Don't Talk to Me About Rights, Sir

[trinityvixen]

First things first, read this article.

Secondly, understand that, in principle, I agree. No protestors who aren't specifically advocating harm to the people/organization they oppose, nor are they preventing those people from operating, are to be considered racketeers.

Now, having said that, consider this sentence from the above article, wherein the "human interest" star says, of Roe v Wade:

"I realized when I read that decision that my wife could kill my daughter," he said. "She wouldn't, but she could, and I wouldn't have any right to stop her."

Do not talk to me of your rights, sir.

It is your baby, but it is not your body, your health, your mind. It is, in the shockingly accurate words of Dr. House, a parasite that you basically infected your wife with. I am sorry to those who object to my characterization of fetuses as parasites, but, in the strictest scientific sense, that is exactly what babies are. They are creatures that are dependent upon another for their nurishment and sustainance, and, without their host, they would not live. They do not provide any physical benefit to the mother (often, quite the opposite), and in extreme cases, are detrimental to the mother's health to the point of death (one of the most famous mutations we study in genetics is the "sack of worms" mutation in C. elegans that leaves mothers without a vulva; as a result, her eggs mature within her and literally eat her until she is only a skin containing her offspring--the sack of worms).

So, Mr. Anti-Abortion (AND I AM HENCEFORTH REFUSING EVER TO CALL THEM 'RIGHT-TO-LIFERS' BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS TO ENFORCE THEIR DOGMA ON OTHERS), you do not have any rights to control your wife. I know "love, honor, and obey" still probably made it into her wedding vows, but this country grants her the same rights as you. You as a man, or even a 'you' that is a woman but not her do not get the extra right of telling others what to do with their bodies. Unless, of course, you're prepared for her to enjoy the same rights back, in which case your wife might have happily accepted your fourth child and carried her to term in exchange for you getting a vasectomy (this poor bastard's wife has had seven children).

But let's not talk of rights, Mr. Anti-Abortion. You would do better to consider responsibility. It is a curiously abused word in your camp. There is a moral imperative, a responsibility to God and the fetus to ensure that it becomes a baby, according to you. We might even hear some noise about the mother's soul, her emotional turmoil if she goes through with the procedure. Maybe.

Curious, isn't it, that we never hear about the responsible other half of the party. Most fundamentalist anti-abortion crusaders would raise Holy Hell if we suggested that all these unwanted pregnancies were the result of spontaneous fertilization, a la The Virgin Mary. If that cannot be so, then they must have resulted from male-female copulation. Well, I see the woman being forced to deal with the responsibility for having sex outside of marriage, but what about the man? So convenient to tack the blame and all the responsibility upon one partner in a tango that runs afoul of the dancers' wishes.

Men have a responsibility, too, Mr. Anti-Abortion. If you want unprotected, barrier-free sex, you accept the chances of pregnancy, and you accept the costs, physical, mental, financial, fifty-fifty with the woman. We'll set up a barter system for those natural deficiences in the male body that do not allow him to perform the lion's share of the physical work. So, since you cannot distend your abdominals to enclose a thirty-pound lump of baby, fluid, et al, you should pick up more of the rearing or the costs thereof. Makes sense to me. Nine months on the lay up for the woman, nine months on bottle, diaper, feeding, burping, and putting to sleep duty for the man.

What's that? Wait, sorry, didn't hear you? What was that about 'no sex before marriage'? Did you manage not to? Good for you. Are you an absolute monarch or a theocratical leader of a recognized religious institution (aka cult)? No? Then you can't make others do as you did, sir. You don't have the right. You may fully embrace the responsibility to save those wayward souls from hellfire and damnation, but they're under no obligation to buy it--freedom of religion means you can practice your creed and stamp your foot at the promiscuous, but that's where your rights end: where theirs begin.

And thanks be to linaerys for linking me to a great male-authored feminist blog: Bark/Bite. From there, I got this disturbing link about a rape case that went to a mistrial despite the rapists having videotaped themselves violating an unconscious girl because she was 'a slut.'

Yes, I am linking to two articles concerning women, and, yes, I understand that I am implicitly connecting anti-abortionists with rapists. No, I won't apologize for that either.

Comments

[earthrise.livejournal.com]

I believe we've already spoken about this, but "anti-abortion" isn't the right term to use if you want to battle on rhetorically-balanced turf (or even get the upper hand). We need to talk "reproductive freedom." The F-word is very potent in modern sociopolitical dialogue, so why not adjust our own labels to fit in these contexts? "Anti-abortion" makes total sense; I'm anti-abortion. Who really wants one? Anti-reproductive rights or freedom works better, even if it's more of a mouthful. Let's work on changing our dialogue so the tables will turn in our favor.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I like that. I like that like I liked the posting my friend made that suggested we put up billboards showing the victims of abortion bans. We're talking a picture of the twelve-year-old forced to have her stepfather's baby by the new South Dakotan law.

