These photos are not alarming in appearance. I don't think you will be traumatized by looking at them. But in my opinion it's important to understand what a number of people are getting so worked up over.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue

The abject ignorance around the issue is astonishing. Thanks for your part in illustrating the absurdity.

Did you happen to find a picture of the soul attached?

"Did you happen to find a picture of the soul attached?"

COMMENT: No. But then, there was also no 'picture' of the electromagnetic or other quantum fields associated with the forces and interactions as related to a developing organism. Maybe a 'proto-soul' was there somewhere after all, awaiting neurological development into consciousness.

It is so easy to allow ignorance to fuel sarcasm.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is so easy to allow ignorance to fuel sarcasm.

Easier still is to judge other souls.

In some cultures, the soul is considered to enter the body at 7 weeks after conception and remains with the body 7 weeks after death.

I would say anything that lives past 7 weeks has had some life experience. The manner of death is probably the most important thing. It shouldn't be traumatic, like being torn limb from limb. That’s what should be regulated. A fetus should at least have the level of protection of USDA slaughter restrictions.

A soul in that position will find an alternative womb rather quickly, as anecdotal evidence of reincarnation suggests. The abortion issue could be much ado about nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2022 03:58PM by bradley.

What about life? Should it not be traumatic either?

"I want you to visit Planned Parenthood. That’s our Holocaust museum." - Ye

I’m sure the folks at Parler will appreciate his wit and wisdom.

Meanwhile Herschel Walker is looking around uncomfortably, hoping someone will explain Kanye's couplet to him.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I want you to visit Planned Parenthood. That’s
> our Holocaust museum." - Ye


From a site named “Facing History and Ourselves”, helping teachers to teach students about the Holocaust, some reasons to avoid using Holocaust allusions:

https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/holocaust-trivialization-distortion-what-are-implications-comparing-current-events

Excerpts:

“While Holocaust allusions have typically been used to compare political leaders or acts to Hitler and the Nazis, a current trend has surfaced where groups who believe they are being oppressed or persecuted liken themselves to Jews during the Holocaust. For example, shortly after the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a Russian propaganda video on a state-run media channel declared Russians “the new Jews.”

“In European, Canadian, and US cities during the COVID-19 pandemic, some groups protesting mask and vaccine mandates have compared these public health responses to Nazi edicts that dehumanized Jews and restricted Jewish civil liberties. Some anti-vaccine protestors have worn Star of David badges that imitate those the Nazis forced Jews to wear during the Holocaust. While in a healthy democracy citizens are free to criticize government policies with which they disagree, the use of symbols and references to the Holocaust to make political statements can be harmful.

“Critics of appropriating the Holocaust for modern political purposes call this practice Holocaust distortion or trivialization. By taking the Holocaust out of its historical context and bending it to serve a political agenda (e.g. “The Holocaust is just like...”), we risk distorting the specifics of this historical event. Holocaust survivor and author of Night Elie Wiesel often spoke of how the term itself 'Holocaust' has been trivialized by overuse, conjured to describe a range of unrelated events from a sports team’s bad loss to animal rights abuses. Even when it came to other genocides, Wiesel said, “I don’t like to compare one atrocity to another. That would be demeaning to both.”

“Holocaust comparisons can trivialize the magnitude and severity of suffering that victims of the Holocaust experienced by diluting the Holocaust’s gravity and singularity. If we lose sight of the Holocaust as an actual series of decisions and events orchestrated by real people that caused the suffering of millions, our ability to recognize and prevent human rights violations becomes compromised. We also compromise the Holocaust’s specific place and function in the history and identity of Jews as a people.”


Just don't.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2022 01:53PM by Nightingale.

Thank you for that. Much of what we call malice is simple stupidity, which cheapens malice. We should hope that no powerful nation ever again comes under the thrall of such malevolent mass psychosis. My hopes are dimming with the Ukraine situation, but as Liz Truss would say, always look on the bright side of life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2022 03:54PM by bradley.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bradley Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "I want you to visit Planned Parenthood.
> That’s
> > our Holocaust museum." - Ye
>
>
> From a site named “Facing History and
> Ourselves”, helping teachers to teach students
> about the Holocaust, some reasons to avoid using
> Holocaust allusions:
>
> https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/hol
> ocaust-trivialization-distortion-what-are-implicat
> ions-comparing-current-events
>
> Excerpts:
>
> “While Holocaust allusions have typically been
> used to compare political leaders or acts to
> Hitler and the Nazis, a current trend has surfaced
> where groups who believe they are being oppressed
> or persecuted liken themselves to Jews during the
> Holocaust. For example, shortly after the February
> 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a Russian
> propaganda video on a state-run media channel
> declared Russians “the new Jews.”
>
> “In European, Canadian, and US cities during the
> COVID-19 pandemic, some groups protesting mask and
> vaccine mandates have compared these public health
> responses to Nazi edicts that dehumanized Jews and
> restricted Jewish civil liberties. Some
> anti-vaccine protestors have worn Star of David
> badges that imitate those the Nazis forced Jews to
> wear during the Holocaust. While in a healthy
> democracy citizens are free to criticize
> government policies with which they disagree, the
> use of symbols and references to the Holocaust to
> make political statements can be harmful.
>
> “Critics of appropriating the Holocaust for
> modern political purposes call this practice
> Holocaust distortion or trivialization. By taking
> the Holocaust out of its historical context and
> bending it to serve a political agenda (e.g.
> “The Holocaust is just like...”), we risk
> distorting the specifics of this historical event.
> Holocaust survivor and author of Night Elie Wiesel
> often spoke of how the term itself 'Holocaust' has
> been trivialized by overuse, conjured to describe
> a range of unrelated events from a sports team’s
> bad loss to animal rights abuses. Even when it
> came to other genocides, Wiesel said, “I don’t
> like to compare one atrocity to another. That
> would be demeaning to both.”
>
> “Holocaust comparisons can trivialize the
> magnitude and severity of suffering that victims
> of the Holocaust experienced by diluting the
> Holocaust’s gravity and singularity. If we lose
> sight of the Holocaust as an actual series of
> decisions and events orchestrated by real people
> that caused the suffering of millions, our ability
> to recognize and prevent human rights violations
> becomes compromised. We also compromise the
> Holocaust’s specific place and function in the
> history and identity of Jews as a people.”
>
>
> Just don't.

I wonder how many/few of those who have casually tossed out Holocaust references have actually visited museums or concentration camps associated with the Holocaust. About ten years ago I visited the Dachau memorial while visiting Munich, and that was overwhelming. I cannot imagine visiting a place like Auschwitz, which was far worse than Dachau. Just a few weeks ago I was in Amsterdam and visited the Anne Frank house and was moved to tears over it. Casually dismissing or denying the Holocaust, and making silly comparisons to it, is disturbing on so many levels.

"These photos are not alarming in appearance. I don't think you will be traumatized by looking at them. But in my opinion it's important to understand what a number of people are getting so worked up over."

COMMENT: Is this supposed to be an argument--or even part of an argument--for prochoice? If so, it fails miserably:

First: The visual appearance of an embryo absent some relevant magnification is misleading in that it does not show the true structure of the embryo at the identified time of development. Thus, this photo is absurd as indicating the degree of development or complexity that is being terminated by an abortion even in this early stage.

Second: It assumes that the moral status of a human life is to be identified by its current stage of development, rather than its current 'holistic' status as a developing organism toward full human potential. Prolife advocates do not agree with this assumption, and the moral status of a fetus cannot be resolved objectivity.

Third: (and most importantly) It undermines the most important argument of the 'prochoice' position by making abortion about the status of the embryo and fetus, rather than the rights of the pregnant woman. Once prochoice advocates go down this road they lose because the moral status of the fetus is always ambiguous and disputed, whereas the affirmative rights of the mother (an uncontroversially already existing person) are beyond dispute and begin by objective appeals to established law. In short, the prochoice advocate should not get hung-up on the ambiguity of the moral status of the developing fetus by *diminishing* it, but instead focus on the legal (and moral) status of the mother by *affirming* it!

