fond of are in fact abortion coupons then? I never knew.
Now imagine if you replaced doughnut with abortion in a conversation:
clerk: Would you like a free abortion?
lady: I don’t know, are they healthy?
clerk: Sure, with a balanced these new abortions can actually help you live a happier, longer life.
lady: I’ll buy 7.
Clerk: for here or to go?
lady: I think I’ll try out a couple here, and save the rest for when I get hungry.
—
yum.
First it was Dunkin Donuts and then it was Krispy Kreme. Donuts.
Guess who likes donuts?
Cops.
Why do the right wingnuts hate cops? I thought they supported law and order?
It sounds absurd, and I can assure you that it is absurd. Drug use is okay as long as it’s in a sci-fi setting (like Bioshock) or without reference to what drug it is (like in Farcry 2) but you can’t do both. I suppose it could be worse though, you could take a game from mature and put it to Adults Only because of a mod that allows you to see pixelated sex. The Hot Coffee mod controversy was a fucking joke, made Australian law seem normal.
no! no choice! no choice in any field whatsoever, abortion-related or no. i hereby adopt a stance of anti-choice in any conceivable situation, especially in situations related to doughnuts.
Aren’t most cops leaning towards the right in the first place?
I had a doughnut a few days ago and I think I may have aborted it this morning. That pretty much sums up my take on this whole thing.
Now excuse me while I go engage in casual drug use and shoot up some sweet, pixelated.
I always wondered about the Simpsons, you know. The way Homer keeps sayin’ dough all the time. And mmmmm doughnuts, drool. And the way some doughnuts have a filling and some have a hole through the middle… these conspiracy theorists might be on to something.
[A]t least [Australia doesn’t] have a large evangelical movement.
You keep exporting ’em to the USA. E.g., Ken “Dinosaur Wrangler” Ham.
Despite these efforts, it doesn’t seem to raise the general level of intelligence in Australia any. On the other hand, it just may do so in the USA.
blf, LOL
Is there a point at which — and realise this is, IMO, a rhetorical question — one of these companies just says “Hey, those guys are just laughable and so let’s all laugh at them while we’re eating our FREE DOUGHNUTS!”
That’s change we could respect. However, I’m not sure there is any point at which this would ever happen, at least not in my lifetime. Course, 20-30 years ago I would’ve said that about the possibility of a black POTUS, so who knows?
One thing I did like about Obama’s style when he was campaigning was how he usually just laughed off the wingnut propaganda coming out of the press’ mouths, and how effective he was at doing that. It’s something we need to see more of. Catering to idiots should be left to professional caterers.
Mmm…tastes like dead babies!
I guess they must oppose voting too.
OK, this is OT, but since this thread is about silliness, can you guys check out this video and let me know what you think? (I promise you that video is highly entertaining.) A doctor friend of mine says it’s fake, but I don’t think so.
Besides not appearing fake at all, I think it’d be harder to fake it than to do it for real. Also, my friend seems to find pleasure in just disagreeing with me, but that’s a psychological thing that goes way back, probably somewhat my fault. I don’t think he does it consciously. Anyway, he says the electrical pads aren’t in the right places to provoke those reflexes.
I reckon they felt put to shame by that Al Qaeda ban on women buying cucumbers and other phallic veg in parts of Iraq.
The Fundnuts are upping their game.
It’s the combination of the word choice and a pastry with a hole. It’s much too suggestive.
Sometimes the ambulance drivers are nice and bring us a box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts into work(well,with a Patient,of course).
Is that American Crap League tax-exempt btw?
Guess they had nothing else to do,the whole thing is totally ludicruos.
Jadehawk @ 1:
Maybe it’s because doughnuts kinda, sorta look like delicious, sugar-coated arseholes. And well, eating an arsehole would be teh gay.
*sigh* blockquote fail. again
My very first job was at a Dawn Donuts and I’m willing to bet that I could make a raspberry jelly filled donut with a tiny marzipan fetus inside. The injector nozzle would probably have to be modified slightly… Serve with a tiny novelty coat hanger and maybe a REAL donut related controversy could erupt.
Should I say it? Probably not…Never mind…Im going now….
As we don’t have Krispy Kreme in the UK, this morning I CHOSE four dark chocolate digestive biscuits to go with my morning coffee.
Does this make me a bad person?
One thing’s for sure – stay away from chocolate and mocha filling.
I’m buying my celebratory doughnuts today from Gregg’s, then.
These are the same people that thought Rachel Ray was promoting jihadist principles because she was wearing a scarf.
I can’t believe we’re taking these morons seriously.
I suggest everyone uses this page:
http://www.krispykreme.com/contact.asp
to complain about Krispy Kreme’s cowardly kowtowing to this demand.
Remind them that normal, rational people don’t like buying products from cowardly corporations who will sell free speech and rationality down the river in the name of keeping loopy political extemists happy.
jon.
“Now no one would deny that in every age and in every society there are features of which we should be ashamed, but can we honestly say that the system built up on private enterprise and freedom of choice has not produced an immense change for the (sic) bettering the lot of all our people?” Margaret Thatcher, Morals of the State speech 1978. (my emphasis).
These American right wingnuts need to learn their history. The best fiend of their patron saint Reagan obviously thought
the doughnutabortion, was the foundation of capitalism and the moral rock of the State.#37 There is certainly a KrispyKreme in Bromley, which Borough, as everyone knows, includes the house of the late Mr Darwin. A coincidence? I think we know better.
Oh, I’ll abort it…with my mouth.
Yeah, I got nothin’…
“I’m sorry, world. Some Americans are flaming morons…”
Well PZ, you are certainly NOT alone there…
Doh! Nuts. What can you do?
Heinz 57 Varieties is an obvious endorsement of nefarious multiculturalism and unlimited immigration.
Save the aborted donut holes!
Don’t eat them, save them!
Too bad Krispy Creme caved and stuck its corporate head up its gaping donut hole.
So… Academic Freedom of Choice could be interpreted as support for abortion?
Has anyone told the DI?
Gif
If they keep this up you won’t be able to speak a sentence without referring to at least 5 things they take offense at, just like it was nearly impossible to speak a sentence in victorian England without mentioning several euphemisms for female genitalia.
Shall we make an uproar over the word “drink” next for it’s association with alcohol abuse?
Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want
— Devo
Oh, I don’t know; the anti-choice wingnuts aren’t really very far off the mark. As a good secular liberal I have two or three abortions a week (with a record of six back in July 2003). And the clinic always sets out a platter of Krispy Kremes for us in the waiting room.
These are Islamic gay abortions I’m getting, of course, so as you can well imagine, there was a bit of a kerfuffle a few months back when somebody claimed that Krispy Kreme fries in lard! That story proved to be unfounded, thank Allah, and we all had a good laugh as Krispy Kreme’s CEO beheaded the Republican Christian who started the rumor. The director of the clinic videotaped it all for YouTube and, as you’d expect from an Islamic gay abortionist, the production values were fabulous (and Sharia-compliant!).
So the American Life League is clearly on to something. We really shouldn’t mock them. We might disagree with their views, but surely they deserve our respect.
Mrs. T for the win, LOL.
You guys probably have them in the States too but we in Oz have drive-through Krispy Kreme. I don’t think we have drive-through abortions yet.
Insanity and bizarre obsessiveness makes them see the bogeyman everywhere. I wish I lived in a world where that kind of stuff was over the top parody… but no.
Oh well, at least you elected Obama. Sure if he had been the leader of my country it would be several steps backwards, but for you, a step or two forward. Now make sure you keep doing that.
“As we don’t have Krispy Kreme in the UK”
There’s at least one (in Stansted airport) /procrasinatory pedantry
There are quite a few UK Krispy Kremes, mostly in the south-east. I find they don’t have quite the same addictive quality as they do in the US, though – maybe the recipe’s slightly different or they use the wrong kind of pureed babies.
Oh, come on.
I’m beginning to think the entire USA is just a great big practical joke being played on the rest of the world.
Well, you can stop it now. It’s really not funny anymore. It went past the laugh-and-carry-on stage a long time ago. Alright?
Oh, and they also charge £1.40 per doughnut. !!!
http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog_response.php?id=2458
there seems to be a rationale behind it… and you can send judie your praise at the bottom of the page.
maybe the pro-life people could stop using the term ‘pro-life’. that’s pretty insulting too.
I agree that this objection by the American Life League is ridiculous, and reading far too much into an advertising slogan.
However, the fact that a certain activity is opposed, inter alia, by a bunch of lunatics does not make that activity morally right. I’m sure fundie Christians are opposed to burglary, for instance, or the wanton torture of small animals. But that doesn’t mean that enlightened liberal people are obliged to support burglary or the wanton torture of small animals, simply because religious fundamentalists are opposed to these things.
I am a libertarian and am no longer particularly religious, and my objection to abortion is nothing to do with dogma about the soul or the absolute sanctity of life. Rather, for me, the question turns on this: at which point in a pregnancy does the foetus become a human being? How do we define “human being”? I’m perfectly comfortable conceding that a blastocyst is not a human being – it’s just a bundle of cells – and therefore have no objection to, for instance, the morning-after pill. But at a later stage in the pregnancy, I don’t see how, with any moral and intellectual coherence, one can claim that the foetus is “not a human being”. Yes, a non-viable foetus can’t survive independently; but neither can a premature newborn, say, or a severely disabled person. Are those people any less “human” because they rely on others for survival?
I can understand the argument that, because a pregnancy can be very damaging to a woman’s body, she has the right to abort an unwanted foetus so as to protect herself and her own bodily integrity.
But consider an analogy – the famous case of the conjoined twins, Jodie and Mary. They were born with their bodies conjoined. According to the medical evidence, Mary’s organs were severely underdeveloped and she was unlikely to survive infancy. Jodie, on the other hand, had a chance to survive – but only if the twins were separated, which would kill Mary instantly. It was decided that it was morally acceptable to kill Mary – given that she was going to die soon anyway – to save Jodie’s life.
And I agree with that decision. But, consider an alternative. Let’s imagine, for the sake of argument (though I’m not sure whether it’s medically possible), that the conjoined twins had remained conjoined and had, somehow, both survived into later life. Let’s say that Jodie, the healthier twin, got fed up with the inconvenience and health problems caused by her conjunction to her twin, and called for Mary to be separated from her – which would improve Jodie’s quality of life, but would kill Mary. Would that be justified? Would the state be justified in allowing Jodie to do that?
What I’m asking, therefore, is this: where one human being (A), through no fault of his own, is physically dependent on another person’s (B) body, is it justified – as a general rule – for B to have A physically separated from him, therefore killing A? I would answer that, unless A’s own life is at stake, the answer has to be No.
Not surprising. Krispy Kreme is based in the South, after all.
And I would guess that the choice itself was free, but the donut still costs 59 cents. Except now that I’m not free to choose my own donut are they just going to .. wait, are donuts even mentioned in scripture? head hurting… And is there an army of free-gans out there waiting to adopt the donuts that don’t get chosen? Do they carry signs and harass donut choosers from a distance 50 yards outside the donut clinic? what? And are there people who assiduously avoid the words choice and choose in their daily lives because they fear it’s some kind of evil devil code? Is it april fools day already?
And I thought yesterday was supposed to be the most depressing day of the year.
What is it with the southern states and alliterative names spelt with a ‘k’ anyway? And why do they have such a distaste for the letter ‘c’?
… and every time I tell my wife I “Love” her, I’m endorsing Christianity because “god is love”.
Fecking Idgiots!
@ #61 walton
good points.
the question whether abortion should be allowed is worthy of discussion. but it should be discussed in terms understandable for everyone. so leave your religious books at home.
euthanasia (of which abortion is a special case imo), comes in 2 flavors: either the person can express their will to die, or s/he can’t. the latter happens with abortion and for instance people in a long coma. in that case experts will have to assess on a case-by-case basis what should be done.
the added question with abortion though, is whether you can speak of life at all in the early fetus. i believe the medical consensus is that life roughly starts 13 weeks after conception, but i might be wrong.
i think that we need to get a firm grasp about what it means to be conscious before we can understand what it means to be alive. until then we have to make educated guesses, with the chance that the future might prove us wrong.
i doubt atheists are generally pro-abortion because fundies are anti-abortion. personally, i haven’t made my mind up yet.
Re michel at #66: I wouldn’t call abortion a “special case of euthanasia”. They’re completely different issues.
You’re right, though, to distinguish between voluntary euthanasia (where the person can express his will to die) and involuntary euthanasia (where he can’t). As a libertarian, I’m totally in favour of voluntary euthanasia (assisted suicide); if a person wishes to die, he, and only he, has a right to make that decision. People in the position of Diane Pretty should absolutely be entitled to end their lives, if they so wish.