Also, legilators who don't leave exclusions for rape/incest having to write lines over and over with the words "Yesterday, my wife/sister/daughter/mother was raped, and she should be forced to bear the rapist's child." Or "I am forcing her to bear her rapist's child because that is right."

I still remember a reporter asking McCain what he would do if his daughter wanted an abortion after a traumatic event like a rape. He said he'd talk to her about it, but there was such significance in his pausing and considering, I wanted to cheer. He had to think about it. Six years ago, we could have had a Republican candidate for president who actually thought before he legislated.

Le sigh.

[teneda.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I don't think that's enough. I think they should meet the women that I did.

Friends of my mom's/aunt's who had botched illegal abortions back in the day. These are women who at a young age made a mistake, and now have NO CHANCE of bearing children. Or one who had a stroke because a blood clot went to her brain. She can BARELY use her left hand, even now, almost 50 years after the procedure.

I realize I'm a guy, and so have no right to tell a woman to either keep or terminate the pregnancy. At the same time, I know what will happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Maybe if McCain was told his daughter would never bare him any grandchildren because she needed a hysterectomy from a botched abortion he'd think twice. I have actually MET women in that situation. I've talked to them when I was younger, and I feel for them. Maybe if everyone could hear those stories, picture their own daughters with the same problems and issues, maybe then this argument could be taken out of law, and left to each person/couple for their own decision.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think we need to counter the right's emotional stake, but I think we shouldn't forget the cold, rational truth while we do. You're absolutely right about those women. Our generation, and every one since Roe v Wade has already had the privilege of legal abortion, and, like all unearned privileges, we haven't treated it with respect. We have no emotional ties to the struggle to keep it legal and the women affected by a world without Roe v Wade are being lost with each year.

But we should also be able to argue from logical high grounds about reality versus idealism and win, yet we cannot. A friend of mine also linked to "My abortion is the only just one," a series of anecdotes about abortion doctors/nurses/clinicians who would perform abortions on people who they knew from picket lines outside their offices, often being verbally abused the whole while or after, once the woman had gotten what she wanted. It's a testament to the hypocrasy of the right, yet somehow they maintain the upper hand, despite use of dubious methods, terrorizing women and supporting a patriarchy that denies them their sexuality, enforces marriage like an enslavement to male hormones, and then punishes them for daring to resis it.

Grrr.

[teneda.livejournal.com]

The right has held the moral high ground on this because they invoke emotion. Just as Regan and Bush Sr held onto their reigns by making us fear communism, so w holds onto it by making us fear terrorism. Somehow, while the rest of the world is willing to consider and talk things over, they have evoked emotions of fear (in those cases) and pity (in this one) to get their way.

I think what needs to be done is (and I HATE using a republican term, mush less one coined by the current administration) a hearts and minds campaign. Less on logic (since that doesn't seem to be working) and more on what unplanned children do to the woman (bone density loss, diabetes, death) and the family unit as a whole after the birth.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

I come not to make the pro-life argument or defend this moron, but to insert a bit of, um, rational pro-life sentiment here?

The problem of mens' rights is more an equality of law problem. If a man gets a woman pregnant, presumably they're both responsible. Under our current law, a woman has a unilateral right to terminate the pregnancy. The man has no right to unilaterally terminate his parental responsibilities. As a pro-responsibility pro-lifer, I'm all for a compromise that would prohibit abortions of convenience while holding the fathers to the same crippling responsibilties they want to impose on their partner in foolish reproduction.

We actually hear plenty about the responsibility of the other half, from the right. See the numerous groups dedicated to the importance of fathering, among others. If you look for politicians emphasizing a father's responsibility to care for his children, they're uniformly found on the right or the social conservative black left (e.g., Bill Cosby) And quite frankly, the current lack of male responsibilty is an unintended consequence of 1960's feminism. Tell men they're unimportant brutes who should go away and that women are better off without men, and do you really expect them to stick around?

Understand that the vast majority of pro-lifers are not the Christianist wackos who go around showing pictures of aborted fetus, and we don't want women to go around barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. 93% of abortions are not the hard cases of rape, incest and life of the mother; they're abortions of convenience. And if you believe, which you can certainly do without any religious backing, that life begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. We generally recognize the duty to rescue people who we put in that situation; i.e., if you throw someone in a lake, you have a duty to rescue him. You don't have to hate women to be pro-life, and most of us aren't. It's just about the duty not to kill or indirectly cause the death of someone you caused to be in a situation of peril, unless your life is in danger.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but acknowledging that pro-life != awful monstrous human being would be nice.

[teneda.livejournal.com]

And if you believe, which you can certainly do without any religious backing, that life begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

And that is just the issue. BELIEF. It's one thing to say that you believe it's wrong to have an abortion. Or to say that you believe life begins at conception. Who are you to force that belief on others? Before you deny it, that is exactly what anti-abortionists are doing. Legislating a belief. Are you now going to tell me that Osama Bin Laden's belief was right and that my 13 friends that were murdered on 9/11 deserved it and so I should not want to get angry/pissed off/revenge?