Thus:

Given (1) the biological complexities associated with pregnancy; (2) the complexities associated with the unique life and pregnancy context of the mother; (3) the diverse moral intuitions and ambiguities associated with abortion (including the moral status of the fetus); and (4) the fact that a fetus is part of the woman's body and dependent upon her for its own life, the abortion decision should be left to the woman--with minimal, if any, state interference.

In my opinion that is the best prochoice argument. Directing attention to a vague, unrealistic, 'photo' of an embryo is just misguided rhetoric to make the prochoice advocate feel better or trick an unsuspecting prolife advocate into thinking that abortion decision really doesn't morally matter.

Imagine you wanted to build your dream house. You hire an architect, who draws up all of the plans to your explicit specifications. You submit the plans to the County Development Office and obtain approval and the necessary permits. You then hire a contractor who secures all of the needed subcontractors and arranges for each stage of the house to be completed in its proper order. All is ready. The grading contractor prepares the land, smoothing it out, and staking the location of the proposed house in accordance with the plans. The plot is then excavated, and sewer lines are installed. Then, the concrete contractor lays out the rebar, and pours the foundation, Then the framing contractor arrives on the scene and constructs the framing of the walls and ceilings. Everything is looking great.

Then one night an enemy starts a fire and burns down the entire structure, and rips out all of the previous work, leaving nothing left but the lot. You are obviously very upset. Your dreamhouse has been destroyed. When the perpetrator is apprehended, you confront him and explain that he has destroyed your life; not only your house, but your plans for the future, the place you were going to come home to every night, the place where you were going to raise your children, retire, etc.

In response, the perpetrator says,

"What is all the fuss about? All I destroyed was a bunch of construction materials. There was not even any house that was destroyed, and you never even lived there. Plus, you can always rebuild."

Would you be satisfied with such an answer? Would it temper your anger and sense of loss? In short, there is value in potentiality.

Imperfectly analogously, a human embryo contains all of the genetic 'information' for the step by step (or continuous) 'construction' of an entire human being. The state of development (whatever it is) represents the progress that has been made toward realizing such genetic instructions. So, when an abortion occurs, it is not just destruction of 'a bit of tissue.' It is the destruction of what might have been and what likely would have been, a human life. Moreover, in this case it cannot be 'rebuilt.'

Thus, a developing embryo or fetus clearly carries with it moral significance. (Just as Roe stated) In my view, the reproductive irresponsibility shown by both men and women in recent history in generally diminishing the moral status of a fetus, and thus treating abortion far too cavalierly (including as suggested in threads like this), has greatly contributed to the negative reaction to abortion from the prolife movement, and the undermining of a woman's basic right to choose.

O.K. You hit a nerve. Thanks for letting me vent.

Your analogy is unsound. You've likened the act of destruction of property by an outside party (person with no ownership or interest in the property) to a woman's choice to terminate her own pregnancy. A more fitting analogy or metaphor might have compared the act of a person destroying his/her own construction product to the act of a woman making the choice to terminate her pregnancy. Likewise, you could have paralleled the destruction of the under-construction house by an outside party to the decision to terminate a woman's pregnancy and the actual process of terminating the pregnancy by an outside party.

The comparison as presently constituted doesn't work.

I agree. The situation with the house can be solved by tort law, or insurance. A pregnant woman is not a possession. She's not a house that belongs to someone. The fetus is part of her body until it takes its first independent breath outside the mother. The cord is cut then, and you have a shiny new person. Or the mother aborts the fetus earlier. Tough choice either way. Let her have it to choose.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tough choice either way. Let her
> have it to choose.

That formulation makes good sense to me. It is a tough choice and making it is not at all easy.

The woman is the one who faces the burden of pregnancy and she, by dint of nature, also bears the burden of making a decision that I would not wish on anyone.

I'm not an expert but I'm wondering about those pictures.

From the Mayo Clinic:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302


First, a brief description of the way MDs count the age of a pregnancy:

"It might seem strange, but you're not actually pregnant the first week or two of the time allotted to your pregnancy. ...

"Conception typically occurs about two weeks after your last period begins. To calculate your estimated due date, your health care provider will count ahead 40 weeks from the start of your last period. This means your period is counted as part of your pregnancy — even though you weren't pregnant at the time."

So, this means that fertilization doesn't actually occur until Week 3:

"The sperm and egg unite in one of your fallopian tubes to form a one-celled entity called a zygote."

Therefore, at Week 3 there is one cell.

It isn't until Week 4 that implantation occurs (the zygote is now called a blastocyte). This will become the embryo.

At the 5th week, the fertilized egg is actually only 3 weeks into its development (due to the way the timing is calculated, as above).

At Week 5 the growth does not look like an embryo. But nor does it look like the photos in the Guardian article (it's not like little pieces of angel hair or fluff as the Guardian pictures indicate).

At Week 6, actually just 4 weeks after conception, the shape is definitely looking like what it will become if growth and development continue.

Week 7, just 5 weeks after conception, the head shape is obvious and the brain is growing.

-----

To be clear, I am not anti-choice. I'm just not quite understanding what the fluff in those photos from the OP link are meant to represent.

I was thinking the same thing. I remember having an ultrasound at seven or eight weeks with my last pregnancy 17 years ago and the form of a baby was pretty visible. I'm not antichoice either, but I question the photos.

in b 4 ~



u. s. america ~



makes it legal ~



for parents to kill they off-springs ~



as long as off-springs ~



live under they parents' roof ~

A teensy exaggeration of the situation.

Yes, but a perfectly valid point against the "my body, my choice" argument. It's also your house the child is developing in, right? Using your resources... Causing a drag on your career... You could kick them out, but they're not viable yet on their own... It's actually a brilliant comparison.

My house, my choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2022 01:00PM by skp.

I don't understand your reasoning on this.

ziller's post says "kill" offspring, not "kick" it out.

Significant difference in outcomes.

I was outlining a few similarities. You can't just kick children out of the house and expect them to survive. Same with a fetus and the womb.

The bigger point is it's a fair comparison. "It's my body, so I get to end the lives of dependent humans inside it if I want to," is comparable to, "it's my house, so I get to end the lives of dependent humans inside it if I want to."

Owning a shipping container doesn't mean you own the items being shipped in it. Same principle.

skp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bigger point is it's a fair comparison. "It's
> my body, so I get to end the lives of dependent
> humans inside it if I want to," is comparable to,
> "it's my house, so I get to end the lives of
> dependent humans inside it if I want to."

Not comparable. It's established law in every American state that ending the life of an existing human being is murder, which is subject to arrest, imprisonment, trial and punishment.

It would be fairly difficult to argue that a living human, just because they're a minor child, can be killed, for any reason, and the murderer not be subject to legal consequences.

The main reason that abortion is so controversial is that to some people there is no "living human" until birth while to others there is a being that is alive from the time of conception. Obviously, one's beliefs on this are influenced by which side of that you are on.

The fact that to many this is a religious matter both explains and complicates the issue.

I doubt there will ever be consensus as long as there are religious people who see this as a core issue they must speak out about and act upon in clashes with those who view it as a secular issue but especially a private one that should not be controlled by anybody else's religious ideas nor by the state's intrusion into their personal lives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2022 02:54PM by Nightingale.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not comparable. It's established law in every
> American state that ending the life of an existing
> human being is murder, which is subject to arrest,
> imprisonment, trial and punishment.
>
> It would be fairly difficult to argue that a
> living human, just because they're a minor child,
> can be killed, for any reason, and the murderer
> not be subject to legal consequences.

Law isn't perfect. The fact that there would be legal consequences in one case (the child) but not in the other (the fetus) does not mean they are not comparable. They are very comparable.

"My body, my choice"
and
"My house, my choice"
are essentially the same argument.
Both say, in essence,
"I own the thing that this as-yet not-fully-developed human needs to survive, so I get to end their life if I want to."