However, involuntary euthanasia, where a person is terminally ill and can’t express their willingness to die, and someone “puts them out of their misery” by killing them, is IMO much more dodgy ground. While the killer might be motivated by mercy, he’s arrogating to himself the decision of whether someone should live or die “for their own good”, which I consider to be a dangerous path.
“Free choice” abortion isn’t even comparable to involuntary euthanasia, though. Assuming that the baby isn’t going to be born severely handicapped – which is a separate issue IMO – we’re not talking about killing the foetus for its own benefit, but rather for the benefit of the mother.
So I think the best analogy lies, as I said, in the question of conjoined twins. If Jodie and Mary had survived into adulthood and remained joined, and if there had been no imminent threat to Jodie’s life, would Jodie have had the right to force a separation, therefore killing Mary?
I’m sorry, world. Some college professors are just self-important douches, and as evidenced by the comments here, the rest of us fall ass-over-ankles to cater to them.
Julie,
do you have any actual point to make?
Even worse, Krispy Kreme is producing their doughnuts in the shape of an “O”, in a clear endorsement of Obama. It’s outrageous that partisan politics has infected our doughnuts!
Wow. Trolls. Why of course I am an atheist, just watch me repeat the Grand Philosophy taught to me at the priests’ ‘knee’. Berets don’t make one an artist.
Caving in to mental rejects is not good. It’s like pretending that Kristian Kolleges are the equals of state Universities. It makes the trashies feel so good and allows them to apply for jobs where they don’t meet the minimum qualifications. Do adults in your household take direction from the children?
Yeah there aren’t idiots anywhere else in the country.
yawn
This is a question I’ve heard many times. I happen to be from the home town of Krispy Kreme doughnuts. I spent many a late night after drinking and other things stopping by the original Krispy Kreme shop on Stratford Rd. in Winston Salem. I can’t vouch for else where but cops sure do love that place.
The c vs. k thing is an Old English controversy that some say was adopted by some Klan groups in the south (and some other areas) during the early parts of this century. This was allegedly done by businesses that wanted to let other members know that they were sympathetic to the Klan. They used Ks instead of Cs in their names. Kountry Korner etc.. I’ve heard this my whole life but have never found anything confirming it (not that I’ve looked that hard).
Now every business that did (does) this is not guilty of that but there were definitely some that probably were. I think after a while it just caught on and by the latter part of the last century when Klan membership ebbed to levels much lower than the first half (from 4 million members to less than 10k) it just because a cutesy (albeit lame) way to make a name stand out.
“just became” not “just because”
There are loads of krispy kremes in the UK! Where do you live? Does that mean you’ve never had a krispy kreme? Wow. Theres one up the road from me, screw it, im gonna go get some right now.
People also have the freedom not to eat trans fat… ;)
The issue of abortion has unfortunately been allowed to fester with some very incorrect and fallacious assumptions for too long.
Perhaps the biggest assumption surrounding abortion is that abortion is a “choice” that every single solitary set of parents goes through when they discover they are pregnant. The pro-choice movement needs to beat this part of the anti-choice movement’s rhetoric NOW. This is patent bullshit, and it’s a massive play on the conservative religious assumption that all men are created evil, and therefore require a “loving” god to govern their actions. It is offensively absurd to claim that all parents, once faced with a pregnancy, automatically consider the “life” of the child (whether or not it can scientifically be called “human life” at the point in question) in stark economic and fiat-driven terms, and that any resulting child is the product of a random choice by the parents to go through with it. This is the assumption anti-choicers throw around with self righteous abandon as if it is an insurmountable intellectual ediface, and frankly if anyone decided to present this case to me about my own “choices”, a glass full of water in the face and ejection from my home would be the recommended course at the very least.
The second assumption that must be beaten back rhetorically is the rampant assertion that abortion is used far and wide as a means of contraception, which it is not. It’s absurd for a number of reasons, not the least of which it makes no sense in light of the availability of myriad contraceptive methods. Barring any genetic or other unalterable restrictions a particular woman may have using contraceptive options other than abortion for birth control (of which I’ve heard of no cases), any woman that uses abortion as a regular means of birth control is either A) woefully uneducated about even her own body and its sexual functions let alone contraceptive methods that are far easier, more painless, and less expensive, B) is very careless with her own body, C) has been taught terribly incorrectly, or D) lives in an overtly religious household and is deathly afraid of her parents or other elders finding out she got pregnant and wants to cover it up. The idea of abortion as a widely used (in the context as a basic first-choice method) means of contraception is absurd because it just doesn’t happen. No woman is going to go through waiting in line while idiots scream and shout and display ugly signs masturbating their morbid fascinations with death, wait to be strapped into a chair, wait to have that procedure done, as opposed to going to the local Walgreens and getting an OTC or prescription.
All over the south you find businesses with the k for c misspelling. Usually in a group of three. KKK, get it?
In my family history there are three cases of women dying from botched abortions. Illegality does not stop the procedure. Keep it safe and legal and fuck off if you don’t like it. Your opinions of when life begins are not shared by all, so you have no right to impose your ideas on the rest of us.
Finally, Krispy Kreme donuts are terrible. Mel-O-Glaze rules! (Insert name of locally-owned bakery from your town).
@ #67 walton
the distinction you make between euthanasia being done to ‘save’ the one dying and abortion being done to ‘save’ the mother is one i overlooked. so i stand corrected.
involuntary euthanasia and abortion are indeed dodgy subjects. but we can’t simply wait until we have all the facts. (if we’ll ever) like i said, we have to make educated guesses and accept that maybe we might proven wrong by future insight.
i don’t think your twin example is completely representational though. it doesn’t cover the situation where mary was never alive in the first place. and, according to current medical knowledge, that’s the case with the early fetus.
your example sounds too much like a young mother who is fed up with her sick child. you ask whether the state should allow for that mother to kill the child because it’s a burden. the answer is obvious. but in my opinion it says nothing about abortion where the fetus is not be alive yet.
so i’m curious where you think where live begins.
STOP THE PRESSES!
Krispy Kreme has either reinstated the “offensive” phrase in their news release and never removed it to begin with:
http://investor.krispykreme.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=359127
J. D.
ouch, that’s a shitload of mistakes & typos… sorry. that last sentence should of course be:
so i’m curious where you think life begins.
Julie @68
Could you elaborate?
#67 Walton,
Thanks for your intellectual masturbation. It’s always easy for guys like you to pontificate about abortion since it will never be a problem for you. Perhaps you could enlighten us with another lame analogy instead of talking about actual abortion decisions that are complicated with rape and coercion. Or, perhaps, you could acknowledge like a good libertarian that it’s not up to you. Women actually can make moral decisions without input from penises such as yourself.
I bow to my compatriots’ greater knowledge of the location of Krispy Kreme outlets in the UK.
In my defence I live in a town that – shockingly – has no Pizza Hut, and but one (ONE!) Starbucks, which is (genuinely) built on an old black death graveyard.
To Walton: You are personally anti-abortion, but as a Libertarian, you acknowledge that other people have the right to make their own choice, right?
Oh, please, Walton. If you’re for making abortion illegal, you are anti-women, period. If you’re personally against abortion, that’s fine; but making it illegal is anti-women. Always. It’s not up to you — a man — to decide when a women carrying the child can end her pregnancy. Period, end of fucking discusion.
Walton @61,
where one human being (A), through no fault of his own, is physically dependent on another person’s (B) body, is it justified – as a general rule – for B to have A physically separated from him, therefore killing A? I would answer that, unless A’s own life is at stake, the answer has to be No
Advocates of compulsory kidney donation, not to mention debilitated violinists everywhere, thank you for your support.
marilove:
“Period, end of fucking discussion”
Precisely. And wear a condom from now on.
I thought the choice of donut referred to who to vote for, which choice, obviously, has already been made.
The medical consensus is of course that life is continuous: sperm cells and egg cells are alive, as are zygotes, etc.
“Life begins at conception” is a popular slogan among the anti-abortion crowd, but it’s not what they really mean. You could suppose that they meant something like “personhood”, “humanity”, or “individuality”, but that would be wrong, too. What they’re really talking about is the magical, nonsensical doctrine of “ensoulment”, where the “soul” is joined to the body. That’s what they think happens at conception. But they don’t want to say that, because it’s an explicitly religious notion — not something they could get enshrined in U.S. law.
Depends on when you end the pregnancy. Up to 3 months? Who gives a shit. 3 – 6 months? Yes for medical, psychological, rape, incest etc reasons. 6 – 9 months? For serious complications. Or is that too anti-women for ya?
#82 & #85 – here, here!
“Rather, for me, the question turns on this: at which point in a pregnancy does the foetus become a human being? How do we define “human being”?”
When you have a uterus, we’ll care what you think. Till then, stfu.
“Or is that too anti-women for ya?”
When you have a uterus, we’ll care what you think. Till then, stfu.
shane @89,
is that too anti-women for ya?
Yes, it is.
How about this instead: the woman in question, at any time during her pregnancy, is the sole person with authority to decide whether she will carry that pregnancy to term. So your >3/3-6/6-9 scheme is a perfectly appropriate rule for you to apply to a pregnancy of your own (if any); for any other pregnancy, not so much.
Or is that too pro-women for ya?
When you have a uterus, we’ll care what you think. Till then, stfu.
Do you realise that in your own little way you are as much of an extremist as those right-to-life fucktards and probably not helping the pro-choice movement with your “rhetoric”.
Anyway, opinions are like arseholes and I’ve certainly got one of those.
When you have a uterus, we’ll care what you think. Till then, stfu.
Until you manage to get the First Amendment overthrown, *you* shut the fuck up, fascist.
@ 16 “Yeah I know, I’m way off in the comment section but “FALLOUT!!!”
Yeah the guy who was the major lawyer who was pushing to get those things off of the shelves has been disbarred, and really that was my first wake up as to how I don’t want Hillary Clinton to run the country. I already have one inept mom, I didn’t need another driving the country. *sorry for all the Clinton supporters*
Fallout at least has consequences for using drugs. You get addicted. I feel bad for anyone who doesn’t get to play :(
That game is addicting all in it’s self.
“Do you realise that in your own little way you are as much of an extremist as those right-to-life fucktards and probably not helping the pro-choice movement with your “rhetoric”.”
Oh, i *love* it when boyz tell me what I’m allowed to say, how I’m allowed to say it, while implying that, if I’m not nice and do as I’m told, I’M the problem.
Don’t think so, dearie. The simple fact is, I didn’t say you couldn’t have an opinion. I didn’t say you couldn’t voice it. I said we – women, generally speaking – don’t give a crap what you think about it because it doesn’t affect you. At least not in the way it affects us.
So spare me the privilege show. It’s transparent and false.
“Until you manage to get the First Amendment overthrown, *you* shut the fuck up, fascist.”
Read above, sweetie darling baby honey.
NMcC, the problem is that condoms aren’t necessarily perfect. They break. And hormonal birth control isn’t always perfect, even if always taken perfectly — and of course, humans aren’t perfect, so they don’t always perfectly use something, like hormonal birth control or even condoms. And condoms can get fucking expensive.
Shit happens.
My younger sister had an abortion at 19 because she found herself pregnant (she was on birth control), and the dude straight up left her. She wasn’t mentally able or financially able to care for the child, and she knew she couldn’t go full-term and then adopt. Besides, adoption isn’t easy-peasy like everyone likes to say it is. “Just pop it out and give it away!” Yeah, doesn’t work that way.
She’s 24 now and just recently had a child she wanted and could take care of, and she does not at all regret her decision at 19. It wasn’t “for the benefit of only the mother” as idiots like Walton always point out, but the benefit of her and the child she knew she could not take care of.
Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn’t want or can’t want or can’t take care of is fucking ridiculous.
If I were in charge at Krispy Kreme, I’d be sorely tempted to respond with a giant WTF?
Do I win anything for getting the violinist reference?
I guess the anti-choicers would prefer that Krispy Kreme force their own choice of donuts on us. They’d probably make us take all the yucky jelly-filled donuts. Well, I’m going to stand up for my right to choose a glazed donut!