Yes, as a man whose ex had an abortion and told him after the fact, I can say it hurts. I can also say that in all practicality, having that baby at that point in my life (even in THIS point in my life) would have just destroyed everything I have been working toward. I can see that now, and I am grateful she made that choice. I shudder to think what would have happened had we kept the baby and raised it. See, we don't share your beliefs so we'd rather you not make them into a law that eliminates what you think of as evil or wrong.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Who am I to impose my beliefs on you? An ordinary citizen with a voice in our democratic republic. All law is an expression of some sort of belief. We criminalize murder because we believe it's wrong to kill. We criminalize rape because we believe it's wrong to sexually assault another person. We enforce contracts in law because we believe that people should be held to their word. When a belief is held by enough people as to win consensus, and it doesn't violate a fundamental human right, it may become law. That's the American system in a nutshell.

The question then becomes whether anti-abortion laws violate a fundamental human right. I have a hard time seeing how they do, or at least how they do consistent with the rest of our government. It's not controversial at all to interfere with a mother's "right" to raise her children if she's abusive. It's not that controversial to interfere with a person's right to use drugs or use questionable medical procedures. We regulate all sorts of things a woman can do with her body, up to and including prostitution. Prohibiting abortions of convenience doesn't seem to be that much further of a restriction.

We live in a federalist republic, so we don't have to make a national law. We can let South Dakota and Utah act according to the wishes of their citizens, and let New York and California make their own abortion policies as well. That's what should happen. But arguing that beliefs should never become law, even when held for rational reasons, just doesn't make sense if you're going to stick with a democratic republic rather than anarchy.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Here's a question then: when do you let belief fall to fact?

Suppose science proves that the blastula isn't cognizant, isn't independently alive from its mother until neuronal waves are marked. We can prove when those waves begin, sometime around the end of the first trimester. Let's make that life. That's it. That's the magic time. That's life. Anything before it is, as I said, technically parasitism (what comes after is still parasitism, but I'll let it slide here).

Now, we have it. The fetus isn't a thing of independent life but still a bunch of only slightly differentiated cells for this time course. Fact. Can we get rid of it? Belief says no. But we do still convict people on fact, or should, that's the ideal. We have statutes that are premised on ideas and beliefs, but when we enforce them, there must be fact. I'm giving you fact. I guarantee you if we gave the world fact, we still would be screaming about abortion.

Why? Attempted murder and robbery are punishable crimes, so why not, too, even though it is, in this example, fact that the cells are not a baby? Because attempted murder/robbery implies a decision to commit with will to do so. Abortion is an attempt to purge the body of a parasite before it can become something that would have to be killed to get rid of.

Those cases you cited above are not relevant to the issue because they are, overall, not personal issues. Child Protective Services intervene to protect a child, the ideal of our country's future. Look at the Nixmary girl's case. Not hardly any of the people grieving for her even knew her or the family. She was a symbol of innocence and the promise of tomorrow lost. We protect our children as a society because they are our support for the future.

What about the druggie? We condemn certain drugs as illegal because their presence has a detriment to our society. That simple. Heroin can kill you, sure. So can tobacco. So can liquor. Liquor, being legal, probably kills more than heroin ever could. We legislate to stop the sellers of illegal drugs because we don't want them to hurt people who might hurt others. It's well and good to say "We do it to protect the druggies who can't help themselves." Fuck that. Does anyone cry if an alcoholic drinks himself to death? No. Do we care if he takes out a kid driving drunk? Yes. We legislate use of recreational drugs because of what the users might do to others, not what they do to themselves.

That may not be what the law says, but in practice, that's what it does. And it has been applied to abortion incorrectly because women getting abortions are not hurting others. They might be hurting the father's feelings but they are not cutting off his penis or tying his vas deferans into knots.

And, this is the scientist in me who doesn't have to believe but can rely on fact: abortions performed early aren't hurting anyone. They are only removing cells. If you start making a case for abortion as murder, prepare to die. You've killed seeds, you've killed billions of kitties and puppies. The only way not to remove the reproductive potential of anything is not to live in the first place. Shame on you for killing your dandruff--those keratinocytes might have made another you.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

(I didn't bring up the nitty gritty arguments because I didn't want to get into a direct abortion argument. But my argument isn't based on belief as much as pure moral reasoning, so to correct that perception...)

It's surprising how early you can find brain waves, as long as we're on the subject.

Yes, belief should fall to fact, if the fact is relevant to the moral reasoning. In what way is a fetus different from a person temporarily on medical life support? Yes, the fetus imposes a burden on the woman, a very great one. People on life support impose their own sort of burden, a crippling financial and emotional one. We would still find it unconscionable to put a person in a situation where she needed severe medical care and pull the plug, assuming that she would get better and eventually become independent.

Would it be wrong to let someone whose brain was temporarily non-functional die, if you knew that with proper and unexceptional care that person's brain would start working again? I tend to think it would.