I don't have any major disagreements with the rest of your reply. My own views on abortion and the surrounding issues are very simple, yet also very intricately complicated, and as far as I've seen, pretty unique to me. I make connections and distinctions and see needs that people don't seem to notice or care about, and it lands me somewhere in the middle, between pro-choice and pro-life, which usually ends up getting me attacked from both sides... So I tend to not involve myself in these debates. I just wanted to say that ziller's comparison is really quite astute.

I'm not seeing where you are trying to go with this argument. It seems to bring up all kinds of things related tangentially in my view.

>>"I own the thing that this as-yet not-fully-developed human needs to survive, so I get to end their life if I want to."

Would this mean that a person should not have a say if someone wants their kidney? Say someone needs it to survive and you would effectively end their life if you didn't comply. If mostly women made a law that only men should risk death because their kidneys are needed by someone the law favored more, is it OK that there is no choice for the man to favor his own life? Many wouldn't mind being viewed as incubators for kidneys I'm sure. I know heroic people who would maybe sacrifice themselves.

Most women I know would not get an abortion and morals vary. That's why being pro choice is inclusive of pro life and not visa versa. Nighty has it right that there is an emotional component when people are equating even a blastocyst with an independently functioning adult woman.

The solution is simple. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Stay the blank out of the decision for others. Remember that the types of people who can force you to give birth can also force your death under the "right" legal system.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>"I own the thing that this as-yet
> not-fully-developed human needs to survive, so I
> get to end their life if I want to."
>
> Would this mean that a person should not have a
> say if someone wants their kidney?

No, it wouldn't. It is pretty universally recognized that there is a huge difference between not acting to save a life, and acting to take a life.

> ...being pro choice is inclusive of pro life and
> not visa versa.

It's fairly obvious that that's not true, or pro-lifers wouldn't be stridently fighting against pro-choicers.

> Nighty has it right that there is an emotional component
> when people are equating even a blastocyst with an
> independently functioning adult woman.

Bit of a non-sequitur there... Are you carrying this thought over from some other discussion? No one has so much as mentioned anything remotely close that in this conversation.

> The solution is simple. If you don't want an
> abortion, don't have one. Stay the blank out of
> the decision for others. Remember that the types
> of people who can force you to give birth can also
> force your death under the "right" legal system.

Again, I'm not going to get into my position on abortions and surrounding issues... partly because it's a lot to explain, and partly because it puts me somewhere between pro-life and pro-choice in unique ways, and I don't want to deal with everyone from both sides arguing with me. Suffice it to say that I disagree. The solution is not simple. If it were, it would have been agreed upon. The issue has a lot of moving parts, and so would a workable solution.

>>It's fairly obvious that that's not true, or pro-lifers wouldn't be stridently fighting against pro-choicers.<<

The group claiming "pro-choice" does not necessarily have exclusive ownership of the term. It's far from unheard of for pro-choice individuals to be personally opposed to abortion but cognizant of the idea that the choice should be up to the person who is pregnant. Not everyone wishes to impose his or her personal views upon others.

The fourth word of the previous post should read "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice."

> It's far from unheard of for pro-choice
> individuals to be personally opposed to abortion
> but cognizant of the idea that the choice should
> be up to the person who is pregnant. Not everyone
> wishes to impose his or her personal views upon
> others.

Nicely put, Doc.

SCMD not logged in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The group claiming "pro-[life]" does not
> necessarily have exclusive ownership of the term.
> It's far from unheard of for pro-choice
> individuals to be personally opposed to abortion
> but cognizant of the idea that the choice should
> be up to the person who is pregnant. Not everyone
> wishes to impose his or her personal views upon
> others.

The same could be said of pro-choice. Don't have exclusive ownership of the term... Not out of the ordinary that they say in cases of rape etc, they'd personally put an unwanted child up for adoption, but advocate choice for people in those positions because they don't wish to impose their views...

Really though, the overall point is a semantic one. I'm redefining pro-choice to include people who still want to outlaw abortion as a form of contraception, and you're redefining pro-life to include people who don't want to outlaw any abortions at all. That's not how those terms are defined in this context.

I'd also point out that everyone is aware of the idea that it should be up to the woman. Some just disagree with that idea in many cases. You might say they're cognizant of the idea that you're talking about ending a human life.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2022 10:48AM by skp.

Muddy it up however you wish. Maybe we can agree that people who want choice and people who want forced-birth are separate sets.

Forced births can be immaculate and save all humanity.

>>Muddy it up however you wish. Maybe we can agree that people who want choice and people who want forced-birth are separate sets.<<

I can play that game too:

Twist it however you like. Yes, people who love their offspring and people who want to murder them are different sets.

But instead of playing "who can be more derogatory toward others", why not play "who can be more understanding toward others' perspectives"?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2022 02:52PM by skp.

MYA Network, the source of the article posted in the OP is described as “a group of clinicians aiming to normalize abortion”. I’m just pointing out that it’s instructive to check the source of one’s information, which aids in assessing its value.


Re the ‘heartbeat’:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11331955/Pictured-fetus-cell-tissue-nine-weeks-point-abortion-banned-14-states.html

'They are stunned by what it actually looks like,' Dr. Fleischman said. 'People almost don't believe this is what comes out. They're expecting to see a little fetus with hands — a developed, miniature baby.'


Re the doctor's comment that "'They're expecting to see a little fetus with hands — a developed, miniature baby.'"

By 7 to 8 weeks (5 to 6 weeks post-conception) the embryo is taking shape. You can see a head and limbs, including fingers and feet, forming.

“But the term 'heartbeat bill' is a misnomer, according to obstetrician gynecologists. Rather, 'cardiac activity' is more accurate. The heart begins developing in the embryo at around three weeks.

“At the six week point, those beats the mother and doctor hear are actually electrical impulses captured by the ultrasound machine and translated by the machine into the sound of a heartbeat, according to Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who practices in Georgia.

'A heartbeat is the sound created by the opening and closing of cardiac valves,' Dr. Verma said. 'There are no cardiac valves, so there is no sound of them opening and closing.'
“Some argue that since heart activity is detectable at this point, it is correct to determine that it is the heartbeat of a living being.

“It is not until around 17 to 20 weeks that the four chambers of the heart have developed and can be detected on an ultrasound. At that point, the term 'heartbeat' in the context of abortion bans is accurate.”


Other info re growth:

“At six to 10 weeks [4 to 8 weeks after fertilization], the gestational sac becomes the amniotic sac. The thin-walled sac encloses the fetus, protecting it from injury and helping to regulate its temperature.

“From this point on, a fetus does become visible to the naked eye. By nine weeks it has reached 1.7 centimeters long, or nearly a full inch.”


Too, at 6 weeks, (4 weeks after fertilization) the embryo forms the familiar ‘C’ shape.


So, very early on after fertilization, significant changes occur that will result in that fertilized cell becoming an embryo that grows into a baby, all being well.

It's not fluff, I don't think, as is shown in some of the photos.

As with all issues, it's crucial to check one's sources of information and consume a variety of them to get a more expansive view.


As I've said, I'm pro-choice because I don't believe in one segment of society enforcing opinions upon another segment. Especially if it's a religious view because hey, we all have a right to choose our own faith beliefs, if any.

To me, if left alone and nature takes its course to the best possible outcome, a fetus will become a baby that will be born. That's why I can't be cavalier about the issue and why I can't claim to be pro-abortion. But I'm not "pro-life" either, in the political sense, due to that pesky "choice" thing.

We are free in North American society to make our own personal decisions, in theory, until laws change, as we've seen recently in the USA in some states.

Whether we base those decisions in this regard on our religion or our politics should be a personal choice. We should choose for ourselves though, and not assume that it's right or just for us to enforce our viewpoint upon others. Stating one's views - yes. Forcing others to accept them - no.

To me, that little collection of cells is a potential human being. Others don't see it that way. C'est la vie.