Mrs Tilton @92
Thanks Mrs Tilton, I completely understand where you’re coming from. But, there is always a but, I and probably many people are really uncomfortable with abortion in the last 3 months. I can probably be convinced that there are justifiable reasons for abortion in the last three months. But, another but, in what it is probably an extreme example, if a healthy mother and healthy baby gets 7 or 8 months down the track and she decides she wants an abortion for no good reason I’d be very uncomfortable with that. Your definition of “good” may vary. As I said, personal opinion and I’m allowed one of those. Uterus or no uterus.
shane, that’s still basically telling a women she can’t decide what to do with her own body, like she can’t make proper decisions for herself. This is what ALL anti-choice legislature is about: To take away a woman’s right to her own body, because they feel she can’t make her own decisions about her own body. Like we’re helpless creatures. Fuck that noise.
You’re never going to get pregnant. So yes, you can talk all you want, but that doesn’t mean you’re right or that we have to listen.
Considering, you kow, it is we, women, who carry babies, not you, men.
Now, realistically, at this point in time, there has to be some “regulations” or abortion would likely be illegal across the board, but eventually it would be nice if women were able to make their own decisions about their body without having to be told what decisions they are allowed to make about their own bodies. Got it?
Ouchimoo, “inept mom” really? How fucking sexist can you be? She’s a politiion, not a “mom”. Jesus fucking christ.
Something tells me you wouldn’t call, say, GWB, an “inept dad” though he sure likes to treat women like one!
Endor, sweetie, I said you’re not helping. I didn’t say you couldn’t voice your opinion. You did though. Sweetie.
“You’re never going to get pregnant. So yes, you can talk all you want, but that doesn’t mean you’re right or that we have to listen.”
You extremist fascist! ;)
And shane? Stop using anti-choice rhetoric. “But, but, all these women are having abortions! But, but, all these women are going to EIGHT MONTHS into a pregnancy and suddenly decide, oops! Change my mind! Don’t want a baby! TAKE IT OUT!”
Um, yeah, no.
That is not how it fucking works.
Abortion is not birth control and anyone who implies that women use it as such is a fucking idiot.
Women do not have late-term abortions unless it is medically necessary for the mother and/or child. It is a FUCKING MYTH that women have late-term abortions, and anyone who implies that women have late-term abortions for funzies is a fucking moron.
Anyone who says any of the two things I mentioned above really does need to stfu because it’s obvious they don’t know shit about abortion, and are just spewing anti-choice rhetoric ‘cuz it sounds scurrrry.
Please educate yourself before you open your trap and look like an idiot, k? Unless you LIKE looking like an idiot, in which case, carry on.
It is a FUCKING MYTH that women have late-term abortions **(except for when medically necessary, of course)
Women don’t have abortinos for funzies or use abortion as birth control, people. Stop pretending like they do.
“Endor, sweetie, I said you’re not helping. I didn’t say you couldn’t voice your opinion. You did though. Sweetie.”
Your belief that I’m not helping is equally as useless as your opinion on abortion, honey darling sweetiekins.
because, once again, it’s merely your purely academic ruminating on the subject. You have no dog in this fight.
Alas, I’m on the low-consumption end of the economic distribution. I don’t really regularly buy anything that I could imagine I had an effect with by boycotting.
Krispy Kremes have been urged upon me as being these really super great donuts. I’ve tried them. Warm, cold, fresh, stale, re-warmed. “So what?” is my response.
About all I can do is proclaim that now I’m even more reluctant to ever have another Krispy Kreme.
As to abortions: pregnant woman’s choice, every time, assuming she’s conscious. This is just an example of my more global policy of: “Social conservatives: your attempts to
communicatepatronize are little better than wanking*. Please wank in private or with an audience who’s aroused by it.”*Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Bat. shit. crazy.
marilove, seriously I do get it. As you said abortion would be illegal without some regulation and if the choice, heh, was between illegal or carte blanche I’d go carte blanche every time because I really think the late term abortion, for whatever reason, would be very rare. I’d be uncomfortable with that but I could live with it. Fuck me would I be uncomfortable… I would prefer some regulatory compromise to keep abortion available though.
Oh, come now, people. Obviously Krispy Kreme was endorsing abortion rights…
And while we’re on the subject:
America runs on Dunkin, huh?
Umabiguously pro-drowning infants. They oughtta be ashamed…
The best part of waking up is Folgers in your cup? Is that so? So is there nothing else to look forward to in this great land? I have to ask: why does Folgers hate America?
Huggamugga Maxwell House, meanwhile, is obviously endorsing unbridled physical affection toward muggers… And is thus soft on crime…
And don’t get me started on that Tim Horton’s ‘Roll up the rim’ thing…
Pro-rimming. Obviously…
Disgusting.
Marilove: Oh, please, Walton. If you’re for making abortion illegal, you are anti-women, period. If you’re personally against abortion, that’s fine; but making it illegal is anti-women. Always. It’s not up to you — a man — to decide when a women carrying the child can end her pregnancy. Period, end of fucking discusion.
To Marilove, and others in the same vein:
Let’s assume for a second, for the sake of argument, that the foetus is a human being and a “person”, in all senses of the word. (Yes, I do realise that’s debatable.) If a foetus is a human being, then abortion is the killing of a human being. And I hope we would all agree that it is emphatically the proper role of the law to prevent people from being killed by other people.
Let’s use my conjoined twins example again. Would you argue that only Jodie has the right to decide whether or not it’s OK for her to separate and kill Mary? Or would you concede that Mary, just as much as Jodie, is a human being and is therefore entitled to the protection of the law?
Of course, if the foetus is not a human being, then your argument stands. If the foetus is merely a collection of cells parasitic on a woman’s body, then, yes, she has an absolute right to decide for herself what she wants to do with it.
So I’m going to ask you a direct question. Why do you believe that a foetus is not a person? Or, if you do believe that a foetus is a person, why do you believe that it does not merit the protection of the law in the same way as any other person?
For the record, I am not asserting that abortion is “used as a form of birth control”. I fully agree that, based on the empirical evidence, this isn’t generally the case. Nor am I going to claim that adoption is always a perfect alternative. These issues are completely irrelevant. What we are debating is whether the foetus is a “person”, and, if so, whether that person is entitled to the same legal rights and protections as any other person, including the prima facie right not to be killed.
I’m glad that you see my point and that you’d prefer it to be 100% legal, across the board, if I’m reading you right.
Not only are late-term abortions rare, they only happen when the mother and/or child is in some kind of danger. Period, end of discussion. I have to repeat this because it’s a huge fucking talking-point for the anti-choice brigade and it’s really starting to piss me off.
That and the whole “women use abortion as birth control!!”
Which cracks me up because abortion is not only uncomfortable and possibly painful, but sometimes difficult to get. My sister had to go through a 48-hour waiting period, which screwed up her entire work schedule. And it’s expensive. And then she got to deal with protestors at the clinic! Hizzuh!
Most women would much rather take birth control or use condoms.
Oh, wait, wait, wait. Women can’t do that now, either, because pharmacists and doctors have a right to tell them, “NO! Can’t take birth control! But you can’t get an abortion either! HAHAHAHAHA!”
If the anti-choice crowd cared about life AT ALL they would be pro-contraception, but they aren’t. Innit that interesting? They are anti-women, and anyone who believes their stupid rhetoric and wants to make abortion illegal is just as anti-women.
“Let’s assume for a second, for the sake of argument,”
Oh, goody. More purely academic posturing. Just what the abortion debate needs.
“If a foetus is a human being, then abortion is the killing of a human being. And I hope we would all agree that it is emphatically the proper role of the law to prevent people from being killed by other people. ”
My mother needs a kidney. You’re the only person available with one that will work for her. Should you be compelled to give her the kidney?
So, with that argument, Walton, do you think the law has a right to force me to give someone my kidney? Since if I don’t, they may die?
“So, with that argument, Walton, do you think the law has a right to force me to give someone my kidney? Since if I don’t, they may die?”
Since he’s already clearly leaning towards “women have no right to bodily automony”, make it HIS kidney. Suddenly, bodily autonomy will MATTER.
Calm down! Perhaps you weren’t following the Video rating M to AO crap. She was essentially going around telling all the parents in the US that they don’t need to watch what their kids do or play. It pretty much came to ‘we’ll have the media and companies do that for you. You do not have pay attention to your children but companies and businesses now have to do that.’ That to me is inept parenting. I’m not saying that she was a bad ‘mom’ just because she was a woman but because she was using her political power to authoritatively mother the US. How much more do I have to drive that I want a leader to run the country and not a mother. Before that incident I was all for Hillary running for president. (ever since W. got his second term in office)
And as for bush being an inept dad, that doesn’t go far enough for me, he is just an inept person.
marilove, do I think that women have abortions for funzies? No. The problem I have is some, in my view extremists, have expressed on here in the past that until the the baby has taken its first breath they have the right to terminate that pregnancy for whatever reason up until that point. Do I think this would happen in real life? No, but the mere expression of this opinion scares the shit out of some of us with its callousness. That is all. In real life shit happens and yes I prefer to see abortion 100% legal across the board.
Your opinion is that she is inept, aka an inept politician. She wasn’t a mother when she said that — she was a politician. What you said was still sexist. Good spaghetti monster, it amazes me that people don’t think about what they say.
And guess what, shane? A women SHOULD have that right. I don’t care if it scares the rightwing nutters, they should have that right. Politically we can’t really talk about that because OH NOES THE POOR INNOCENT BABIES (that they stop caring about the MINUTE they are born), but realistically, it should always be up to the person to decide what to do with his or her own body.
There would NEVER EVER EVER be this kind of fucking legislature regarding men. It’s disgusting.
So, with that argument, Walton, do you think the law has a right to force me to give someone my kidney? Since if I don’t, they may die?
No. But let’s look at a better analogy.
Imagine that a surgeon illegally drugged you and surgically removed your kidney, and transplanted it into someone who was dying of a kidney disease. The surgeon would, of course, be criminally prosecuted, and rightly so (and you would also have an action against him in civil damages).
But would you be justified in demanding that your spare kidney then be removed from the recipient, thereby killing him? (Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the recipient is innocent, and knew nothing of the surgeon’s behaviour.)
Likewise, let’s look at the worst case scenario for abortion. Let’s say a woman gets drugged and date-raped, and becomes pregnant. Quite rightly, the rapist will be prosecuted and will, hopefully, get a heavy prison sentence. But does the woman have the right to demand that the foetus – who, like our kidney recipient, is innocent of any wrongdoing – be killed?
The law has to deal with situations, like the above, where there are two innocent parties, one of whom must inevitably suffer. And these issues aren’t easy. But the fact that my opinion differs slightly from yours does not, IMO, make me “anti-woman”.
Matt @99,
Do I win anything for getting the violinist reference?
Do you ever! You win your own violinist!!!
Emm… what’s your blood type then? We’ve had a few, ehm, unfortunate outcomes in the past, and thought it might be a good idea to be careful about that sort of thing going forward.
First your Philosophical question seems to be horribly skewed. First let me say I’m for quality of life rather than quantity. Splitting up twins at birth when one is very weak and the other strong would be a better option rather than waiting a few years when the children already make a bond with each other and threaten to kill both if the weak one gives away. You also seem to be implying that later on if we let the two live, the only one who gets a say is the stronger of the to. And the weaker one would be “well does she have a choice” kind of thing. It would be a two part decision because it involves two people. Maybe the weaker one wants to be separated because she can feel she’s close to death and doesn’t want to take her sister with her.
I hear you. I was discussing the matter last week with a group of friends at a coffee shop. And I did get a little aggressive and drive to the point that abortion is NOT birth control. *I got some really funny and disturbed looks at the group of girls who were sitting next to us* Also on the subject I am amazed at how many women still think the pull out method is an effective method of birth control and when that fails they’d probably get an abortion if they really didn’t want to get pregnant. These people need to be targeted on what real birth control is!
That’s the nutty religious right wing for you which is why I hope we get loud enough to stomp them out and their ridiculous ideas.
I’m reluctant to ever eat a Krispy Kreme donut again because they’re basically pure shortening with a sugar glaze. Not only are they horrifically bad for you, they’re kind of gross.
They might find a use, though, in famine-stricken places. They’re so calorie-dense you could feed a whole village for a week with just a few boxes.
And:
tee hee!
Walton @122,
But would you be justified in demanding that your spare kidney then be removed from the recipient, thereby killing him?
No.
Likewise … does the woman have the right to demand that the foetus – who, like our kidney recipient, is innocent of any wrongdoing – be killed?
Ignoring your tendentious language, yes.
This has been another episode of Simple Answers…
You don’t strike me as at all stupid, so I leave it to you as an exercise to distinguish the two cases.
That wasn’t a better analogy. Comparing recovery of something taken to stopping continual violation of one’s physical self = fail.
“And these issues aren’t easy. But the fact that my opinion differs slightly from yours does not, IMO, make me “anti-woman”. ”
So are you saying you are for making abortion illegal? Because if so, yes, you are anti-woman, period, across the board, no further dicussion needed.