Yes, the baby is technically, by the strict scientific definition, a parasite. But it became a parasite through the mother's voluntary action, at least in the cases we're talking about (I believe it is indefensible to ban abortion in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother). If you cause someone to become dependent on you, you have an obligation to take care of them within reason.

What difference is there between a zygote and a sperm cell, or for that matter a hair cell? With only normal care (providing nutrients, a stable environment, oxygen, etc.), a zygote has the potential to become an independent human being. No matter how many nutrients you give a sperm cell or hair cell, it will never become sentient, and will certainly never become an independent human being. And any scientist will say that a zygote is indeed human life. It meets the scientific definition of a living individual.

Those cases you cited above are not relevant to the issue because they are, overall, not personal issues.

Well...

Child protection services: "We protect our children as a society because they are our support for the future."

Fetuses, properly cared for, grow up to be children, who grow up to be adults and support society. I'm not seeing the distinction.

Drugs and alcohol: "We legislate use of recreational drugs because of what the users might do to others, not what they do to themselves."

And we regulate abortion not because of the harm a woman does to herself, but because of the harm a woman does to her child. If there isn't another human being hurt, there is NO ground for banning abortion.

You've killed seeds, you've killed billions of kitties and puppies.

But no humans! Yes, I'm anthropocentric, but I think most people would agree with me that killing animals is less morally wrong than killing people, and killing plants isn't inherently wrong at all (though may be wrong do due to its effect on people).

Shame on you for killing your dandruff--those keratinocytes might have made another you.

No, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't have. Not without extreme and unusual manipulation.

I'm getting warnings from chuckro to stop; If you want me to stop, it's your LJ. Say the word and I'll stop arguing.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

In what way is a fetus different from a person temporarily on medical life support?

Funny, you bring up how people wouldn't think of cutting life support to someone, and yet that is often a consideration when people are faced with debilitating disease. And, some patients, when confronted with the damage that cost will take on their loved ones, want to be euthanized or forgo the treatment. I am for allowing them to do that, too.

The burden of caring for a child you didn't want because of an accident is a life-long debilitation. There will be resentment and depression, both of which have been proven to affect a person's health negatively in both mental and physical capabilities. Should the woman just suck it up? Because a condom broke? Because there was a defect in their pill? Laws that leave zero tolerance for natural mistakes and fuck-ups that are not choices on the part of the mother (or father, in the case of faulty contraception) aren't going to better our society any. They will only cause more broken families, more resentment.

And any scientist will say that a zygote is indeed human life.

Really? Are you a scientist? I would identify myself as one, and a real life scientist, as opposed to those physicists and chemists who sign up for the anti-choice, anti-Darwin movements. Life has many definitions, but the biological one has a couple of requirements that negate zygotes as life--or, at the best, puts them more in the gray (and closer to the black) than viruses. Zygotes cannot reproduce, is a big lacking. Yes, I know, you're going to say "but they could if allowed to grow." True. So could lots of cells. And zygotes definitely couldn't grow independently, the basis for your argument as why you can't eliminate a zygote.

If you cause someone to become dependent on you, you have an obligation to take care of them within reason.

This is judgmental, and a lot of the reason anti-choicers bug me. "If you do this, this is your fault and you need to be responsible." I doubt that many of the "My abortion is the only acceptable one" people ever take that responsibility. There are plenty of anti-choicers who go in for abortions they would deny others because there is shame attached to having sex out of wedlock that is unfairly dumped on the girl's shoulders because her body is forced to bear the consequences. Why are we judging people for having sex? For not understanding how to use or for getting faulty products for protecting them against just such things?

You can keep posting, but I'm sort of worn out on this topic. I think I've established that I don't agree with you and there's not much we're making each other understand at this point.

[earthrise.livejournal.com]

I hate to tell you this, but you brought up one of the biggest reasons why many people who are against women having abortions still support Roe v. Wade (and they do exist, in large numbers): because there is no consensus that an abortion is a murder.

Everyone can acknowledge that going out and stabbing someone to death is murder. Drowning an infant is murder. A being that breathed and moved and had a place in society ceased to exist by the hand of another human. But removing a cluster of cells from a woman's uterus? Nobody can agree on whether that's murder. There isn't even a shadow of a consensus, scientific or social, and until there is, there must not be an absolute law. Otherwise, our judicial system would be a complete sham.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I don't expect you to agree with me, but acknowledging that pro-life != awful monstrous human being would be nice.

I inferred that, did I? Oh, well, so sorry. No offense, dude, and I mean that, but your complaint would have more weight if it weren't the one that liberals make by the thousands and have summarily ignored. Why is it I have to acknowledge anti-choice people as having 'depth' and not being monstrous, when I am told that being pro reproductive freedom is sinful, morally unjust, lazy, shameful, and a sign of everything that is wrong with our country?