As for the soul part, that is an unknown, subject to belief, not fact.

why can not all emxos agree ? ~



exmos should be allowed to kill they off-spring at any time for any reason ? ~

Think of it like getting divorced over and over for any reason. Wait...only one of of these subjects is in the Bible.

I'm tired of people claiming women make the decisions lightly. No woman wants to be in a situation involving abortion. If you really care about preventing abortion, maybe you could concentrate on supporting free public birth control.

And financial support for women who decide to carry their fetuses to full term.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2022 11:07PM by Lot's Wife.

support women ~

~ when they are pole dancing?

"I'm tired of people claiming women make the decisions lightly. No woman wants to be in a situation involving abortion. If you really care about preventing abortion, maybe you could concentrate on supporting free public birth control."

COMMENT: I'm tired of people claiming that anti-vaxers take the vaccine decision lightly. No person wants to be in a situation where they have COVID. If you really care about preventing COVID, maybe you could concentrate on supporting free vaccinations.

Unfortunately, poor judgment--or simply no judgment at all--as related to prevention often results in undesired consequences. Making the prevention decision easier by providing supporting mechanisms does not always produce the desired social result.

The fact that women facing abortion generally (and not specifically) fall into this 'prevention irresponsibility'
category is overwhelmingly supported by abortion statistics, where the number of abortions in developed countries far outpaces any claim of lack of prevention resources.

Let's face it: The vast majority of women seeking an abortion rationalize this decision by minimizing the moral status of the fetus. (Just like as suggested by this thread!) Although such moral status is arguably debatable, the very fact that every abortion results in the termination of a 'potential' person, is a powerful intuitive argument against abortion--particularly when every person currently enjoying an existing meaningful life was once such a potential person; a person who would not have existed if a mother had made the abortion decision. At the very least, this should tell us that reproductive responsibility is a moral imperative. (IMO)

Full disclosure: I have two adopted children. Some may call this bias, I call it perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

Well, here's the thing, Henry -- lots of people don't agree with you. They feel that, especially in the very early stages, women should have a say. They don't feel that their uterus should be viewed as a factory farm so that you, and others like you, can have a child. I personally never would have had a child just to give it up to someone else. Those are my values. Not your values, but my values.

Do you remember, pre-Roe v. Wade, the coat hanger abortions? Women would untwist a wire coat hanger to give themselves an abortion. Imagine that, Henry. Imagine shoving a wire hard up into your private parts. Got the picture? Do you think anyone does that lightly?

You also seem to imagine that the "oops" babies get adopted into loving homes. Most don't. As an urban teacher, I have worked with the result of that every working day. Most of those kids are born into wretched poverty. I've visited their homes. I have attempted to teach them to the best of my ability, and have gotten nothing but flack for doing that from the right-wing media. Hypocrites!

As I have said many times, I am prochoice. But I am also pro reproductive responsibility. You, and apparently many other prochoice advocates do not seem to understand the distinction.

Your suggestion in this thread that all that the prolife advocate is getting "so worked up over" is a bit of tissue, demonstrates your remarkable ignorance, and frankly is deeply offensive to me and many other prochoice advocates.

I suspect that if the prochoice movement continues to fail, it will be because of this type of misguided extreme liberalism. With such an attitude, the prochoice position is transformed from a right to choose under difficult circumstances, to the position that it really doesn't matter anyway. That is the position that the statistical facts of abortion suggest is dominant, and it is a losing position in the prochoice movement, for reasons stated.

Lol -- I'm not a political liberal, but instead a moderate. I just left the Republican party after 30 years over the loss of Roe v. Wade and the January 6th insurrection. I will never vote for a Republican again in my lifetime. The Republican party is no longer aligned with my personal values, and has done lasting damage to things that I hold dear. As Lot's Wife likes to point out, it was a conservative court that made the Roe v. Wade decision in the first place.

So you think that I show "remarkable ignorance" because I disagree with you and your approach. Okaaaaay. Whatever.

I very much do understand reproductive responsibility. I practiced good birth control use during my youth, when I was sexually active. I never once got pregnant or even had a serious pregnancy scare. Same for most of my friends. One of my friends did get pregnant even despite diligent use of birth control. She had an abortion. And she, and her husband and children are doing just fine more than 40 years later.

I also have worked among poor communities long enough to know that improved birth control education and availablity will not work for many people. Women are going to get pregnant, and they need options.

I'm all for extensive education on birth control, but then again, right wingers seem to be opposed to that. They also seem to be opposed to free, liberal distribution of birth control. I think it's a valid argument among pro-choicers that anti-abortionists are evidently not big fans of expanded birth control availability.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2022 10:16AM by summer.

You need to learn the difference between a 'liberal' and 'liberalism.' In the context of abortion, liberalism represents a liberal attitude towards allowing abortion.

Let me get to the heart of the matter, to see just how much you really *do* disagree with me.

Imagine you had a family, say a spouse and three children, and just had a new baby. Suppose then that an intruder came in and killed the baby. Think for a moment about the anguish you would feel. Would you feel that only a baby had been lost, or something more important, a life?

A baby is a human organism at a certain stage of development. "A life" adds to that concept a full range of potentialities for that baby over time, including its own meaning, and the meaning such a life might have for others.

Now, a fetus is not a baby, and arguments to the contrary are ludicrous. However, it too is a human organism at a certain stage of development. More importantly, arguably it too is 'a life' because it too encompasses 'a full range of potentialities' over time, including its own meaning, and the meaning it might have for others.

Now, if you disagree, tell me the distinction--not between the biological, organismic status of a fetus and a baby--but between 'a life' of a fetus and 'a life' of a baby. What is the relevant distinction between their respective potentialities that encompass what it means to be 'a life?'

I don't need to "learn" anything that you think I need to learn. I have different opinions from you. You seem to have a hard time with that. I'm not sitting in the bishop's office answering to some so-called "authority." I don't care about your opinion of me. Why would I?

My personal opinion is that Roe v. Wade got it right, in the sense that the pregnant woman has more say at the beginning of the pregnancy, with the fetus gaining increasing rights toward the middle and end of the pregnancy. People define the beginning of human life in different ways. Not everyone thinks as you do. Shocker?

"You need to learn" basically says it all, doesn't it?

seem to have a very unhealthy interest in your love life, your sex life, your reproductive life, your personal solitary sex life, your chastity.

Were they absent on the day they taught "Mind your own business"?

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I'm tired of people claiming women make the
> decisions lightly. No woman wants to be in a
> situation involving abortion. If you really care
> about preventing abortion, maybe you could
> concentrate on supporting free public birth
> control."
>
> COMMENT: I'm tired of people claiming that
> anti-vaxers take the vaccine decision lightly. No
> person wants to be in a situation where they have
> COVID. If you really care about preventing COVID,
> maybe you could concentrate on supporting free
> vaccinations.

This is not a good analogy, because the decision to have sexual intercourse (what causes abortions to occur in the first place) is purely an emotional one. When both parties are sexually aroused, our emotions take over and all logic flys out the window. While the decision to take or not take a COVID-19 vaccine can be emotional, it is a long-term decision usually made out of fear of getting COVID-19 (why you get it) or the fear of what might happen to you if you do get the vaccine (if you decide against).
>
> Unfortunately, poor judgment--or simply no
> judgment at all--as related to prevention often
> results in undesired consequences. Making the
> prevention decision easier by providing supporting
> mechanisms does not always produce the desired
> social result.