It is not up to anyone but ME to decide what to do with MY body, period, end of discussion.
Yeah well I think gender rolls are sexist. (biblicaly driven) So now it just boils down to a matter of opinion.
Walton pretty much fails at anologies. Yawn.
Ouchimoo, that’s abstinence-only education for ya!
Anti-choicers aren’t “pro-life” (I refuse to call them “pro-life”) because, if they were, they’d actually care what happened to women, and what happens to babies after they are born. But they don’t give a shit.
Religious dogma is just a way to control women.
I heartily believe that if you consider yourself feminist AND religious, you’re delusional and certainly not a real feminist. “But, but, but!” No buts. You’re not a feminist if you are religious.
They are, Ouchimoo! I don’t think you are necessarily sexist (at least from what I’ve seen here), but calling her an “inept mom” was sexist. Basically, you were actually using “biblical gender roles” when you called her an inept mom, therefore what you said was sexist. Words DO matter, is all I’m sayin’.
Walton,
Enough with the analogies. They are irrelevant.
Every pregnancy is life-threatening to the pregnant woman. You do not have the right to force them to undergo this life-threatening process for the sake of a fetus. For a self-proclaimed libertarian, you sure do like to impose your morality on others.
Yeah poor choice of words on my part. I was mostly angry at the way she used her politics to enrage up a certain demographic. People that psychologically feel that responsibility should fall onto everyone else but themselves. It was the first time I had really seen her do something like that so it really shocked and angered me.
ah and as they say in liberal/atheist circles:
“To them life begins at conception and ends at birth.”
“There would NEVER EVER EVER be this kind of fucking legislature regarding men. It’s disgusting.”
Absolutely not. I did get a big kick out of Walton’s evasion. I’ve used the analogy of kidneys before and seen anti-choicers outright say they wouldn’t give it up, but women are required to give up everything for baybehs.
At least they have the courage of their misogynstic opinions. Walton wasn’t even honest enough to deal with the question, but was sufficiently arrogant enough to suggest his own. Very convenient, that.
marilove,
Let me get this strait, just so I know where your coming from; if a woman is in the delivery room just minutes from giving birth she should be able to change her mind and have an abortion? Unlikely in the extreme as that event would be, you think she should be able to have an abortion as it is her body? I can’t even wrap my mind around that. It never even occurred to me that a woman might possibly even consider want an abortion at that late a date.
“Let me get this strait, just so I know where your coming from; if a woman is in the delivery room just minutes from giving birth she should be able to change her mind and have an abortion?”
You do realize this makes it seem as if you have the lowest opinion of women, right?
That said, is the case of labor being life-threatening to the mother as its happening, who gets to decide who gets to live?
Walton, kidney analogy fails, as others have pointed out.
The analogy I have seen before that I think is much more representative is this: You wake up in a hospital giving a transfusion to another patient. You are the only person compatible to be the blood donor, and for sake of argument the blood can only be transfused and has to remain connected continuously for the next 9 months. Do you have the right to walk away, even if it means the other patient’s death?
One objection to the analogy may be that an adult human is “different” than an unconscious fetus that has no experience of the world, so let the other patient be in a persistant vegetative state with little or no chance of recovery but his family insist that everything possible be done to keep him a live. Can they prevent you from walking away?
Endor @136
Lack of understanding does not equal a disregard of women. There are a lot of things that a lot of people do that we would find unfathomable, it doesn’t mean we have no regard for them just that we don’t understand.
Anyway, will you ever directly answer someone’s question or will you just sidestep everything like you have been this whole thread?
Walton,
Fuck you.
The only thing that you’re good for is reminding me to reinstall greasemonkey and killfile after my hard drive crashed.
Fred
“You do realize this makes it seem as if you have the lowest opinion of women, right?”
How so? I asked a question so I can fully understand Marilove’s point of view. I did not imply in any way that this is every woman’s point of view. Marilove said that at any point prior to birth. That means any point even right up to seconds before birth. I want confirmation of that statement because it has never occurred to me. It is a very mind blowing concept; the argument that a woman can have an abortion at any time for any reason right up to the moment before birth. Under this argument the viability or safety of both the woman and the fetus have no relevance as it is her body and she can do as she want for whatever reason she wants too. I’m sorry if you can’t understand how this more extreme view on abortion might shock me. As I said, I had never even considered this open a view on abortion before.
Kylock @138,
Thank you. It’s nice to know asking a question isn’t always considered a hanging offense.
DG @ 141
No problem. There’s a lot I could, and do, disagree with through out this thread but attacking someone for asking a question in an attempt to gain understanding is by far the worst. I’ll gladly defend you from that.
I thought the not-so-KrispyKreme is what got women pregnant?
“How so? I asked a question so I can fully understand Marilove’s point of view. I did not imply in any way that this is every woman’s point of view.”
Imo, the question is suggesting that women look at abortion with a flighty eye, without thinking about it, and on a whim. The scenario you used I’ve seen used by anti-choicers for that very reason. It set off an alarm bell. However, since I didn’t think that was your aim, I merely suggested how it could sound.
I didn’t attack you, and i apologize – I thought that was clear. And, you didn’t answer my question.
DGKniper:
I would not presume to speak for marilove, but my own interpretation is that a woman has a right to terminate the pregnancy at any time. This is not exactly the same as “killing the fetus” especially in your ridiculous scenario of “seconds before birth”. At that point, “terminating the pregnancy” is simply inducing (or just waiting for) labor and giving it up for adoption.
of crap, only “pregnancy” was supposed to be underlined in #145
DGKnipfer @140,
I’ll take a stab at it. Marilove suggested that there should be no arbitrary date set when an abortion is no longer allowed. You took that to the extreme and suggested a woman might have an abortion just seconds before giving birth as a consequence of that position. If you really believe that a woman would do that, you do not have a high opinion of women.
So, what is your opinion on when an abortion should be legal?
Exactly, DS. Thank you.
Endor,
You asked me two questions. The first was an accusation and I provided more of an answer than the accusation deserved. Your second question had no relevance to my request for information and looked like a smoke screen. It seems to me that you really wanted to ask if I think abortion should be legal. I’ll answer that question instead. I think it’s far better for abortion to be legal and openly manageable as a part of modern health care than as a back alley procedure that causes considerable pain and suffering. I also think women should have a greater say in what happens to their bodies than their doctor or their significant other, but I don’t think the opinion of the doctor or significant other should simply be ignored. I’m sure that’s not a very satisfying answer but it’s the one I have to give.
Walton (#113):
Because it lacks the defining attributes of a person, to whit, self-aware agency.
Personally, I am shocked (shocked, I tell you!) to hear that schools throughout the world are promoting the wholesale slaughter of the unborn! I ask you, what, other than mass murder, could they possibly be referring to every time they give a test which offers multiple choice?
DGKnipfer @149,
I think you have a fairly reasonable view toward the legality of abortion, though I’m not sure when the opinion of a significant other or even a doctor should be allowed to force a woman into maintaining an unwanted pregnancy. Of course, I don’t think their opinions would be ignored, but should they be allowed to veto a woman’s decision?
“The first was an accusation and I provided more of an answer
than the accusation deserved.”
No, it wasn’t an accusation. I clarified what I meant. Dead Santa further clarified it. And I apologized that it came off wrong. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.
“Your second question had no relevance to my request for information and looked like a smoke screen. It seems to me that you really wanted to ask if I think abortion should be legal.”
DS asked you that. I asked you:”is the case of labor being life-threatening to the mother as its happening, who gets to decide who gets to live?” in an effort to give some parameters to your original example. Or, a scenario under which such an “abortion” decision might come around.
Hey, the rest of you leftist bastards (kidding!!) cover your ears and bear with me while I make a few libertarian points here?
Walton, since you are a libertarian (as am I), I know you hold that every person has freedom to choose whatever they think is best for them, outwith force or fraud, and if you are the likeliest kind of libertarian, you also argue that a given individual is best able to articulate what is optimal in their own case. Libertarianism is based on freedom of property, freedom of consent, and freedom of contract (a la Rothbard). Let’s look at each of these freedoms as they apply to a pregnant woman’s relationship to her fetus and to the fetus’s relationship to the person that contains it.
I don’t, personally, argue that a fetus is a person. I have good reason to believe that even a newborn is not a person yet. They’re potential people, at best. My definition of a person rests on a certain level of cognitive function, by the way. Personhood could, potentially, exist quite without the possession of human DNA or other characteristics. The simple fact that an organism contains human DNA and structure is not enough to consider it a “person.”
Because we recognize the value of potential, we give generous benefit-of-the-doubt to potential people. We also recognize that we tend to be more emotionally attached to the born than to the unborn. Born individuals have a sort of psychological reality that the unborn simply don’t.
I’m not arguing that individuals that are not yet “people” should be killed. Far from it. In fact, I’m going to go so far as to stipulate, just for the sake of this argument and the duration of this post, that the fetus is a human life.
With that stipulation, the issue becomes one of whether there is a contract between the pregnant woman and the fetus. Who agreed to do what? What obligations are created? Is there coercion involved? What rights are involved, and whose rights are violated? Can the terms of the contract be changed or abrogated? Who is responsible for enforcing the contract, and is that enforcement legitimate, or is it itself an impermissible rights violation?
First, if the woman consented to sex, is that an implicit contract? Who are the parties to the contract at that point? It makes no sense to say the fetus is a party to anything before it even exists. Either partner’s choice to use or insist on the use of birth control, however, is an explicit statement that they wish to avoid any such contract, whether to the nonexistent fetus, each other, or anyone else. (Pretending to use birth control and not actually using it is fraudulent coercion.) Simply having sex without the expectation of pregnancy is not a form of consent to a contract, either.
Obviously if consent to sex is not granted (as in rape, or since it is legally not considered consensual, incest), then no question of a contract can arise in the first place, and the pregnancy is by definition coercive. An individual is entitled to defend themselves against potentially deadly bodily harm with force, even deadly force, and the coercive demand of an unwanted fetus to take advantage of the life and health of a nonconsenting woman is no different.
We could, actually, stop there, but in the second place we need to think about the situation created when a woman no longer wants a fetus that she conceived intentionally. Does the fetus have rights then? It could be argued that the woman has created an obligation to the fetus to protect and provide for it. However, does this mean that the woman herself gives up her right to property in her own body, her right to defend herself against bodily harm, or her right to withdraw her “offer” of protection and nurture if the circumstances under which it was offered have changed? I argue that those rights are of the inalienable type, that can’t be given or contracted away. Therefore the woman not only does not but cannot give up the right to decide to remove the fetus from her body when she chooses. Anyone (including the fetus!) who, by force or fraud, compels the woman to carry a fetus nonconsensually at any point is violating her liberty right.
Does this mean the woman can compel a nonconsenting surgeon to perform the abortion? Besides the obvious fact that a nonconsenting surgeon wouldn’t be a very good surgeon, we can’t argue that the remedy for force and fraud is more force and fraud. But if the woman’s doctor has consented, by reason of their offer to take care of all the bodily needs of their patient and by having willingly undergone training to perform the procedure in question, then it may legitimately be considered fraud if they refuse that care to the woman on nonmedical grounds and against the patient’s stated wishes.
Does the government have the right to regulate abortion to protect the fetus? Well, libertarians say that the proper function of government is to arbitrate contracts and prevent force and fraud. A woman who chooses to carry a child to term is doing so because she imposes that obligation on herself, not because (as we have seen) there is a contract to enforce between her and her fetus. Without a contract or obligation existing between the woman and the fetus, there is nothing for the government to enforce.
In drafting any laws for the protection of the rights of the fetus (assuming, for the sake of argument, it has rights), the rights of the woman cannot be overlooked or downplayed. Even if it were to be argued that the fetus has a right to life, the right to life does not confer the right to the nonconsensual use of someone else’s living body.
Incidentally, notice how many ways the U.S. Constitution protects a person’s right to life, liberty, and property, and how I haven’t even mentioned a right to privacy. The decision in Roe hinged on a right to privacy, IIRC, and that’s interestingly weak when it can be shown that a woman’s right to abortion on demand in the U.S. can be defended successfully on so many other Constitutional grounds.
This isn’t just an academic question with me, by the way. Years ago, when I was a fairly devout Christian, my fiance and I became pregnant accidentally (never, and I mean NEVER, trust “the sponge”). Since we were poor college students and our families were very unkind, I chose to carry the baby to term and give her up for open adoption through a church agency, even though friends offered to pay for my abortion if I wanted one. I don’t regret this decision in any way, but I would never ask anyone else to do what I did, and I can’t say I would make the same decision if I was to get pregnant again. (Rather unlikely at 42, sure, but not completely out of the question.)