I can acknowledge that you might be a secular anti-choice. You might even do me the return courtesy of acknowledging that I am pro-choice but anti-abortion and that there is a difference. That's great. You talk to your people, I'll talk to mine, and maybe we can all do that. But notice how it is always the liberal side that gives that ground first? That's why the Dems are languishing because they allow for disagreement, tried to appease with softer language, and the Republicans steam-rolled them. Why should I acknowledge the basic humanity of a person, say Rick Santorum (because he's an easy target), who comes out and says blanketly that his religious beliefs put him in a frame of mind to tell me how to run my life when that runs counter to the spirit of our country's founding?

I'd like some fucking recognition that I am not in this for the killing of children for women who can't be bothered to use contraception. I'd like some recognition that practical concerns do matter in the decision. I'd like some longer cultural memory at a bare minimum so that people on the anti-choice side of the debate could recall a time when women died because of these mistakes. Women died. Women were never able to have children again because abortion was illegal. When it's a woman's life that's ruined, we can debate. When it's a man's life at stake, we take action! Show me where that doesn't seem monstrous to you.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

I'm going to acknowledge, quite clearly, that you are an anti-abortion pro-choicer. I don't have to say the same thing about, say, NOW. Similarly, feel free to deny the basic humanity of Rick Santorum all you want. He's an asshole and a stain on the Republican Party.

But just as some Republican pro-lifers are jerks, so are some Democrat pro-choicers who should legitimately be called pro-abortion. Eliot Spitzer comes to mind, fighting to keep women away from pregnancy crisis centers (which counsel pregnant women encouraging them to keep their baby; they have no force of law but provide services and advocate for keeping the child.) Both sides contain their fair share of morons and fanatics. This isn't a surprise to anyone. And since neither of us has an audience to pose to, I think we can acknowledge that without worrying about "weakening our positions."

As for acknowledging practical concerns: Yes, women died as a result of botched abortions. Women also sometimes die as a result of poor medical practice or pure chance during abortions post-Roe. But overall, that bad consequences flow from people breaking the law doesn't necessarily invalidate a given law. I would be overjoyed if we had a system that provided support for women in these situations. It would be a far better use of money than enforcing sugar tariffs or building million dollar bridges for 40 people in Alaska. That doesn't change my argument that abortion is an immoral act which should be illegal, preferably punished by a sharp fine.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

o are some Democrat pro-choicers who should legitimately be called pro-abortion.

What's wrong with that? Is it inconsistent somehow? For those who believe that an abortion is a morally ok thing to have, why should it only be morally ok if it's an emergency or an accident, a "screw-up" from someone who otherwise "was careful/responsible"? If a fetus is not a child, why should it be morally wrong to abort them under any (voluntary) circumstances? Pragmatically one wants to avoid needless medical procedures, an ounce of prevention etc... but if it's wrong in some non-utilitarian way to have a "frivolous abortion," then it should be wrong to have any voluntary abortions too. We don't make more than a pragmatic moral judgment over whether or not someone should've been more careful when prescribing antibiotics for gonorrhea.

So I'm basically saying, what's wrong with being pro-abortion? (Aside from the blanket view that abortion is wrong under any voluntary-sex circumstances?)

To me there are two issues that never appear in this debate. The first is that the world is grossly overpopulated: any "pro-life" position that focuses on continuing to add individual children to the world, but does not take into account the fact that humanity is rapidly destroying the available resources needed to support any human life, is fundamentally inconsistent: if we enforce the rule that all pregnancies must be carried to term, we are hastening the time when we kill off all human life, including children that their parents actually wanted.

Please note that under no circumstances would I advocate involuntary abortion, murder of living children, etc.

The second is that American history is predicated on the belief that freedom is more important than life, from laissez-faire economic attitudes to the behavior of the Founding Fathers during the American Revolution. Instigating a war which killed thousands is indicative of that decision; the kind of tar-and-feather tactics used to create and enforce consensus/submission among Loyalist colonists is another indication. Heck, even World War II, the prototypical model of the "just war," was fought to preserve individual liberty and choice, at the price of hundreds of thousands of lives. Abortion is about reproductive freedom (regardless of whether one views the act itself as morally reprehensible), so there's plenty of precedent for freedom being more important than saving lives. Of course those attitudes are also very much in flux, but nobody even acknowledges that there is a legitimate position that liberty is more important than life. And if the state has the right to decide who must be forced to bear children, how is that different from the state having the right to decide who must be forbidden to bear children?

On a less general note,

That doesn't change my argument that abortion is an immoral act which should be illegal, preferably punished by a sharp fine.

The consequence of this will not be to stop abortion, but only to make it even more of a class issue than it currently is. People wealthy enough to pay the fine can have all the abortions they like, but poor people are forced into compulsory childbirth. That was the pattern before Roe v. Wade, and is the pattern that continues in a lot of circumstances today. At least please acknowledge that poor people are the ones who most need abortions, as the least able to pay for raising an additional child, and as the lives of impoverished children are vastly more difficult than those of privileged ones. And, that one of the most important components of getting out of inter-generational poverty is delaying childbirth. Maybe that could be achieved by abstinence, but let's be serious: not once in history has abstinence worked as a wide-scale form of contraception, and there are lots of reasons that condoms fail, or that people are coerced or badgered into unprotected sex, etc. The best way to reduce the number of abortions isn't to legislate anything at all about abortion, but to promote comprehensive sex education about how to have sex without getting pregnant. Any effort or energy put into fighting abortion, the act, instead of fighting unwanted pregnancies, is energy grossly wasted.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

As a pro-responsibility pro-lifer, I'm all for a compromise that would prohibit abortions of convenience while holding the fathers to the same crippling responsibilties they want to impose on their partner in foolish reproduction.