While your above paragraph is correct as far as it goes, it neglects the point made in my first paragraph; namely that the decision to engage in sexual intercourse (which produces these pregnancies) is always spur-of-the-moment, based solely on how sexually aroused the two persons are; logic and facing the possible consequences does not enter in to this equation. Of the available contraceptives, only the birth control pill takes advantage of this fact (you don't take it right before sexual intercourse).
>
> The fact that women facing abortion generally (and
> not specifically) fall into this 'prevention
> irresponsibility' category is overwhelmingly supported by abortion statistics, where the number of abortions in
> developed countries far outpaces any claim of lack
> of prevention resources.
>
> Let's face it: The vast majority of women seeking
> an abortion rationalize this decision by
> minimizing the moral status of the fetus. (Just
> like as suggested by this thread!) Although such
> moral status is arguably debatable, the very fact
> that every abortion results in the termination of
> a 'potential' person, is a powerful intuitive
> argument against abortion--particularly when every
> person currently enjoying an existing meaningful
> life was once such a potential person; a person
> who would not have existed if a mother had made
> the abortion decision. At the very least, this
> should tell us that reproductive responsibility is
> a moral imperative. (IMO)

While you are logically correct, people don't act logically, especially when it comes to engaging I sexual relations, and even more especially, when deciding whether or not to have sexual intercourse.

I should also note here that in a lot of cases (I don't know the numbers but I do know many stories), it is the male in the relationship who is pushing to engage first in a sexual relationship and then to having sexual intercourse, many times without any form of birth control. But it is the female who primarily has to live with the consequences of this behavior, usually for the rest of her life. This suggests to me, that regardless of her age, race, wealth, or marital status, it is the female who should make the final choice of whether or not to have an abortion, regardless of the state of the embryo/fetus, as Nightingale details a few posts above.
>
> Full disclosure: I have two adopted children. Some
> may call this bias, I call it perspective.

Like Summer (above), I hope that you are a better adoptive father than many (though certainly not all) have been.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_
> in_the_United_States

Finally, I was taken by the following quote from the posted Wikipedia entry. It is the only information in the abortion statistics about the age of women obtaining abortions:

"In 2017, Guttmacher reported that almost 25% of women will have had an abortion by age 45, with 4.6% of 20-year-olds and 19% of 30-year-olds having had at least one."

So, if the Guttmacher estimate is correct (I haven't seen any actual figures), the majority of abortions are not being performed on teenage women. While you haven't argued this, many on the religious right have argued that a majority of abortions are being sought and performed on underage girls. This appears not to be true, and the anti-abortion movement should be held accountable for making false arguments about who actually receives abortions.

I was never the type to get carried away, but instead was always well planned, whether it was to have something in place ahead of time, or to put a brief pause on things while my partner and I attended to business.

Being generally well-planned has served me well, both in my personal life and in my career.

Good comments, thank you. The emotional component is indeed important. And I agree with those who insist that contraceptives should be readily available and free, regardless of age. An important part of taking abortion seriously is making it as easy as possible to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The prolife movement has been ridiculously inconsistent on this issue, which demonstrates once again that they are more anti-abortion than prolife.

"Good comments, thank you."

COMMENT: This comment was meant for "blindguy," but I appreciate summer's feedback as well. I am not trying to dictate what is right or wrong about any specific decision regarding abortion. I only note that the moral implications of such a decision--one way or another--are real and important and as such should not be taken lightly. Is that really controversial? Is it appropriate that the convenience of an abortion should be thought of itself sufficient to override such moral considerations? I don't think so. Do any of you think so?

The "convenience" of an abortion? Why are we not discussing the "convenience" of a vasectomy?

Or is the physical intrusion into a man's body unreasonable?

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it appropriate
> that the convenience of an abortion should be
> thought of itself sufficient to override such
> moral considerations?

I find it highly unlikely to think of women choosing to have abortion procedures, especially repeatedly, because it is so "convenient". In fact, the decision and the procedure are physically and emotionally demanding as well as time-consuming. There are physician/clinic visits pre- and post-procedure. There are physical effects and likely emotional consequences.

Here is just a short list of the pre- and post-procedure steps that must be taken and their possible consequences calling for both routine and potentially urgent follow up care.


***Specific Physical Medical Details***


Medical Abortion – Summary, Mayo Clinic:

“You can choose medical abortion to complete an early miscarriage or end an unintended pregnancy. You can also choose to have a medical abortion if you have a medical condition that makes continuing a pregnancy life-threatening.”

“Potential risks include:

Incomplete abortion, which may need to be followed by surgical abortion

An ongoing pregnancy if the procedure doesn't work

Heavy and prolonged bleeding

Infection

Fever

Digestive system discomfort”


“The medicines used in a medical abortion cause vaginal bleeding and abdominal cramping. They may also cause:

Nausea
Vomiting
Fever
Chills
Diarrhea
Headache”

“You might not be able to go about your usual daily routine during this time.”


“Other potential side effects include:

Heavy bleeding — soaking two or more pads an hour for two hours
Severe abdominal or back pain
Fever lasting more than 24 hours
Foul-smelling vaginal discharge”


Surgical Abortion – Summary, MyHealth, Alberta:

“Medicines that may be given after a surgical abortion include:

Antibiotics, to prevent infection.

Medicines that cause uterine contractions (uterotonic), to empty the uterus completely and reduce bleeding.

Rh immunoglobulin, which is given to all women who have Rh-negative blood type to prevent Rh sensitization after the procedure.

Pain medicine, for cramping pain caused by uterine contractions.

Medicine to treat nausea or vomiting.”


“Normal symptoms that most women will experience after a surgical abortion include:

Irregular bleeding or spotting for the first 2 weeks.

Cramping for the first 2 weeks. Some women may have cramping (like menstrual cramps) for as long as 6 weeks.”


“Signs of complications:

Call your doctor immediately if you have any of these symptoms after an abortion:

Severe bleeding. Both medical and surgical abortions usually cause bleeding that is different from a normal menstrual period.

Signs of infection in your whole body, such as headache, muscle aches, dizziness, or a general feeling of illness. Severe infection is possible without fever.

Severe pain in the belly that is not relieved by pain medicine, rest, or heat

Hot flushes or a fever of38°C (100.4°F) or higher that lasts longer than 4 hours

Vomiting lasting more than 4 to 6 hours

Sudden belly swelling or rapid heart rate

Vaginal discharge that has increased in amount or smells bad

Pain, swelling, or redness in the genital area”


"Call your doctor for an appointment if you have had any of these symptoms after a recent abortion:

Bleeding (not spotting) for longer than 2 weeks

New, unexplained symptoms that may be caused by medicines used in your treatment

No menstrual period within 6 weeks after the procedure

Signs and symptoms of depression. Hormonal changes after a pregnancy can cause depression that requires treatment.”


"Follow up examination is necessary even in the absence of complications."

_____

It is not a matter of a quick, easy pop-in for a few minutes and voilà, problem sorted. There are multiple pre- and post- appointments and intrusive exams followed by medical or surgical treatments with significant associated physical and psychological risks as outlined above, despite the misconception by some that people are casually choosing the "walk-in-the-park" option.

It's complex for all concerned. I realize that we are never all going to agree on this issue. We are free to state our general opinions on the overall issue. But surely, with regard to a person's options when it comes to their own welfare, the choice lies with them. If they ask, I will maybe share my opinion, but it's not my business to criticize their decisions.

Speak out about one's stance on the hot-button issues, absolutely. But forcing one's opinions and choices on others is questionable, at best.

People who criticize this choice need to see the whole picture - that a large majority of women who come to the decision to end a pregnancy are highly likely not doing so lightly or unthinkingly, nor because it's so very convenient. Because it actually is not.

If one feels so strongly about the issue that they wish to speak out and/or protest on the anti- side, fine. But when it comes to an individual person making a decision for their own life and well-being, physically, mentally and emotionally, there's a no-go area there beyond which outsiders shouldn't travel.


Edit to Add: I meant to say that not many, if any, women would use abortion as a simple, quick, risk-free method of birth control. Because it is none of those things.

Too, that is why using the descriptor 'convenient' raises hackles. Because neither is it that. Certainly not for ongoing episodes.

Too, it must be considered that many unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape. Whose business is it to force the unfortunate female to carry to term the unwanted result of a savage and most personal assault.