People like Walton make assertions they cannot reasonably expect to be taken seriously. By advocating that an unborn child is already a person, you are back-dooring murder laws into womens’ wombs. If the baby has just been born, then killing it would be illegal. However, an unborn fetus has none of the rights you are granting to it because it is not A) born yet, B) fully in control of itself apart from the mother by virtue of human biology, C) is quite possible to be aborted by simple natural cause without human directed interference anyways. Ever heard of any of the medical phenomena in which children die before or just after birth due to natural, unavoidable causes? Or perhaps you don’t know any women that have miscarried. I however do.
Leaving aside the fact that your argument demands that a women be subservient to an unborn being in her abdomen and abdicate all of her own rights while it is in and a part of her, your argument still doesn’t hold. But in either case, it cannot be reasonably defended that the pregnant woman be held hostage by an unborn baby unless she wants it. You cannot reasonably force her to carry it to term. To argue that is to argue for the immediate surrender of her individual rights the second an egg is fertilized. Which makes you a number of things: A) not a true libertarian, B) an authoritarian sexist, C) a busy body looking to stick your face in womens’ collective crotches, and D) someone who has the privilege of not having to be bothered with having to make such physical and psychological choices yourself.
Endor is right to tell you you have no business talking about it, because you are not bound by the law you would have them follow. The notion of rights of the unborn is probably the single most intellectually vapid and self-indulgent form of masturbatory reasoning, with a nice dash of morbid fascination thrown in to make it that much more unpalatable under hard criticism.
I so love being validated. :P
Wait until they hear about those pesky mathematicians with an “axiom of choice.” I support a mathematician’s right to choose!
I got my free donut, used it as a masturbation aid, and then mailed it to the American Life League. Now it’s really glazed.
Crap junk food from a company that can’t spell Crispy, Cream or even doughnut.
However…
think how easy it will be to serve the Religious Right from now on. Just give them anything, and they have to accept it.
“Waiter- I don’t want the Fish”
“It’s what you’ve got”
“I wanted Lasagne”
“OOooooo- sounds like somebody is PRO CHOICE. Baby murderer”
Endor & DS,
You are reading more into it than I wrote. I did not say that I believed that all women would go to that extreme. I said, “It never even occurred to me that a woman might possibly even consider want an abortion at that late a date.” Saying woman is significantly different than saying women or all women. This is not a one size fits all garment. Nor does it suggest that all women are flighty. I did very specifically say, “Unlikely in the extreme as that event would be…” because I doubt that the situation will ever actually happen.
I have long understood that many of the right wing wackos want any and all forms of abortion and birth control outlawed due to their extreme beliefs. I find that view to be a sick and twisted considering how crowded the world is today. I just never took it to the other end of the spectrum before and never thought a pro choice person would. I’ve always thought of the claims of “Abortion on Demand” as a fundamentalist smoke screen designed to scare the masses. While Marilove’s statement doesn’t quite go that far, it comes closer than any I’ve ever seen from a pro choice advocate. I found that a bit of shock so I asked for clarification.
Looking back through the log I believe Marilove was replying to Walton’s comments and it looks like she disagrees with the idea or Abortion on Demand and is more appropriately an advocate of Women’s Rights. That makes much more sense to me. My apologies for mischaracterizing Marilove’s comments and for mixing them up with the rest of the conversation.
In any case, apology accepted and extended to you in return. I certainly don’t want a war of misunderstandings. I prefer to leave that to the fundies. Have to go back to work now.
That would be a good analogy of a case where a fetus *survives into adulthood* while still being attached to the woman. Let us know when something like that happens.
However, an unborn fetus has none of the rights you are granting to it because it is not A) born yet, B) fully in control of itself apart from the mother by virtue of human biology, C) is quite possible to be aborted by simple natural cause without human directed interference anyways. Ever heard of any of the medical phenomena in which children die before or just after birth due to natural, unavoidable causes?
Ever heard of any of the medical phenomena in which elderly and disabled people die due to natural, unavoidable causes? Does that mean they’re any less human, or that it’s any more legitimate to kill them?
As regards (A) and (B), I don’t see why these are reasons to deny the foetus the status of a protected human being. As I keep pointing out, premature babies and people on life support, inter alia, can’t survive independently and are not “fully in control of [themselves]”. Again, does this make them any less human?
So far, I have never heard a convincing explanation for why, say, a 25-week-old foetus is any less a human being than a 1-week-old newborn baby, or for why it should have fewer rights.
But in either case, it cannot be reasonably defended that the pregnant woman be held hostage by an unborn baby unless she wants it. You cannot reasonably force her to carry it to term. To argue that is to argue for the immediate surrender of her individual rights the second an egg is fertilized.
Her individual rights are balanced against those of the foetus. Both are (in the absence of any persuasive argument to the contrary) human beings. If an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, then it is perfectly legitimate to perform an abortion; I’m not arguing that the mother should be forced to sacrifice her life for the foetus. But if it’s a normal, healthy, but unwanted pregnancy, then the mother’s right to physical health is outweighed, IMO, by the foetus’s right to life.
And I want to clear another thing up. There is nothing un-libertarian about opposing abortion (indeed, there’s a US group called Libertarians for Life). In general, as a libertarian, I believe that a human being has a fundamental right to freedom from interference with their person and property.
But sometimes a situation occurs, through unavoidable happenstance, where it is a choice between violating one person’s bodily integrity and violating another’s. Such is the case with abortion; either the mother must be prevented from having an abortion, thereby interfering with her bodily integrity against her will, or the foetus must be killed, thereby interfering with his or her bodily integrity in the most extreme way possible.
I am not a moral or social conservative. I support gay marriage and gay equality. I support the right to privacy, and to freedom from government interference with one’s private life. But I also believe that it is emphatically the proper role of government to protect one human from being killed by another – which means that the only relevant question is whether a foetus is a human being.
Hey Walton. Thought experiment. Lets stand accross the street from an abortion clinic and photograph all the people going in and out of the clinic. If we see the same number go in as come out, and can match the photos, your analysis is in error. The fetus isn’t a person yet. Ergo, it has no rights as a person. Arguing it has more rights than the woman, who is definitely a person, is not correct.
“But if it’s a normal, healthy, but unwanted pregnancy, then the mother’s right to physical health is outweighed, IMO, by the foetus’s right to life.”
Which is very easy for you to say because you’ll never have to face the situation, will never have your body ravaged by pregnancy and will never have to face the dangers inherent therein.
The fetus has no “right” to life. None. Since it is dependent on the mother’s body to survive, it’s her decision whether she wants it there. To say otherwise, is to suggest that ONLY women have no right to bodily autonomy. Which means, anti-choice arguments are inherently misogynistic. The truth is, under no circumstances would you try to rationalize the removal of men’s rights in this way. Especially not for imaginary people.
Speedwell at #154: Thanks for the response. I agree with much of what you’ve said, but not all.
First, if the woman consented to sex, is that an implicit contract? Who are the parties to the contract at that point? It makes no sense to say the fetus is a party to anything before it even exists. Either partner’s choice to use or insist on the use of birth control, however, is an explicit statement that they wish to avoid any such contract, whether to the nonexistent fetus, each other, or anyone else. (Pretending to use birth control and not actually using it is fraudulent coercion.) Simply having sex without the expectation of pregnancy is not a form of consent to a contract, either.
Obviously if consent to sex is not granted (as in rape, or since it is legally not considered consensual, incest), then no question of a contract can arise in the first place, and the pregnancy is by definition coercive. An individual is entitled to defend themselves against potentially deadly bodily harm with force, even deadly force, and the coercive demand of an unwanted fetus to take advantage of the life and health of a nonconsenting woman is no different.
Your contractual analysis is interesting, and makes sense; but there are a couple of problems. Firstly, one can argue that when a couple has sex – even if using birth control – they should be aware of the possibility that a pregnancy might arise, and that, by choosing nevertheless to have sex, they voluntarily assume that risk. Of course, this argument has no application to cases of rape, or to sex with legally incompetent parties (such as minors) who cannot consent; so I wouldn’t claim that it’s a strong argument. Just a point to consider.
In stronger terms, however, I would question whether it’s appropriate to apply a contractual framework at all. The problem is that the foetus – which, as you point out, ex hypothesi is not in existence at the time of conception and therefore cannot be a party to any contractual relationship – has no choice. The “contract”, if it exists, is between the man and woman when they chose to have sex. The foetus is a third party – in terms of English law, a stranger to the contract – and therefore, under the rule of contractual privity, cannot gain any benefit, or suffer any burden, under the contract. It therefore seems unfair, from the foetus’ perspective, to predicate the question of the foetus’ right to life on the circumstances under which s/he was conceived.
Yes, the woman has a right to bodily integrity. But, as I pointed out above, such a right cannot be absolute, because sometimes one person’s bodily integrity conflicts directly with another’s. The law must therefore prioritise, and draw a line somewhere.
Funny, I’ve never heard of any logically sound and valid argument ( I won’t use convincing b/c that is a completely subjective term, and if you don’t want to be convinced, nothing will be convincing to you. ) that would suggest a 25-week-old foetus is equivelent to a 1-week-old newborn baby, or why is should have the same rights.
So here’s a question for you since you equate the two. What qualities do both possess that make them human beings? Presumably adults also possess these qualities. Presumably a sperm or tumor does not. If these presumptions are incorrect, feel free to correct them in the answer.
Fixed that for you
Nope. Sorry. He’s quite stupid. Unlike most trolls, he’s able to put together grammatically correct sentences. But he’s still stupid.
“It therefore seems unfair, from the foetus’ perspective, to predicate the question of the foetus’ right to life on the circumstances under which s/he was conceived.”
A very privileged thing to say, once again. The fetus has no perspective.
“Yes, the woman has a right to bodily integrity.”
but only up to the point you’ve decided their allowed it.
“But, as I pointed out above, such a right cannot be absolute, because sometimes one person’s bodily integrity conflicts directly with another’s.”
So, then, since my mother needs your kidney and will die without it, you then HAVE to give it to her, regardless of the toll on your health, because of this so-called “conflict” you imagine.
Or, are you only applying this special condition on women?
This is exactly what gets women upset about this issue – for you, it’s an academic debate. For us, it’s our fucking lives your toying with. Its beyond insulting to be waxing academic about the perspective of a fucking fetus, when the lives and well being of real, live human beings is at stake.
“their allowed it”
Damn proofreading machine! *kicks it* THEY’RE allow it.
adobedragon: Nope. Sorry. He’s quite stupid. Unlike most trolls, he’s able to put together grammatically correct sentences. But he’s still stupid.
I’m sorry you feel that way. As Forrest Gump used to say, “stupid is as stupid does”.
I don’t think I’m objectively “stupid”; I’m a student at a prestigious university (a law student, admittedly, so I wouldn’t claim any special expertise in any of the issues under discussion). I wouldn’t have said my powers of logical reasoning were especially deficient, but then again I could be wrong. I’m not, however, going to sink to your level by taking this personally.
Endor: This is exactly what gets women upset about this issue – for you, it’s an academic debate.
Right here, on this forum, it is an entirely academic debate. Right at this moment, neither you nor I have any power to decide whether or not abortion should be legal in any particular jurisdiction. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not denying that it’s a very important issue, otherwise I wouldn’t waste time discussing it. But our discussion here is a purely academic exercise; and it would be nice if, just for once, we could all have a cool-headed, dispassionate, reasoned discussion about the topic of abortion, without the invective and the accusations of misogyny.
Why does it matter to you what some random student on the Internet says? To the best of my knowledge, my opinion about abortion has no effect whatsoever on your life. If you’re not interested in discussing these things with me, fine; no one’s forcing you to. But there’s no need to get so angry with me.
*gets serious for a moment*
Aww, Walton’s not “stupid”. He’s young and idealistic and – yes- ignorant in a way that uni students usually are. Give him a chance to think about the issue. I personally think he’s wrong that any woman ever gives up any bodily integrity for her foetus, but in the past Walton’s been openminded about learning from people here, and to his credit, he seems to be giving up a stranglehold on supernaturalism. Maybe the next step is to understand that potential-people don’t trump real people.
/serious mode
(We now return you to your thread, already in progress…)
What are people’s thoughts on the latest point for an abortion or other medical intervention designed to still birth the baby? (obviously this is for pro-abortionists only, though do all anti-abortionists believe that ‘life’ and protection starts from the moment sperm hits ovum?)