As a studier of law, you should know that the law cannot legislate what was in the heart of a person or their intent all on its own. It's up to juries to decide whether a man killed in cold blood or the heat of the moment. If we have to start taking women to court to prove that their abortions are not ones of convenience, then we've lost. That is the win the anti-choice people are about as much as they are about denying all abortions.

And quite frankly, the current lack of male responsibilty is an unintended consequence of 1960's feminism. Tell men they're unimportant brutes who should go away and that women are better off without men, and do you really expect them to stick around?

You are, with my apologies if this offends, completely wrong. Feminism's backlash is responsible for men absconding and abandoning their duties as fathers? Horse shit. Women having the nerve to tell men "We are people, not slaves. We deserve respect as people, equal respect," does nowhere say "Men are undisciplined pigs who wouldn't know childrearing from calf-birthing." Blaming the radical edge of feminism, which was needed at the time to make any headway, for thirty years aftermath of men retaliating at the few bitches who dared question the patriarchy is blaming the victim.

Men control the world. That's the way it is. They do. No question. Look at the government--our government, any government--and tell me men don't control 80-90% of everything it does. Tell me they don't paint themselves as the bastions of moralness and legal levelheadedness. Tell me they don't villify women who dare to play their testes-first games. I will call you a liar, and I will be right. Men run everything in government.

Step outside of governement. What geneder dominates the CEO positions of most businesses? I'll give you a hint: they don't have two Xs to their karyotype. Who tells people what to do? Who tells them what the law is, what's fashionable, what's societally permissable, what's shameful, what's fame-worthy? Men do. So you're telling me that feminism is to blame for thirty years of men telling themselves they're lazy, or that they fail as fathers? Really, you'd have a stronger argument blaming the men who walked out on all these sons of industry and left them wondering "Why?" Male hatred is self-hatred, not shame forced upon them by bra-burning womyn. Men set themselves up to fail more than women set them up. Men still set the standard of their masculinity by defining it as the opposite of femininity. That is way homophobia is much more severe upon gay men than lesbians. Women loving women aren't really worth the attention--they're all soft-in-the-head, emotionally unstable XXers. Men loving men? They're men choosing to be soft, ie wrong, ie female. This is male thinking, not female thinking pushed on them. You don't see a woman calling her boyfriend a queer or unmanly if he isn't the Budweiser man his friends are. But his "friends" will.

Simply, male guilt, feelings of disempowerment, shame? We women DID NOT DO THAT.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

As a studier of law, you should know that the law cannot legislate what was in the heart of a person or their intent all on its own.

Well, yes, intent is a question for the jury, but it's still often part of a crime's definition. What exactly would be the problem enforcing a law prohibiting abortion except in cases where the mother's life or physical health is in danger, or the pregnancy was a product of rape or incest? 93% of abortions fall in that category, which I generally group into "abortions of convenience."

Women having the nerve to tell men "We are people, not slaves. We deserve respect as people, equal respect," does nowhere say "Men are undisciplined pigs who wouldn't know childrearing from calf-birthing." Blaming the radical edge of feminism, which was needed at the time to make any headway, for thirty years aftermath of men retaliating at the few bitches who dared question the patriarchy is blaming the victim.

So what exactly did Ms. Friedan mean when she wrote, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"? Or, what did the feminists mean while arguing that a single parent (usually mother) family is just as good for a child as a two parent household? And when the law made marriage less binding, it turned out to be a greater boon for irresponsible men than for liberated women, the majority of such who ended up liberated and impoverished. For the most part this isn't conscious retaliating. But you can't shift the culture to emphasize the unimportance of men without getting a corresponding decrease in men being responsible. Most people aren't good for the sake of being good.

Men control the world. That's the way it is. They do. No question. Look at the government--our government, any government--and tell me men don't control 80-90% of everything it does. Tell me they don't paint themselves as the bastions of moralness and legal levelheadedness. Tell me they don't villify women who dare to play their testes-first games. I will call you a liar, and I will be right. Men run everything in government.

Some men do. But there's no control, and more importantly there's no faction. There is as much a cabal of men controlling the world and thinking the same way as there is a cabal of women, blacks or Jews who enforce gender or racial discipline. Has there been a political candidate in recent years who hasn't had to at least deal with women's issues, even if not taking a feminist stance on them? The majority of women are pro-life. The majority of women today want to be part of a family to raise children--so do the majority of men, for that matter. That politicians don't fall in step with feminists doesn't make them anti-woman, as you can tell from the fact that they still get women's votes.