No matter the circumstances, surely it is the right of the person most intimately involved to make their own free choice. Others are free to state their opinions, in general, in public life, public office, and various appropriate venues. But in a democracy, at least, who should have the right to force another to bend to the will of others with zero claim to direct involvement in what is a highly personal, and private, decision.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2022 12:23AM by Nightingale.

"I find it highly unlikely to think of women choosing to have abortion procedures, especially repeatedly, because it is so "convenient". In fact, the decision and the procedure are physically and emotionally demanding as well as time-consuming. There are physician/clinic visits pre- and post-procedure. There are physical effects and likely emotional consequences."

COMMENT: Well, I am not a woman, but I assume it is more convenient to have an abortion than to carry a fetus for nine months, give birth, and raise a child (or put the baby up for adoption). I didn't say the abortion process was easy. Note however that if such a process was so inconvenient and stressful, as you suggest, I would think that more women (and men) would be responsible when engaging in sexual activity--the heat of the moment notwithstanding.

Why is it that on the one hand it takes men and women to create a pregnancy, but on the other hand the only physical intrusion contemplated is an invasion of women's bodies? Is it not perfectly obvious that vasectomies are an equally valid anti-abortion measure?

The double standard here is striking albeit perhaps only evident to women.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Well, I am not a woman, but I assume it
> is more convenient to have an abortion than to
> carry a fetus for nine months, give birth, and
> raise a child (or put the baby up for adoption). I
> didn't say the abortion process was easy.

> Note however that if such a process was so inconvenient
> and stressful, as you suggest, I would think that
> more women (and men) would be responsible when
> engaging in sexual activity--the heat of the
> moment notwithstanding.

Henry: My comments were in response to your use of the word 'convenient' to refer to having an abortion rather than bearing, birthing and raising a child. It's more convenient to have an abortion than that, is what I thought you meant.

Whether you intended it or not - I can't tell - it makes light of the decision, as if a woman thinks I'll just pop along to the clinic and abort this thing and then traipse around the shops until it's time to have dinner and take in a movie.

It's a mischaracterization that, as so many seem to indicate, women take it lightly and feel no emotion about such decisions.

When speaking about people being responsible wrt sexual activity, yes, in an ideal world that would occur 100% of the time. But that expectation, or wish, only goes so far. It doesn't, by definition, consider the high rates of sexual assault, rape, that result in pregnancy. So, stuff happens and undesirable results occur.

You mentioned that having adopted children likely colours your opinion on this topic, if I understood you correctly. I agree with you that obviously it would. This is entirely understandable. But not every child whose conception occurred from rape finds themselves in the fortunate position of being adopted by loving parents. So that is a fairly weak argument in favour of zero abortion, imho. Because things are just not that simple. A woman would have to be forced to bear and birth the child of a rapist so that, if the stars align, there is a chance the baby/child can be adopted by good people and prosper.

I didn't realize before that you describe yourself as pro-choice. It's good to understand that. It can be difficult to communicate well on such a fraught subject as this.

I am too, not because I'm indifferent to the procedure and its results but due to feeling strongly that one segment of society cannot justly enforce its views on other segments that have different ideas and opinions. As long as we try to achieve some kind of rational middle I think that's about the best we can do. We will doubtless disagree on many things but perhaps together we can hammer out the basics well enough to ensure that as many needs are met by as many of us as is humanly possible.

Good comments. Thank you.

I don't think having an abortion is 'convenient' per se, or that it is a decision without thought. Yet, I am admittedly disturbed by the numbers. I would like to see these numbers reflect more reproductive responsibility and perhaps deeper reflection. But the facts are complicated, and each case is different. That is why I am prochoice, and advocate for prochoice arguments that are logically sound and consistent, rather than merely rhetorical and emotional.

My sons are grown now, and I have two grandchildren. In each case, we received letters from the natural mothers telling us how agonizing the decision was to have the baby, rather than an abortion. One of the mothers stated how her family encouraged her to terminate the pregnancy, and how lonely it was to resist that advise, as well meaning as it undoubtedly was.

And now I see first-hand the result of this difficult decision, and how four lives that are very meaningful to me would not have existed if a different decision had been made. I cannot help but 'fill-in' the blanks of what I earlier called 'a life.' It makes being prochoice very difficult and shows (I hope) how much I *do* respect the right of the woman to make this difficult decision.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My sons are grown now, and I have two
> grandchildren.

> And now I see first-hand the result of this
> difficult decision, and how four lives that are
> very meaningful to me would not have existed if a
> different decision had been made.

Yes, this would profoundly affect your viewpoint, Henry. For you, the tough circumstances for others have worked out very well. Obviously too, those four people, so precious to you, would be glad of the choices the birth mothers made.


> It makes being prochoice very difficult
> and shows (I hope) how much I *do* respect the
> right of the woman to make this difficult
> decision.

Yes, I see that. As I said, I didn't realize before that you are pro-choice. That makes a big difference because being completely anti-choice is an untenable position, in my view, due to all the reasons people have mentioned above.

Unfortunately, the term "pro-choice" has taken on a very political overlay, and even worse, the unpleasant term "pro-abortion".

But if one is not anti-choice then what is left. So pro-choice it is. That does not in any way mean I, or most others, ever take the complex issues lightly.

If you think abortion is immoral, don't have one.

For me, and my understanding of genetics, trauma, memory, reproductive process, depression, family - most likely, I wouldn't choose to have an abortion. That's me and my moral sense.

Not everyone has the same moral sense of what is "wrong". I think it's "wrong" to swear at your parents, ridicule your child, ask people for 10% of their income in exchange for the promise of eternal life, cheat on a midterm, waste food, not allow your wife to have a job. And I believe there are plenty of other things that are "wrong".

That doesn't mean they should be illegal. Sex, pregnancy, abortion, child rearing are all personal matters - which may sometimes involve a doctor - but they are still personal.

It's the intrusion of government into personal decisions that I disagree with, not whether or not abortion is right or wrong. It may be wrong - MAY BE - but it shouldn't be subject to the moral sense of elected officials..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2022 11:19AM by auntsukey.

I agree, Auntsukey. I never wanted to have an abortion, and did my utmost to prevent myself from having one. OTOH, I wanted the right to have an abortion if it became necessary for me to do so.

It seems that the same people who want government out of their personal business have no problem with interfering with a woman's private medical decisions.

summer, I just want to say, I agree with everything you posted. Thank you for your reasoned and sensible responses.

I have never been pregnant, or even at risk of being pregnant, but the overturning of Roe v Wade really pisses me off. There are so many scenarios that would lead someone to consider having an abortion that are just plain no one else’s business.

Yes, and in some cases it's also about almost unbelievable ignorance.

And a complete lack of empathy, meaning not sympathy but the real empathy: the ability to experience things from another's point of view.

A bunch of men in this thread, saliently Henry Bemis, cannot conceive of a comparable violation of a man's physical autonomy. They insist that a woman's physical integrity is a proper topic for public and political discourse and cannot imagine anyone applying the same standard to male physiology.

The insouciance with which people engage in this purblind hypocrisy is astounding.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2022 02:31AM by Lot's Wife.

"A bunch of men in this thread, saliently Henry Bemis, cannot conceive of a comparable violation of a man's physical autonomy."

COMMENT: So, no substantive arguments against any points I raise in this thread. Your only response is that the abortion issue is all about the hypocrisy of men. I hope that makes you feel better. I did not create the biology of male and female, and on this issue, it is clearly unfair that woman bear the major burden of childbirth and the abortion decision.

When I was 19, at the height of the Vietnam war, I was drafted into the military to serve in Viet Nam. (My lottery number was 15, as I recall) Having concluded that the war was unjust, I refused to show up. After several stressful warnings from the US government, two FBI agents showed up at my door and handed me a federal indictment. My entire conservative Mormon family was unsupportive, assumed I was a coward, and treated me accordingly. My lawyer told me I could go to Canada or prepare to spend time in prison. I chose the latter option, and fully assumed I would be incarcerated as I prepared for my trial. At the time, many were in the same position I was in, but none were women. I did not complain about gender bias, and in fact it did not occur to me to make such a complaint. I believed that the war (and the draft) was wrong regardless of how it unfairly affected men.