Hey, did you know that the only effect of banning third trimester abortions is to force women who are pregnant with a late-term dead or dying fetus to undergo a major complicated medical procedure instead of the relatively simple “partial birth” abortion. Or die, of course. Fun for all the family!
I am totally opposed to sane women choosing to have an abortion at 8.5 months for frivolous reasons. I am also totally opposed to people unicycling naked across Death Valley with no water. And don’t get me started on the scourge of concert violinists deliberately smashing Stradivarius instruments.
Actually, I’m in favour of the graduated 3-month steps mentioned up-thread. Because I think that’s a pretty close match to how most women already choose – and it has a much better chance of being accepted law than the total choice option. Pragmatics, not principle.
I’ll go along with Cath. Good description.
Walton writes: Yes, the woman has a right to bodily integrity. But, as I pointed out above, such a right cannot be absolute, because sometimes one person’s bodily integrity conflicts directly with another’s. The law must therefore prioritise, and draw a line somewhere.
I see. I’m not arguing (although I could and did allude to the fact that I think so) that the fetus is not a human life. What I’m saying is that the fetus does not enjoy the same status and rights as the born, independent woman who carries it.
Because we love our children and our families and our country, and because we aren’t sociopaths without an ounce of empathy, we tend to anthropomorphize the fetus, in a sense. It’s a credit to us if we do. We should feel love for our offspring; if we don’t joyfully anticipate the birth then we tend not to bond with the newborn. If we miscarry, we grieve.
We attach a very high value to its potential, but the fetus is not really a person. Abortion is, of course, not something to be taken lightly. But the authority of the law to force the actual, born person to enslave themselves to the parasitic potential human is sharply limited; I would go so far as to say it’s nonexistent.
We libertarians come under fire for saying that nobody’s need constitutes a legitimate claim on our liberty or property (generosity is purely a choice, in other words, not an obligation). But this is the classic case where such a thing obtains. Even the need of a fetus, however helpless and dependent, does not constitute a legitimate claim.
If you want to talk about the fetus as if it is a person, then you have to acknowledge that no one is obliged to give another person a property interest in their own body. Thus the pregnant woman has no obligation to give the fetus, its father, the government, or any other entity property rights in her body. If the fetus is not a person, then the woman has a perfect, unanswerable claim to do what she likes with her own body.
Walton,
If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one. But you do not have the right to decide what a woman will do in a situation which you will never be involved in.
It’s particularly annoying that you announce, with obvious relish, that you partake in libertarianism and yet you would restrict other peoples’ choices because those choices make you feel uncomfortable. If you’re going to be a true libertarian then you have to go all the way. To paraphrase Sir Terrance Pratchett: “Libertarianism isn’t just for Hogswatch, it’s year round.” If you’re going to be a true libertarian, then you have to accept that you CANNOT coerce another person to do your bidding in place of her own desires.
Damn, I wrote that without once sneering at looneytarianism. I’m so proud of myself.
“Again, does this make them any less human?…So far, I have never heard a convincing explanation for why, say, a 25-week-old foetus is any less a human being than a 1-week-old newborn baby, or for why it should have fewer rights.”
Nobody is arguing that the fetus is not human. You’re trying to distract from the central point, which is that you must take the supposedly inalienable human rights you treasure from someone in order to give them to another being that isn’t even a full developed human child yet, let alone a child able to act on at least some of those rights. That’s your answer. You may not like that, but that’s your problem. That’s how biology works. And if you believe in inalienable human rights, you cannot take from one to give to another.
The only way for your version of biology to work and function with your version of morality, children will have to be grown in labs outside of womens’ wombs and in artificial birthing chambers of some sort or another. And even then, I guarantee some flaw in the process will claim at least some of them.
What does anyone else’s comfort have to do with it, anyway?
Plenty of medical procedures make me uncomfortable. Burn debridement gives me the heebiejeebies, so does open heart surgery. Yet somehow I manage to restrain myself from demanding they be controlled through the legal system.
(In other news, Cath at #173 is The. Greatest.)
What Walton is ignoring (or ignorant of) is that the killing of another person is, in fact, legal in certain other circumstances, such as self defense. In fact, you can even kill someone who is unwittingly doing you harm. The example I remember from law school (oh so long ago) is the bulldozer operator who doesn’t know that he’s about to run over you. Yup, you can shoot him.
While there is no perfect analogy for pregnancy (certainly not “conjoined twins”!), there is certainly legal precedent for choosing one’s life over another’s.
And DGKnipfer says:
While this sounds reasonable, it’s actually pretty meaningless. Basically you’re saying that women can do what they want but they have to be nice to men and people in authority and listen politely. Otherwise, what formula do you propose? Women get a a “greater say,” OK, which means a larger vote than two other people. So…the woman gets a 40% vote and the other two each get 30%? So they can outvote her? Because if she gets more than 50% say, the opinions of the other two are irrelevant. It’s nice of her to listen to them, maybe, but you certainly can’t legislate that!
Just as a “oh hey, why not?” question: if a woman agrees to be surrogate mother to a gay couple (obviously male) and for the sake of argument we say that the gay couple provides all the financial resources and the woman is guaranteed her job back if she has one.
Would the woman have the right to get an abortion at will without considering the input of the gay couple? (Assuming of course the pregnancy didn’t need to be terminated for health issues.)
kylock, that falls under “breach of contract” and is irrelevant to the abortion debate.
Kylock,
Your “what if” question would fall under contract law. If the woman executed a contract to perform a service for specified payment and then failed to fulfill the contract, then the men could sue for breach of contract.
Jadehawk @ 181
And another fine sidestep by a person in this thread.
How is it irrelevant? When did I posit that there was a contract involved? You assume there is one, and it would be dumb to not have one, but I never said there was one. Unless we consider oral agreements binding contracts now.
So let’s say there is no legally binding contract. Now, answer my question: Does the woman have the same right to an abortion as before?
Ann @179
True. As you cannot hope to, and should not want to legislate every possible contingency. My hope would be that anybody considering an abortion would seek proper medical advice from an unbiased doctor and would discuss it with their significant other before making a decision. In the end she can get an abortion at her discursion.
The problem today may be finding an unbiased doctor.
from a legal standpoint, yes.
@Kylock 183:
In instances of a grave, mortal dilemma for the surrogate, yes she should have every right to abort without consulting her donors.
Furthermore, if there really is no contract– if the pregnancy ended up becoming a major inconvenience, and if she was an asshole, she could and should have the thing aborted with no consequences.
@ Jadehawk and Rococococococo
So she can disregard any and all emotional and financial distress she might place upon this couple, because she doesn’t want to do the pregnancy anymore? (Again, we’re assuming no health issues no monetary cost and resumption of job upon end of pregnancy.)
yes. it’s not illegal to be an asshole(or else breakups and cheating would be a felonies). that’s why we have contracts in the first place.
Just making sure. I like people stating definitely the world functions in a black and white way. It makes me a little giddy.
Kylock, you’re obviously an idiot, like Walter. You must not be privileged enough to have rejected god and become a freethinker like the awesome people on this site. Because if you disagree with a freethinker, you obviously aren’t one. Psh on thinking for yourself, that isn’t what the embodiment of a freethinker is!
Furthermore, while this might be a breach of contract (and yes, we consider oral agreements to be binding contracts, and have for a very long time), the court rarely forces the party in breach to actually fulfill the contract, in part because that constitutes forced labor (a particularly appropriate term in this context!). Instead, the court assesses monetary damages, including compensation for emotional and financial distress.
except that it doesn’t. the law on the other hand needs to be clear and precise and uniform, or else we’re at the mercy of opinions.
“So let’s say there is no legally binding contract.”
Read it. Love it.
and what ann said about oral contracts. i forgot about that.
and kylock, it’s extremely bad form to hijack someone’s handle.
*sigh*
Again Jadehawk, “So let’s say there is no legally binding contract.”
Read it. Love it.
Also, saying “except that it doesn’t” isn’t even an argument.
Jadehawk, Kylock didn’t hack my handle. RococoSalmon = Rocococococo, I just liked his name better. Same person, PZ can validate email if he didn’t have better things to do.
…
You think I jacked someone’s handle?
I’m glad to know you afford me no intellectual regard (due to your lack of arguments, or comprehension of mine) nor basic human regard, implying I intentionally trolled myself.
Just, wow. I’m leaving, having all my arguments sidestepped by people who don’t want to address the issues I raise is tedious.
wtf is wrong with your reading comprehension?
1)it would take extraordinary circumstances for there not to be an “oral contract”
2)the mere fact that there’s such a thing as an “oral contract” pretty clearly indicates that this isn’t a black-and-white situation;
3)the fact that you’re forcing extraordinary circumstances (i.e. no oral contract, and absolutely no reason for abortion other than “because i feel like it”) in your hypothetical example makes your example a black-and-white one, and as such you’re begging the question.
crap, sorry rococo, i misread that post and that made it sound like the opposite of what it said. and such a sudden change in opinion made me suspect hijacking.
No I trolled you first!
(In case anyone besides Kylock & Jadehawk are still reading…)
To raise the ante further…why must even pro-choicers insist that abortion is such a freighted, solemn, ethically-burdened option? Feminists (which come in both sexes) should see it as just another option, period. Possibly even better than contraception in some cases, if one weighs the pros & cons. Do we have any data that compare the risks of first-trimester abortion (let alone one-dose morning-after pills) to the risks of fertile-life-long doses of systemic hormones? And BC pills are not only linked to heightened mortality risks, they have other pesky side-effects such as decreased libido—a fair trade-off for women? And their partners, for that matter? IUDs have their associated risks, as do implants, etc. Plus, complication-free, first-trimester vacuum extraction abortion is much less risky than carrying a fetus to term…IMO, abortion should just be on the plate of options, no moralizing necessary.
We’re almost all biologists, here—real or wannabe—and are certainly not surprised that the sex drive is one of the strongest in nature. Judging from our typical banter, we enjoy it immensely…which is because we evolved to experience it thusly. Sex happens. Coercive sex happens. Inebriated sex happens. Pregnancy happens. Billions & billions of times, as Sagan might have said. Women spend 30-40 years of their lives having to deal with the connection. No one’s perfect, no method of contraception’s perfect, biologically we’re a species trying to reproduce ourselves, and we live in a culture of sex-laden media, art, & commerce. Pregnancy/childbirth is life-changing for women—inescapably–so signing up for the whole 9 months should be her decision alone.
For the record—I’ve had 2 abortions (the first one a year before Roe v. Wade); two (documented) miscarriages; one stillbirth (full term); two live-births (much wanted). Also have used BC pills, the Dalkon Shield, a diaphragm…I.e., this isn’t all just hypothetical…
one of many, i believe that was and is the standard way in which abortion is treated in Eastern Europe (legacy of the fact that women there had reproductive rights before there was the Pill). to this day, taking the pill is seen a bit like taking antibiotics to avoid being ill :-p
Oh look, it’s Walton the woman hating jerk.
We’ve been round and round the abortion issue with this twit, numerous times.
Just write the fucker off. It’s all he deserves because he’s too fucking stupid to live.
What else can you expect from someone who speaks highly of Ann Fucking Moron Coulter?
Walton:
I still have nothing but contempt for you, you disgusting fundalunatic misogynistic git. FOAD.
So–if only the US were as progressive as Eastern Europe…
Thanks, that’s an upper, Jadehawk.
er… will it make you feel better to know that in a few of those Eastern European countries, the pill is seen as “premeditated sinning” while abortion is “fixing an oopsie”?
those particular ones are not really more enlightened, it’s just the reverse side of the coin :-p
…why must even pro-choicers insist that abortion is such a freighted, solemn, ethically-burdened option?
Just because there’s usually so much emotion invested in the whole idea. It’s too easy to be in such a state of shock, shame, and fear that you aren’t able to make the decision you would make under ordinary circumstances. You’re likely to think of how sad it is that it couldn’t have been different; if you’re unprepared yourself, you don’t know how to tell your partner (if he’s even around and is likely to care), you may feel somewhat of a failure. You guilt-trip yourself and you grieve.
My boyfriend at the time I gave up our daughter hasn’t seen me in fifteen years, but (weirdly) I occasionally correspond with his wife by e-mail. She said he is still dealing with it in therapy. We really wanted things to be different, but we did what we thought was best for ourselves and for the baby at the time, and I’m cool with that even if he isn’t. Remember we were religious at the time.