And if women don't have a say, if America is a horrible patriarchy, then how did so many feminist policies become law?

Step outside of governement. What geneder dominates the CEO positions of most businesses? I'll give you a hint: they don't have two Xs to their karyotype.

I like the Scott Adams response on this. There are innate gender differences. If you put a group of men and women in a warehouse, and had a line of another 500 old, fat, white men (hell, make it gender neutral) drop their pants. Tell both groups that they can become the CEO of a major corporation just by going down the line and kissing those 500 pale white asses. I guarantee you there will be a difference between how many from each group is willing to step up to the task. This isn't exactly an outrageously skewed view of how to climb the corporate ladder.

Really, you'd have a stronger argument blaming the men who walked out on all these sons of industry and left them wondering "Why?"

Oh, they're not exempt from blame. But you can't change the law and change the economic situation and not expect rational selfish people not to change their behavior accordingly. Law is to a large extent a mechanism for getting awful, selfish people to behave in a civilized manner. Doesn't make their behavior right, but if you want to encourage people to do the right thing, it helps to not pay them for doing the wrong thing.

[jlc.livejournal.com]

So what exactly did Ms. Friedan mean when she wrote, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"?
It means exactly what it sounds like: no woman need be beholden to a man any more than a man be beholden to a woman. It does not mean, as you suggest, that men are weak and useless. It means that women do not require men any more than men require women. It means that a woman, like a man, is a rational agent capable of making her own decisions as to what she values, how she values them, and when she values them.

And when the law made marriage less binding, it turned out to be a greater boon for irresponsible men than for liberated women, the majority of such who ended up liberated and impoverished.
Anecdotal and non-sequitor. And even if we accept this as truth, treating women and men equally as rational agents capable of self-government outweighs the harms. Both parties enter by mutual consent into a contractual relationship with clearly defined recouses for end of the contract.

You want to talk about divorce ruining American families, fine, we can do that elsewhere. It's a different subject.

But you can't shift the culture to emphasize the unimportance of men without getting a corresponding decrease in men being responsible.
Explain to me again how emphasizing that women are human beings that are at least as (ir?)rational as men emphasizes the unimportance of men?

And if women don't have a say, if America is a horrible patriarchy, then how did so many feminist policies become law?
Good question. I loved it to death when the ERA passed back in the 70s; really clarified whole areas of constitutional law. Oh wait, it didn't. Fuck. What was that about feminist policies?

There are innate gender differences
Yes, there are differences between the biological sexes. How do these affect agency of individuals of the two biological sexes?

Oh, and lets not muck up this conversation by discussing gender instead of biological sex :)

[earthrise.livejournal.com]

It's pretty clear that a lot of this is lunacy. Pure lunacy. Since TV didn't bother to waste the energy addressing your ridiculous, unfounded arguments about feminism's evils and women's silent, evil stronghold on ALL OF SOCIETY (man, nothing like a burqa to really get a parliamentary discussion rolling), I'm not going to bother, either.

But I'd like to point out to you that you, by your own definition, support the murder of innocent children. How is a "child" conceived through rape or incest less innocent, and more deserving of murder, than a "child" who was conceived due to botched contraception? Or a fetus that develops without a brain who will die immediately upon a childbirth that severely compromises its mother's health? Or kills her? Shouldn't these innocent fetuses get a chance at life, even if that life consists of loathing and self-loathing, with the ever-present knowledge that they were unwillingly forced upon this world? For shame!

You support murder. I don't know how you sleep at night.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Well, I wasn't going to respond again. And then you accused me of supporting murder, so...

How is a "child" conceived through rape or incest less innocent, and more deserving of murder, than a "child" who was conceived due to botched contraception?

It's a question of what duties are owed. In general, a person has a duty to rescue people placed in danger due to his/her actions. If you accidentally knock someone off a boat, you have a duty to throw him/her a life preserver. However, you don't have such a duty if you just see someone in the water. The same principle applies here. Not aborting is most morally equivalent to rescuing an unborn child, who is in a precarious position. If the mother had no choice in actions leading up to the child's creation, she cannot have any duty to save it.

Similarly, in the "life of the mother" case; that's an application of the self-defense principle. You have a right to use force proportionate to the injury you are about to receive. Generally, you can use deadly force to protect yourself from someone who's going to cause your death, but not to protect yourself from a lesser violation. If it's a choice of which person dies, the mother has every right to live.

There is a moral difference between a mother's actions regarding a child created through her own voluntary actions and one forced upon her through physical violence, or one who will inadvertently kill her. By your reasoning, by supporting self-defense and no duty to rescue, I'm supporting murder.

I've been respectful and civil, imputing the best motives to you all throughout the discussion. I guess I'm not deserving of the same consideration?

[earthrise.livejournal.com]

I personally don't think you're a murderer by condemning innocents and denying them the right to life. That's because I don't think a zygote has the same rights as a human being. However, you have stated the opposite. I'm simply holding you accountable to your own moral judgments and the hypocrisy that stands behind them.