So, you don't know anything about me. And calling me a hypocrite without any knowledge of who I am, or what I might have been through in my life is just bullshit substituting for substance; typical of your responses on RfM.
.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: So, no substantive arguments against any
> points I raise in this thread. . . I hope that makes you feel
> better.

There you go again. You, a man with an impressive record of illogic, insist again that you are the arbiter of what is "rational" and that we must play the game by your rules.

No. It is irrational to engage with someone who skews the debate by insisting on false premises as the basis for conversation. No rational person would accept, explicitly or implicitly, such terms. The fact is that men do not have the right to interfere in a woman's bodily autonomy. If you cannot grant the equality of the genders as the precondition for discussion, there is no point in proceeding. We will not legitimize your bias by pretending it is morally tolerable.

What you would have us do is the equivalent of admitting that African-Americans don't count as full humans and then arguing with you about whether a Black is worth 1/2, 3/4, or 3/5 of a white person. That's been done before, to be sure, but it was one of the USA's greatest sins. Here you take as self-evident the principle that men have full bodily security but women do not. The only rational thing to do when confronted by such--what is it, Henry, logical incapacity? blind bigotry? both?--is to refuse to engage unless and until you accept that both genders have equal physical rights.

I, and others, will not negotiate with you over whether women should have 1/2, 2/3, or 3/4 as much physical integrity as men.


---------------
> When I was 19, at the height of the Vietnam war, I
> was drafted into the military to serve in Viet
> Nam. (My lottery number was 15, as I recall)
> Having concluded that the war was unjust, I
> refused to show up. After several stressful
> warnings from the US government, two FBI agents
> showed up at my door and handed me a federal
> indictment. My entire conservative Mormon family
> was unsupportive, assumed I was a coward, and
> treated me accordingly. My lawyer told me I could
> go to Canada or prepare to spend time in prison. I
> chose the latter option, and fully assumed I would
> be incarcerated as I prepared for my trial. At
> the time, many were in the same position I was in,
> but none were women. I did not complain about
> gender bias, and in fact it did not occur to me to
> make such a complaint. I believed that the war
> (and the draft) was wrong regardless of how it
> unfairly affected men.

What a curious paragraph.

First, it is remarkably defensive. Second, it supports our--not mine, but our--perception that you do not, and never have, viewed men and women as equal. Now, I don't hold that against you in the context; yours was an almost universal lack of insight in the 1960s, but the fact remains that your digression demonstrates that your lack of respect for women is lifelong.

Finally, there is no rational way that your moral opposition to the war would, or should, include the proposition that others too should be forced to participate in it. "I won't fight because it's unjust--and besides, women should have to fight too" is not a morally or logically consistent argument.


-----------------
> So, you don't know anything about me. And calling
> me a hypocrite without any knowledge of who I am,
> or what I might have been through in my life is
> just bullshit substituting for substance; typical
> of your responses on RfM.

Henry, I don't need to "know anything about [you]" or what your position was regarding the Vietnam War. The topic under discussion is whether men, today, are morally justified in depriving women of rights that those men take for granted themselves. Your dudgeon does not enhance your argument, nor does it render it logically persuasive. In fact, it does the opposite. It is, by definition, irrational.

Women and men are equal. Period. No argument, no matter how angrily presented, can justify your insistence that they are not.

How about if we make abortions available only when the woman is accompanied by the sperm donor prepared undergo a vastectomy?

Or better still:

The pair shows up together; a nurse flips a coin. Heads, an abortion. Tails, a vasectomy.

Or:

The woman meets with the doctor, privately. Everybody else butts out.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2022 09:42AM by auntsukey.

Why can't they accept the compromise?

Because the aim of the old men -- and some women -- who want to control women is to control society via reproduction.

They are using the patriarchal "once you spread your legs, the debate is over, we own you" doctrine.

Time for some basic questions:

Why are marriage, abortion, and child-rearing state or religious issues? In Judaism, a foetus is part of a woman's body until it takes its first breath after it is born. In Ancient Rome, marriage was a private contract between families (just watch "House Of The Dragon"). If a man held up an infant in front of witnesses, the child was legally his -- not to mention that he literally had the power of life and death over them. Abortion was a private matter. Unwanted, dead, or deformed infants were buried, exposed (like Paris of Troy or Romulus and Remus), thrown from cliffs, into the sea, or, in the case of the Phoenician goddess Tanit, sacrificed. The church didn't get involved in any of this until the early Middle Ages.


From what I've read, "Evxtians" (my term for Evangelical fundies who -- falsely in my book -- claim to be Christians) weren't even concerned with abortion until the late 70s early 80s when they found out that it was a good "dog whistle" to get their voter based stoked via fears of white racial extinction (as in the popular interpretation of the "Planet Of The Apes" films).


A clump of cells does not a baby make, and a person's body is their own.


But the fear of people who feel they are being outbred and/or losing their grip on society is very, very real.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2022 10:33AM by anybody.

auntsukey: I have carefully read your posts in this thread, and generally agree with your prochoice perspective. However, I think you (and others) are wrong to suggest that this is an issue about government intrusion into decisions that are personal, and that in effect, what a woman chooses to do with her own body is her own business, and not that of government or anyone else. For reasons as follows, I think this argument is a red herring, and entirely rhetorical, and does not logically serve the interests of the prochoice position.

"That doesn't mean they should be illegal. Sex, pregnancy, abortion, child rearing are all personal matters - which may sometimes involve a doctor - but they are still personal."

COMMENT: I agree that the decision to have (or not have) an abortion is a 'personal matter' in a fundamentally important sense. However, this does not mean that government has no legitimate interest in personal matters per se, including the abortion decision. For example, you note that "child rearing" is a personal matter, yet society (government) has an interest in how children are raised, e.g. whether they receive proper education and health care contra to the parents' religious convictions.

Whether a woman has an abortion (or not) is none of my business, because it does not affect me directly. However, it is both the business and function of society generally (government) to assess social consequences of personal decisions and codify protections when it is deemed necessary for the regulation and stability of other social values. That is what governments do; that is their function. In a democratic society, if you don't like what government is doing, you fall back on constitutional mandates, or vote people out of office. But to dismiss government intervention as illegitimate simply because some decision is 'personal' is incorrect.

Along this same line, although it might be none of my business whether my neighbor gets an abortion (or not), it *is* my business whether my neighbor complies with the law or not. In a democratic society complying with the law is everyone's business, because that is what establishes and sustains social order. Again, if one does not like the law, hopefully there are means to change it. And perhaps, in some instances, it is 'just' and 'right' by some higher law to ignore the civil law. But, even still, that does not change the fact that citizens have an interest (it is their business) in enforcement of law. As such, again, the 'personal' nature of an action, including abortion, does not automatically make it immune from government interference, or immune from a citizen's interest in affirming the law. Taking again one of your examples, it may be none of my business how my neighbor is raising her children. But if the law requires that parents provide their children with proper medical care, then it becomes my business when my neighbor is not providing it. (Arguably, it might be my business away from some higher moral law.)
____________________________________________

"It's the intrusion of government into personal decisions that I disagree with, not whether or not abortion is right or wrong. It may be wrong - MAY BE - but it shouldn't be subject to the moral sense of elected officials."

COMMENT: Again, whether abortion is right or wrong is indeed a personal matter, and generally as to my neighbor it is none of my business. But government functions by prescribing and regulating the effects of personal decisions through the operation of laws. In this case (abortion) I would agree that government intrusion is misguided, but not because the government has no business involving itself in personal decisions. Rather it is because in this particular case, the abortion decision is better deemed as a right, to be codified in the law, and thereby left to the woman. In other words, abortion is a political and social fight, which should be primarily addressed in those terms. To argue 'morality' or the "status of the fetus," or 'the illegitimacy of government to interfere in personal decisions,' are doomed to fail.