If people in Europe don’t torture themselves with the decision, I think that’s a good and liberating thing. I don’t know how reasonable that is to expect of others here in the U.S., though.
speedwell,
Well, yes, I agree that abortion is often a heavy decision, and much depends on the parties and circumstances involved. For some it is an enormous relief…and for some, yes, just a convenience. I am just tired of even pro-choicers solemnly (& paternalistically) declaring that it should always be a joint decision between “a woman and her doctor,” for instance. Not all women need or want medical input in the decision process; the same is true of partner input…In my (first) case, being young and something of a drama-queen, I tried to make the issue much heavier than it actually was. Years (and much life experience) later, it seems rather inconsequential, and would be even less so without the forced gravity society & religion impose.
I am 100% sure that there would have been lasting emotional repercussions had I borne that child and relinquished it after birth. You and your ex-boyfriend have my deepest sympathy, and kudos for being able to do what seemed to be the right thing for all of you at the time.
Also, as you mention, we “guilt-trip” ourselves. For the most part, this is yet another example of the proverbial double standard, and apparently inescapable. NOW, Ms., and other feminist organizations and pundits have all made cases for the importance of women who’ve had abortions owning up to them, which is why I did so (albeit +/- anonymously…). We are legion. We are your basic, everyday woman…not some imagined case of poverty-stricken victim, ignorant teen-ager, “strumpet/trollop/slut,” or what-have-you.
Jadehawk: No…the “premeditated sinning” idea makes me barf. I can buy the “oopsie” meme, tho. :D
It occurs to me, that if I was a woman and considering termination, it would be something that I had spent much time thinking about. And farther, that it could possibly be a difficult and emotional decision to make. To then be subject to the vituperations and hypocrisy of filthy minded individuals… I can’t even imagine… as a male, I suspect there would be broken noses all around.
One of many, yes, that’s exactly what I meant by “guilt-tripping.” We shame ourselves. This is a culture driven by needless shame. How needless, we need to all find out for ourselves. It took me a long time. I didn’t start to break free of the needless guilt of the past until I became an atheist (and started reading Ingersoll, incidentally).
I wonder if it’s even possible to break free of shame while still a Christian. I doubt it.
Hugh–That’s actually a very supportive comment. Thanks for those thoughts. I can certainly identify with the intense anger (presumably what leads to the broken noses). Would that there were some “appropriate” outlet for it…
speedwell, I should think it’s considerably harder to throw off a belief-system that’s heretofore defined your very existence than it is to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. If I’d had to deal with both at the same time…well, I can’t say what I’d’ve done. It’s bad enough dealing with other people’s religiousness. I tip my hat.
Your “what if” question would fall under contract law. If the woman executed a contract to perform a service for specified payment and then failed to fulfill the contract, then the men could sue for breach of contract.
Yes, they could – but I doubt a court would grant an injunction or order of specific performance to actually prevent her having an abortion. Rather, they’d order her to pay monetary damages for breach. In common law countries the grant of an injunction, being an equitable remedy, is always at the discretion of the court, and the court can always make an award of damages in lieu. (Precedent for this would be the fact that, in common law jurisdictions, where an employment contract is breached, the courts will not order the employee back to work. If you breach your employment contract, the court can order you to pay damages to your employer, but can’t actually force you to carry on working. In the UK this is enshrined in statute – the Trade Union and Industrial Relations Act – but it was a pre-existing principle at common law. The situation you describe would be analogous; I doubt a court would feel comfortable forcing a woman to have a baby in order to perform a contract.)
What Walton is ignoring (or ignorant of) is that the killing of another person is, in fact, legal in certain other circumstances, such as self defense. In fact, you can even kill someone who is unwittingly doing you harm. The example I remember from law school (oh so long ago) is the bulldozer operator who doesn’t know that he’s about to run over you. Yup, you can shoot him.
Yes, that’s true – and you’re right, I should have noted that point. (I did know it, being a law student.) However, don’t tell me that, if you did shoot said bulldozer operator, you wouldn’t feel incredibly guilty. I know I would. Of course, that has no bearing on whether it should be illegal, so I’ll concede your point.
Hey Walton,
As a barrister, can I just say, we fucking HATE law students who think they know anything at all about the law. You have a magnitude of learning about to hit you in the arse when you graduate and realise you actually know bugger all.
Fuck off and do an assignment or something and stop bothering the adults about real life scenarios that they may have had experience with and you haven’t.
As a barrister, can I just say, we fucking HATE law students who think they know anything at all about the law. You have a magnitude of learning about to hit you in the arse when you graduate and realise you actually know bugger all.
There’s really no need to be like that. Sadly, the few barristers I know seem to harbour a similar attitude to yours. Yes, I don’t doubt that you have much greater nitpicky in-depth knowledge of the case law than I do; that’s your job (and please feel free to correct me if, say, I got the name of the statute wrong above; but tbh I don’t really care). Personally I hate courtrooms with a passion, and have no desire whatsoever to become a barrister (or indeed a solicitor-advocate). If I can’t get into legal academia (my first choice), I’m planning for a career outside of law.
On one level, I’m sorry that I’ve pissed everyone off here. Yet I can’t, in all honesty and in good conscience, apologise for holding the opinion which I hold on the matter of abortion. And I’m incredibly depressed by the attitude that, because I happen to be male and young, I can’t possibly understand the issues and I’m being impertinent by daring to venture an opinion. I have not been confrontational. I have not used aggressive language. Yet expressing any disagreement with abortion-on-demand gets me labelled, in some quarters, a misogynist.
I’ll abandon this thread now, since there’s nothing else to be gained. Thanks to speedwell and others who’ve raised interesting and intelligent points in a civil manner, rather than simply insulting me.
Every time the issue of abortion comes up, I want to make baby-eating jokes. The discussion is a joke, no matter the circumstances anyone who thinks a blastocyst has more rights than an adult female has something very wrong in the head.
On second thoughts, I apologise to everyone for the tone of my post at #213 above. It wasn’t fair.
FWIW, I do understand that for some people this issue is very personal. For me, of course, it’s a purely academic discussion, but I can understand that it isn’t that way for everyone.
I realise I can be insensitive, stubborn, wrong-headed and slightly arrogant at times. And I apologise for this. But I’m not stupid, and I do read and understand others’ posts. I wouldn’t even be here if I had no interest in other people’s opinions.
Walton (#162)
Degree of cognitive development, for a start. But I can’t help but note this all too common and annoyingly vague use of the term “human being”. Is this meant to be a synonym for “human organism”? Or “person”? Or something in between (“human agent”, perhaps)? Because no-one is going to give you an answer that you’ll find convincing unless you frame the question in a much less ambiguous way.
Again, you need to define the term “human being”, otherwise it’s completely unclear as to why being a human being is morally relevant.
No, the only relevant question is whether a foetus possesses those attributes on the basis of which we confer rights (without necessarily prejudging at this stage what those attributes actually are). Being a “human being” may or may not entail the possession of those attributes (and hence the possession of rights), depending on what the damned term is supposed to mean.
Is a little clarity too much to ask for?
You and Rick Warren should get together and cry into your beers. He’s heartbroken that taking away gays’ rights would get him called a homophobe; you’re pouty that having misogynistic opinions would get you called a misogynist.
At the risk of losing my credibility, I’m not a lawyer… I just play one on the Internet. :D Seriously, though… I’m just an IT flunky with a pash for a few mostly-nonpartisan law blogs and interesting appellate opinions.
Walton, drop me a line and I’ll send you some really powerful links I’ve run across to serious and relevant legal and libertarian resources that I think will broaden and deepen your legal experience (a couple from the UK, too). I don’t want to troll the thread with them.
Walton @211,
In common law countries the grant of an injunction, being an equitable remedy, is always at the discretion of the court, and the court can always make an award of damages in lieu
The first part of that sentence is correct. The second part is wrong. Courts don’t award damages “in lieu” of equitable relief. If anything, it’s equitable remedies that are (sometimes) awarded in lieu of damages.
Money damages are the default remedy in any contract case; equitable remedies are not only at the court’s discretion, they are rare and in most sorts of dispute simply not available. It’s easy to lose sight of this, law and equity having effectively merged long ago; but originally a court of law could not grant equitable relief; you needed to go into an entirely different kind of court if that’s what you wanted to try for. (There’s a lot of (for me) fascinating legal history behind all this, but I won’t bore the comments board with the details. If you’re interested in that sort of thing, J.H. Baker has an excellent introductory text.)
In many civil-law systems, specific performance is (at least technically) the default remedy for breach of contract; but at least in the jurisdiction where I studied and the other civilian jurisdictions I’m familiar with, damages are de facto the most common form of relief.
And @213,
Yet expressing any disagreement with abortion-on-demand gets me labelled, in some quarters, a misogynist
Though you might not on the whole be a misogynist (indeed I rather doubt you are), your position (that a woman’s sole authority to make her own reproductive choices should be usurped) is misogynistic.
Mind you there are some women who take that same position. And some of them are misogynists (a Y chromosome is not a job requirement), while others might not be but are at least on that question taking a misogynistic position.
Somebody upthread said, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one”. I realise that this looks like a flippant bumper-sticker slogan (in part because it is). But it is also profound and correct, as pithy a declaration of freedom of choice as one could ask for; pithier even than a Krispy Kreme donut.
“Why does it matter to you what some random student on the Internet says? To the best of my knowledge, my opinion about abortion has no effect whatsoever on your life. If you’re not interested in discussing these things with me, fine; no one’s forcing you to. But there’s no need to get so angry with me.”
The point is that there are a lot of misogynistic morons just like you in positions of power. misogynistic morons like you vote. Misogynistic morons like you are always actively trying to rob me of a basic human right.
I don’t care what *you* say, fluffy, and I’m not “angry” with you. You’re a blind, privileged, clueless misogynist. I pity you.
“Just, wow. I’m leaving, having all my arguments sidestepped by people who don’t want to address the issues I raise is tedious”
“sidestepping” means answering in a way he doesn’t like.
Mrs Tilton at #219: Yes, you’re right, of course – I was imprecise in my use of language (always a sin for a lawyer). But the English courts, at any rate, do sometimes talk of damages being awarded “in lieu” of an injunction (e.g. Miller v Jackson). Anyway, it’s sufficient to state that they are alternatives; the award of damages is the only remedy at common law, and is the default, whereas the award of equitable remedies is a matter for the discretion of the court, acting as a “court of equity” rather than a “court of law” (which, as you point out, were two completely separate court systems prior to the Judicature Acts, and I believe are still separate in Delaware and some other US states).
As to your other point: I still think it’s a mistake to see this as an issue of the State trying to impose private moral value judgments on women. Rather, for me, it’s an issue of the State performing its most basic duty: to protect human beings from being killed by other human beings, and to determine when coercive force can and cannot be used against another person. This is the foundational role of the State; without it, there would be anarchy. This doesn’t mean, of course, that abortion “is murder” and must be banned outright – because it turns on a number of nuanced questions: (1) whether a foetus is a “human being” and at what stage it becomes so; (2) if it is a human being, whether it ought to be treated as a “person” for purposes of law; and (3) how its rights should be balanced against the right of the mother to bodily integrity.
I suppose we can conclude that there’s no simple and easy solution, and I apologise if I gave the impression that I had some sort of pithy blanket statement about it. I certainly don’t support an outright ban on abortion from the moment of conception. As regards abortion in the later stages, I’m wary of trying to stick numbers or rigid rules on it, and will refrain from doing so.
Walton, did you ever respond to my post #163? It’s a conclusive thought experiment.
Walton wrote: “…whether a foetus is a “human being” and at what stage it becomes so…”
I didn’t address that point about “what stage,” but I only have a short comment about it, to wit:
We typically use birth as the transition point. It’s convenient and customary. It’s not so much an ideological or even legal decision as it is simply psychologically satisfying. As the point at which the body naturally rejects the fetus anyway, it nullifies the “abortion” issues and moots many of the associated “human life” medical and legal issues.
There’s really no other more appropriate point to draw the line, given that a line must be drawn. We have to do the best we can if we’re going to be “fair to everyone”, even if our solution isn’t completely satisfactory in every respect. The fault here lies more with the unavoidable arbitrary nature of law drafting, in which legislators have to set up rules before they know anything about the individual cases that follow the passage of the laws in question.
Signs of bad faith from Walton:
Avoidance of direct specific points and focus on vague abstracts.
Repetition of contested statements without addressing the contentions raised.
Like so many, it seems Walton is simply trying to post hoc justify an unreasonable position which he holds for reasons he is unwilling to admit to himself and/or to others.
Hey, Walton, please, I wasn’t having a go at you, I hope it didn’t seem that way.
One of many. I’m not quite the violent monkey man that I pretend to be. I find that chopping wood helps. And there have been occasions when I’ve cleaned up the neighbour’s wood pile as well. I almost never actually hit people nowadays, honest.