If a fetus is a child, then having an abortion is murder, no matter what the circumstances leading up to its conception may be. If you come across someone in the water who is drowning, most people would try to save that person regardless of if they jumped in themselves or if someone pushed them.

I am not calling you a murderer. You are calling yourself a murderer. If you're going to be "pro-life," you can't be selective on which lives you deem worthy to protect, morally repugnant as it is to anyone who isn't insane (see Wendy Wright and her followers if you want a good example of people who are truly "pro-life" to the point of suggesting that rape victims carry their pregnancies to term as a form of victory over the rapists). It's disgusting, yes, but anything less is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

And we wonder why American politics are polarized to the point of near civil war?

Making moral distinctions isn't "hypocrisy". It's not hypocritical to say that killing is wrong in some circumstances and right in others. More importantly, it's not hypocritical to say that the law should require a duty to rescue in some cases but not others, if there's a reason for the difference.

The equivalent on my side would be to say that by pro-choice logic, abortion should be permitted to the point of post-birth infanticide, which is abhorrent, therefore all abortions should be banned. That's an obviously silly argument, as is yours. I'm not going to post on this point again, and probably am not going to post here again. This seems to be less a forum for reasoned argument than a forum for name-calling and childish nitpicking. Silly me.

[earthrise.livejournal.com]

I gave you a chance to defend your position, and you spouted something back that made zero sense. Nobody who supports reproductive freedom supports infanticide, and nothing in my logic says that. In fact, the only argument I made used your own logic. If you find fault in that, you find fault with yourself. Case closed.

I respect people who truly believe that life begins at conception. I do not respect those who have a gradient for who deserves to live and who deserves to die -- especially when we're not talking criminals, but innocents. Perhaps that's my own value for human life talking, but so be it. Apparently I'm more pro-life than you, which is apparently childish.

Also: for Civil War, see Iraq. Hyperbole has its place, but not here.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

In general, the people who are on the whole "awful, selfish people" who must be beaten into behaving correctly towards others are those who either believe that one is supposed to be awful and selfish, or those who believe that everyone else is, and therefore it is necessary to be so, too.

It is entirely possible to raise people who wish to do the right thing because it is right. The missing point is empathy, which is the most important moral value of all: treating others the way that they would wish (or do wish) to be treated, except when that would endanger empathy towards others. Anyone who has and believes in this value will not need the law to behave in socially positive ways. And promoting empathy is a possible, indeed essential, course of action that would obviate a great deal of the other things our society does that are based on the mistaken belief that all people are naturally selfish and lawless.

[fairest.livejournal.com]

Re: baby as parasite, I'm e-mailing you a link to a post one of my favorite authors wrote a ways back that discussed babies as parasites and abortion from the pro-choice standpoint.

Not linking it directly 'cause I'd rather not introduce a new flood of comments to a post from 2003. :-)

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

just for the record, d: you're the shit.

the whole idea of "abortions of convenience" is retarded and sick. mistakes happen. condoms break. you forget your pill. you're taking a medication that actually lessens the effect of your contraceptive. whatever. getting pregnant is not inconvenient. it can be traumatizing. it can destroy your whole fucking life. it can ruin everything--your future, your job, your family, your relationships, your faith. that's like saying that people who get lung cancer from years of smoking shouldn't receive medical treatment. i mean, they did it to themselves. and that wasn't even a mistake: that was a LIFE-LONG CHOICE. a whole fucking lifestyle. why should we treat them? because they're human beings. because life is valuable. more so than some zygote half-life with no consciousness or function outside the womb. i think that abortion as a method of birth control (i.e. i won't use a condom because i can always get an abortion) is disgusting and more importantly, almost nonexistant.

the argument that number of women who died or were permanently scarred (physically or emotionally) by botched pre-Roe v. wade abortions is negligible compared to women who die of other medical problems or malpractices is even worse. this isn't a MISTAKE. this can be PREVENTED. why the hell would you send women to back-alley doctors when there is a SAFE way to do it? to save lives?

feminism is not responsible for deadbeat fathers. you've got to be shitting me. feminism isn't some radical man-hating cult. it's about tolerance, respect, and equality. theoretically anyone who believes in a democracy is a feminist. not to mention the question of whether it would ever be a good idea to marry the asshole that tried to ditch you because you're pregnant. gee, that sounds like a healthy relationship. what kind of marriage is that? would you want a child to grow up with parents who resented his or her existence? who were bitter, at least a little, because every day is a compromise of their happiness? parents who hated each other? anyone who's been in a broken home (*raises hand*) knows that a single parent household is miles better than one that is emotionally, verbally or physically abusive.

anyway i need to go but expect a rant later from me in person.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Good. Let's rant and scream until we're blue in the face. I cannot believe the prevalence of "abortion for convenience" talk. I don't have statistics, but I'm certain that abortions of convenience aren't more than ten-twenty percent. Abortions of conscience are another matter. I am sick of people equating the two.

Rant on, girl.