HB: What happens when you want to restrict gun ownership.

COMMENT: Well, for me that would be a plus, since I am for such restrictions. To that end, I certainly would not want to inadvertently support the argument that the 'personal matter' of gun ownership 'is none of the government's business.' If I do that, then I am left without any governmental recourse for regulation of such gun ownership. The same is true with abortion.

If abortion is none of the government's business, I am left without recourse to promote codification of a women's right to choose abortion. Suppose you live in a state where abortion is outlawed, and you successfully argue that abortion is none of the governments business. So, the law is repealed, but instead of the law, you face methods of intimidation and harassment that prevents access to abortion. So, you go back and argue that the government should establish a law that all women should have a right to an abortion. Not so fast, they say, I thought you said that abortion was none of government's business.

HB, I was trying to illustrate how men suddenly start screaming about "their rights" and "government intrusion" when there is an issue which affects mostly them.

You can't use logical arguments about this debate because it is not logical, but emotional. It's no different from what's going on in Afghanistan and Iran. There are men (and some women like Aunt Lydia) who want to control women, limit their role to the domestic sphere, control reproduction, control who has sex with whom, and thus control society. It's the same with religious fundies in America -- with the added tensions of toxic masculinity, loss of socioeconomic status, racism, and fears of racial extinction thrown into the mix.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2022 02:04PM by anybody.

"You can't use logical arguments about this debate because it is not logical, but emotional."

COMMENT: When you give up on logical argument, you place your opponent on an equal footing of emotionally driven irrationality. I do not want to give prolife advocates (or fundamentalist religious extremists of any stripe) the benefit of such a stalemate.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: When you give up on logical argument, you
> place your opponent on an equal footing of
> emotionally driven irrationality.

You do irony very well, Salviati. Would that it were intentional.

I'm gratified to know you carefully read my posts. Thank you.

I sincerely apologize when I tell you I didn't do the same with yours. I'm a lazy reader and usually skim to those comments that are 3" or less in length.

However, in skimming, I do try to find the salient points, admittedly probably inadequately.

What I gather from yours (correctly or incorrectly) is: if it's the law, obey it until it's no longer the law. Well, happily, people didn't obey the laws during Jim Crow (at great personal risk) or when homosexuality was illegal, (also at great personal risk) or when women had to submit to any and all sexual advances of their husbands, (also at great personal risk).

Rather than codify a law that allows abortion, the law ought to be that it's none of the government's business.

Ditto.

"What I gather from yours (correctly or incorrectly) is: if it's the law, obey it until it's no longer the law. Well, happily, people didn't obey the laws during Jim Crow (at great personal risk) or when homosexuality was illegal, (also at great personal risk) or when women had to submit to any and all sexual advances of their husbands, (also at great personal risk)."

COMMENT: No. Throughout this thread, I have characterized my views as the best logical approach to presenting a prochoice argument. In this latest post to you, I specifically said that the civil law might well be subject to a higher law, as your examples demonstrate, and require civil disobedience. My own shared personal story demonstrates precisely this point.

As an aside, it is a bit disingenuous to respond negatively to someone's post without having read it! Worse than that, it runs the risk of leaving you entrenched in a position that is logically unsupportable. I never allow myself such a luxury.
________________________________________

"Rather than codify a law that allows abortion, the law ought to be that it's none of the government's business."

COMMENT: Well, that is my point. What the law 'ought to be' is a matter of social and political change. But, in this case, the proposed change is not that abortion is 'none of the government's business," because it *is* the government's business. And, because it is the government's business, government should codify a right to abortion. (The government's business works both ways!) It is not that the government has no interest in abortion, it is that the rights of women should supersede whatever interest the government might have.

If you argue instead--as you suggest--that personal choices are per se 'none of the government's business,' then be prepared for arguments you don't like being offered for the same reason, while foreclosing your right to use government to effectuate a change.

The state has an interest in abortion and it is not identical with the right of women to physical integrity. Henry's proposed remedy? Legislation to protect the woman's rights.

You know what would be preferable to that? Recognition that physical integrity is a woman's right and hence above legislation which can, if control of Congress changes, be reversed.

Meanwhile Henry has not applied the same logic to men. Without doubt the state has an interest in vasectomies for at least some men. Using Mr. Bemis's logic, the legislature should enact a law guaranteeing a man's physical integrity. Yet he doesn't propose that. Why? Because he thinks the man's physical security is an obviously inviolable right and hence above the legislative process.

He fails to understand that he is treating one gender's autonomy as a right superior to Congressional action while the other gender's independence is a proper subject for legislative consideration, debate, and compromise. Henry's body enjoys constitutional immunity to Congressional interference, ours should go through what Bismarck termed the sausage-making process.

The misogyny is patent.

Hold on a minute while I look up the definition of 'semantics".

anybody wrote:

"Because the aim of the old men -- and some women -- who want to control women is to control society via reproduction.

They are using the patriarchal "once you spread your legs, the debate is over, we own you" doctrine."


The old men are sure doing a poor job of controlling women.

Women get sole choice to choose to kill the fetus which has half its DNA from the dad. Or she can choose to keep it, in which case society forces the dad to pay for it until it is 18.

And if she chooses to divorce him (most divorces initiated by women), she can get half his sh!t and usually gets the kids.

"We own you doctrine"



Lot's Wife wrote:

"A bunch of men in this thread, saliently Henry Bemis, cannot conceive of a comparable violation of a man's physical autonomy. They insist that a woman's physical integrity is a proper topic for public and political discourse and cannot imagine anyone applying the same standard to male physiology.

The insouciance with which people engage in this purblind hypocrisy is astounding."


Very impressive vocabulary. Unfortunately many of the arguments for abortion assume that the fetus is part of the woman's body. It is not. As I mentioned, it gets half its DNA from the father, and many complex changes must happen to prevent the mother's immune system from rejecting it, since it is seen as foreign.

Are we to argue that the fetus is part of the woman's body while being breastfed also? Is it okay to kill it then?

So I don't see how you can compare men and women's physiology and autonomy when a man cannot grow another life inside him. (At least until now when we're told there is no difference between men and women).

Quick google:

https://liu.se/en/article/placenta-protects-foetus-from-mother-s-immune-system

The immune system of the mother-to-be is a deadly threat to the foetus, and must therefore be weakened during pregnancy. New research shows that this adjustment is controlled by the placenta.

The foetus gets half of its genetic material from the father, which means it is perceived as an intruder in the mother’s body. To prevent rejection, the immune cells in the womb get an anti-inflammatory or immunosuppressant character. It was previously believed that the mother’s immune system controlled this adjustment itself. But now a study from Linköping University shows that the placenta – which develops from the foetus and is therefore a foreign organ – has an important role in this process.

The study, carried out by a research team led by doctoral student Judit Svensson-Arvelund and Professor Jan Ernerudh has been published in the latest issue of the prestigious Journal of Immunology.

"The old men are sure doing a poor job of controlling women.

Women get sole choice to choose to kill the fetus which has half its DNA from the dad. Or she can choose to keep it, in which case society forces the dad to pay for it until it is 18.

And if she chooses to divorce him (most divorces initiated by women), she can get half his sh!t and usually gets the kids."

Seems to me that if the man doesn't want to pay child support and thinks the business of babymaking is somehow "unfair" to men, he could use a condom, get a vasectomy, or not have sex with someone with whom he doesn't want to make babies. Pregnancy is not risk free for women. Once the man has had his fun, the tough and dangerous part is over for him until the birth. That's not "fair", either.

I sure wish men could be pregnant and experience everything that goes with that condition.

Which is playing God more? Thinking the product of living cells from sex deserves to always live as long as it can or always subject to termination by it's hosts until it can fend for itself?

Nature is beautiful and harsh. Do we only celebrate the beauty?