It may well be that there are people in the anti-abortion movement that truly have good motives. But I think it’s mostly about justifying the childish indulgence of base and vicious emotions at the expense of others.
@57, US babies just taste better.
I was having a go at Walton – in fact, I wish he’d have a go straight off of this website. Remember – this is a guy who thinks that there is more evidence for G-dog and big baby Jesus than for an invisible pink unicorn. Someone said it happened a long time ago in a really old book, so it must be true!
And Walton, if you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. See, that was easy.
To answer some questions…
“Abortion on demand” is actually part of what pro-choice entails, since, yes, a woman should be able to end her pregnancy whenever she sees fit. Period. There should be no legislature whatsoever keeping a woman from making her own choices about her own body.
That said, “late-term” abortions are almost non-existent, except in the cases of medical emergency. Women do not go almost all the way to term and then think, “UH OH NEVER MIND! Time for an abortion!”
First of all, late-term abortions are much harder on a woman’s body than just going to full term, unless there is a medical emergency that puts the life of the fetus and/or woman in danger. Secondly, “LATE-TERM ABORTIONS OH NO OH NO EVIL!” is just more anti-choice rhetoric and a huge straw man. Period.
Thirdly, while I DO think abortions should be 100% legal, all of the time (the government should not be in my body! And I’m not even a libertarian!), I don’t really think that’s politically possible, and so, while the rules and laws we have in place now are arbitrary, they at least make some sense politically, and considering the fact that late-term abortions are basically a myth unless for a medical emergency, I don’t see it as harmful.
“But if it’s a normal, healthy, but unwanted pregnancy, then the mother’s right to physical health is outweighed, IMO, by the foetus’s right to life. ”
That makes no sense. Why does the fetus suddenly have more rights than the woman, just because it’s “healthy”? Why is it that the fetus THAT CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT LIFE SUPPORT FROM THE PREGNANT WOMAN is suddenly more deserving of life than the LIVING WOMAN THAT IS SUPPORTING THE FETUS?
“indeed, there’s a US group called Libertarians for Life). ”
And there is a group called “Feminists for Life.” They aren’t feminists. Just because they call themselves feminists does not mean they are feminists. And just because some idiotic group calls themselves Libertarians does not mean they are, in fact, Libertarians, since, you know, #1 for Libertarians is INDIVIDAUL FREEDOM, and making the unborn fetus which CANNOT live without the woman supporting it more important than THE LIVING WOMAN SUPPORTING THE FETUS is not fucking libertarian because it completely imposes on INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.
God, you’re a fucking moron. How can you call yourself a libertarian when it’s obvious you don’t know what it even means?
Doughnuts are deeply suspicious. Consider:
1. The terrifying Rachel Ray, notorious Palestinian terrorist, and her whateverthehelltheycalltheirterroristneckscarf on Dunkin’ Donuts ads that CHILDREN could watch!
2. Krispy Kremes promoting baby sacrifice and IUDs! For all we know they have abortion drugs in them. For all we know. Prove me wrong?
3. They control our cops!
Thank you.
“Yes, that’s true – and you’re right, I should have noted that point. (I did know it, being a law student.) However, don’t tell me that, if you did shoot said bulldozer operator, you wouldn’t feel incredibly guilty. I know I would. Of course, that has no bearing on whether it should be illegal, so I’ll concede your point”
So you’re basically saying all women should feel guilty when they have abortions? Man, are you misogynist. You make REAL libertarians look bad.
“How can you call yourself a libertarian when it’s obvious you don’t know what it even means?”
All the cool kids are doing it.
Same with “socialism” Endor, because apparently, a pretty center-left and mainstream capitalistic president is a “socialist” now.
Walton
“Imagine that a surgeon illegally drugged you and surgically removed your kidney, and transplanted it into someone who was dying of a kidney disease. The surgeon would, of course, be criminally prosecuted, and rightly so (and you would also have an action against him in civil damages).
But would you be justified in demanding that your spare kidney then be removed from the recipient, thereby killing him? (Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the recipient is innocent, and knew nothing of the surgeon’s behaviour.)”
Suppose my other kidney failed? Would I be justified in demanding my illegally taken kidney back then? Hmmm?
None of which has anything to do with abortion. I’m with those who’ve said you get a voice (with weight behind it)when you get a uterus.
Oops. Html fail. The first two paragraphs of #235 should have been the italicized quote.
Marilove @229,
Your explanation makes sense, is perfectly reasonable, and is a position I can agree with. Abortion is always such a touchy subject for most people it is often very difficult (impossible) to get a well reasoned point of view from anybody on the subject. Thank you for answering.
I’m expecting bile and hate back for this, my honest feelings. So before flaming, please stop and think.
First, I am anti-anti-abortion, and believe that abortions should be legal in many circumstance. I also have no problem with abortions to save a womans life. I fully realise the insignificant number of abortions carried out after about 24 weeks, and then only for medical purposes (UK law having 24 weeks as the normal limit), and support a womans right for at least the first 20 weeks- I am unsure where to place the ‘normal’ limit.
Where I feel uncomfortable is those who say abortion at any point up to term. My eldest was induced at 41 weeks, the youngest arrived unexpectedly at 37 weeks. ‘At any Point’ means the eldest could be aborted at the same point his younger brother was already over 3 weeks old. I can’t help but feel there should be a difference made between 39 days and 39 weeks.
I’m expecting bile and hate back for this, my honest feelings. So before flaming, please stop and think.
First, I am anti-anti-abortion, and believe that abortions should be legal in many circumstance. I also have no problem with abortions to save a womans life. I fully realise the insignificant number of abortions carried out after about 24 weeks, and then only for medical purposes (UK law having 24 weeks as the normal limit), and support a womans right for at least the first 20 weeks- I am unsure where to place the ‘normal’ limit.
Where I feel uncomfortable is those who say abortion at any point up to term. My eldest was induced at 41 weeks, the youngest arrived unexpectedly at 37 weeks. ‘At any Point’ means the eldest could be aborted at the same point his younger brother was already over 3 weeks old. I can’t help but feel there should be a difference made between 39 days and 39 weeks.
It’s rather predictable that a misogynist would think it mistaken to consider a law’s effects upon women.
Because the important thing, for you, is for us all to agree that there comes a time when a woman is less important than the contents of her womb. If you had to get specific about it, you’d lose any agreement, because there’s never an actual time during pregnancy when there arises a rational, non-misogynistic argument for revoking women’s rights. You’re obfuscating for a reason: you are a dishonest person.
Maybe you should have stopped and thought before you peddled such ignorance here.
How about you let that difference be decided by the doctors who can actually make informed decisions about their cases, instead of by legislators who cannot understand medicine nor write laws that apply reasonably to every woman’s life?
Doctors do not abort 39 week fetuses unless there is a medical necessity, and women do not suddenly change their minds at 39 weeks after they’ve decided so many months before that they want to give birth. These things do not happen. THEY DO NOT FUCKING HAPPEN.
This was already addressed several times in the thread. So the only, and I mean the only reason for you to make up these nonexistent situations is to erode support for actually-exercised women’s rights, actual choices for abortions that happen at reasonable times.
You’re peddling anti-choice rhetoric. Whether you’re doing it because you’re a sucker who never actually thought about how ridiculous and fantasy-based your objections are, or whether you’re deliberately lying about your motivations in order to concern troll, you deserve to be flamed.
Also, you are a misogynist for suggesting that women are so stupid and incapable of making decisions that they would carry a fetus for so many months and then flippantly go get an elective abortion at the last minute.
This doesn’t happen. If it happens inside your imagination, that’s because you’re a misogynist.
Last Hussar at 238/239: Where I feel uncomfortable is those who say abortion at any point up to term.
Here’s a thought experiment. Say that an abortion in the first month cost ten dollars, in the second month one hundred dollars, in the third month one thousand dollars, and so forth up until a ninth-month abortion (if I counted my zeroes right) would cost a thousand million dollars.
Now I’m NOT arguing that abortions should be priced like that. The money is meant to symbolize, imperfectly, how emotionally “invested” in the fetus we tend to be as gestational age increases. Different people might, of course, use different amounts of money that better symbolized their feelings.
As you can imagine from my analogy, the emotional and psychological “cost” increases from easy and affordable to a staggering amount. That’s the way most of us feel, from what I can tell by the posts here. All we’re saying is that abortion should be available at all stages of gestation, even if we personally consider the “costs” to be unreasonably high at some point or other.
There is a distinction made between those times, but really how many people get an abortion at 39 weeks? Surely it would only happen under extreme circumstances, and again the rights of the mother should outweigh the rights of the unborn foetus. It’s those extreme circumstances where the protection of the choice is necessitated, it’s not for someone who figures out at the very last second that it wasn’t such a good idea to have a baby.
Banning the procedure at any stage will endanger lives and limit the capacity of doctors to do what is in the best interest of the patient. We already distinguish between certain stages of the pregnancy, both on a legal and a personal level. Even after a child is born, there are certain genetic conditions that mean that it’s more favourable to kill the child as opposed to letting it live a few short months in absolute agony before it dies naturally. Sometimes these things happen and we need legal protection when a decision like this is made. It’s not so we can go around killing babies with immunity, it’s nothing more than recognition that extreme circumstances do occasionally arise that go beyond the scope of a black & white outcome.
Kel @ 244: In support of your post, I’d like to draw the commenters’ attention to the excellent and vastly interesting case reports at http://www.thefetus.net/listing.php?id=2 (part of a site on diagnostic ultrasound). A thorough understanding of many of the ways a pregnancy can go wrong would be a good way to position one’s head squarely on one’s shoulders about whether the fetus is an actual or potential person and what the roles of the pregnant woman and the medical professional are in practice.
Hey, misogynist men? HEY, YES, YOU! PLEASE READ THIS.
Stop. STOP STOP STOP with the misogynist, anti-choice rhetoric about late-term abortions, Jesus fucking CHRIST. This shit is getting old. “But but but, if abortion is legal, all these stupid women who obviously can’t think for themselves will decide, at 8.5 months, to suddenly ABORT!”
Jesus Christ, do you all really have that poor of a view on women that you think they just love to go almost FULL TERM with a baby and then suddenly decide they don’t to go the extra 2 weeks? What the hell? Pregnancy is not fun and games, guys. I know it’s hard for you to understand since … YOU CANNOT GET PREGNANT, but pregnancy is very hard on a woman. Most women are not going to go almost full-term and then suddenly change their mind. By that time they have plans to either keep the baby or adopt.
Late-term abortions aside from medical emergencies are a fucking myth and anti-choice rhetoric. PERIOD.
Good God, it amazes me that people who otherwise believe in Science (aside from Walton, of course) can’t think for themselves and suddenly just believe all the anti-choice rhetoric thrown their way. ‘Cuz suddenly, when fetus is involved, all logic is tossed out the window.
Way to go misogyny! I just love when MEN make decisions on what a WOMAN should do with HER body!
Also, uyi, you are awesome.
Marilove: you are correct. Late-pregnancy abortions (after 26 weeks) pretty much don’t exist. At that time, you have a viable fetus (one that will survive after birth for those who don’t know medical terminology). Yes, the baby will require a lot of support, but the fetus/baby usually survives.
However…I do have to argue with the “women don’t use abortions for birth control” issue. Unfortunately, there are some women, and as a midwife I cared for them, who DO use early TOP as birth control. Meeting a 17 year-old girl who is having her 5th abortion tells you this. Talking to the girl who refuses to use any other form of birth control (refuses pills, depo, iud, diaphragm, everything we offered and “my guy won’t wear a rubber”) tells you that she is using them for birth control. We educated, we gave free or very low cost birth control. Abortions were a lot more expensive, and more detrimental to their reproductive health. They didn’t care. TOP was their birth control of choice.
I have to admit, I didn’t last long in that clinic. Broke my heart too many times. Quitting was easier than severe depression.
marilove, your post at #246 reminded me of the old gag about the dummy who tried to swim across the English Channel… he got almost all the way to France when he decided he couldn’t make it, so he swam back.
Oh, please, Dawn, stop throwing around anti-choice rhetoric and anecdotal “evidence.”
Marilove: tell me where I said I was anti choice? I am very pro choice. I am much more pro sex education, pro birth control and pro woman’s choice.
As for anecdotal evidence…I worked in 2 inner city clinics. Both in the NY tri-state area. One was a Catholic pre-natal clinic for teens. The other was at a public hospital in a very low income area. I will not be more specific than that. It was very sad, and extremely disheartening. I still have friends who work in those clinics. I cannot, for the sake of my mental health. I am much happier working in another venue.