Here we go

quote:

---

Dawna Matrix wrote -

"I would like to give George Bush a uterus, and impregnate him with Osama seed so he could wish for an abortion."

---

Oh yeah, that would show him - the bastard. That'd solve the problem, that'd solve everything.

Not.

Your vindictive fantasies serve your cause poorly. Perhaps wishing ill-will on someone to score political points is a real knee slapper amongst your buds, but it doesn't play so well in metaphoric Peoria. Such things are tactically counterproductive - to put it mildly. It is in large measure why a very large percentage of that great unwashed out there have little use for either side in this debate. Most often you both come across as sounding like dangerous fanatics.

You know what I wish for in the whole overall abortion debate? No, it doesn't involve fantasies of something bad happening to the leader of my country, and in fact it's even more unlikely than George Bush suddenly getting a uterus so he can carry Osama seed (Osama seed - order now, quantities are limited...).

What I wish for is a little honesty on both sides. It'd be nice... But I ain't holdin' my breath.

The "pro-choice" side loves to talk about abortion as "just another medical procedure". Yeah, right, no moral component at all, right? Please, have a little honesty. This isn't cutting out a tumor we're talking about here, not removing a piece of diseased flesh so that the person may live. This is killing something. Whether you want to call it a fetus, a baby, a potential human life, it doesn't matter, it all adds up to the same thing. Covering that up, trying to put a nice semantic face on it, that gets you exactly nowhere. Orwell aside, for all the codewords you can dream up everyone still knows what the reality is. So don't try, [b]face it[/b], be honest about it. Yes, this is a nasty but necessary business. Yes, this is killing something. But in the end I don't have a problem with that because it beats the hell out of the alternative by a very long ways.

Having moral qualms about the issue of abortion isn't anachronistic - it's understandable, given the realities of what you're talking about. Saying otherwise is flat asinine. I have moral qualms about killing a rabbit, for god's sake, you're telling me that it's anachronistic to feel moral qualms about killing something that will be a human being in a few months? You think women going for abortions don't feel some of those same moral qualms? You think that can be just waved away like last week's garbage? That it should be? Sorry, ain't happen', those fuzzy moralistic notions are going to be with us for a very long time because this isn't like choosing between a Toyota and a Chrysler, this is choosing between the lesser of two evils and that's never a happy choice. [b]Face that[/b] head on and be honest about it. You can't just wave it away like so much detritus and expect that to work, it won't. But societies and individuals are faced with the choice of lesser evils all the time, that's life. People understand that, even if they don't like it. And they don't have to like abortion to support the right to one. Trying to make me like it, or claim my feelings are somehow "wrong", is going to get you exactly nowhere.

The "pro-life" side loves to talk about how abortion is "killing a baby!". Well no shit, Sherlock, but do you honestly think the argument ends there? There are [i]two[/i] lives involved, two competing interests, just because what's growing within her may eventually be a human being does not mean that its rights are paramount over hers. That's what society and the bulk of this thing called "law" is about - deciding, when rights are in conflict, whose rights are paramount. And guess what? Society has decided that the rights of the life that is [b]here[/b] trumps the rights of something that isn't yet. If you want to discuss the subject you're going to have to deal with that and you're going to have to have a damn good reason why the rights of something unborn trump those of someone standing right in front of me, not just rest your case on the unborn's demise - 'cause it ain't that simple and we all know it.

And for god's sake (to use an ironic turn-of-phrase), don't pull out your bible. Besides probably knowing it as well or better than you do, I don't care what it has to say. I do not live in a theocracy, nor do I care to. This is Caesar's law we're talking about here, not god's - whichever god you happen to believe in and however you happen to interpret their word and wishes. Render unto Caesar or go start a theocracy somewhere else and leave me the hell alone. You don't want to be involved in abortion, that's fine, don't be. But don't try and tell me that what you [i]think[/i] your god says should be the law of the land. Find a reasonable and logical argument that doesn't happen to require that I agree with your religion or we have nothing to talk about.

Survey after survey has shown that the bulk of the great unwashed out there - myself among them - looks at the competing rights and, when weighed in the balance, come out on the side of the pregnant woman to have or terminate the pregnancy as she decides. They don't like it, they don't like what's required in that oh-so-nice term "terminate", they have fuzzy moral qualms about it, but in the end they feel it beats the hell out of trying to force a pregnant woman, by dent of law, to bring to term a pregnancy she does not want. It is the lesser of two evils.

Neither side likes this much, so they engage in semantic games designed to try and present only one side of the argument. It isn't [b]just[/b] about a woman's right to choose, there's another life involved here. It isn't [b]just[/b] about "killing a baby", there's a woman's life involved here. Semantics aren't fooling anyone, they only work when preaching to the choir. Delusions of unrestricted rights will get you nowhere. Nor will babbling about what you think your god has to say. All any of that does is contribute to the already high degree of intellectual dishonesty on both ends of this debate. None of it is going to move the greater center, that great unwashed, not by one whit. All it does is ratchet up the polarization on both of the extreme ends and cause the great unwashed to stop listening to either side because they both come across like lunatics. Both sides do their cause a great disservice.

Myria

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Myria ]

It all hinges on how one defines humanity. I think a first trimester fetus is no more human than a sperm or an egg, for me it is potential human life, not human life.

But, I measure by a certain criteria, a criteria Trinitty does not. And, who is to say who is right? I an compelled to respect Trinitty's perspective though, she searches for consistancy, for an understanding based on reason.

Unfortunately, the Bush's of the world are not operating on reason, but on a faulty dogma, and for those reasons his efforts have to be looked at very closely, and second guesssed when it comes to issues such as this.

The sanctity of human life, or of liberty has never, ever been a priority of those who use religion as a guide. Their priority is to control, to foist upon others their own dangerous beliefs, and to attack individual liberty, and democracy where ever they can.

It is for this reason the mainstream anti-abortionists have to be rejected out of hand, and that Bush's pronouncement is a gift horse women would be well advised to look very carefully in the mouth.

Myria,

I appreciate your passion for this issue.

However, (you knew that was coming didn't you [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] ) I must debate a few of the points you made.

I won't quote directly, b/c I'm lazy, but you say that the person standing in front of you, the pregnant woman, trumps whatever "might be" when it comes down to decision time.

I argue that the human life that is routinely extinguished is sadly a victim of location. Of course one cannot SEE it simply by looking at the woman. But that doesn't mean that it's any less there. As I mentioned earlier, we are no longer ignorant as to WHAT exactly the human being looks like and is composed of at each and every stage of its life. From conception until death, it is well documented. Heart, brain waves, major organs, eyes, circulatory, nervous system, ten toes, ten fingers, etc, etc, if you'd like to know more, go to:

[url=http://makeashorterlink.com/?S1B82006]http://makeashorterlink.com/?S1B82...

(They, much to my dismay, have religious ties, but you must dig for them.)

To me, and to scientific definition, this is a human being. It will never be born a bovine.

I do realise that there are two people; two lives involved which is why I rant, rave and scream for more help for women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, even pregnant period. Being single or and/poor being pregnant is terrifying. But it's only life or death for one party involved. Of course in cases where the mother's life is in danger, an abortion must take place. But these cases are rare.

It's a toss-up between being pregnant for nine months and having to cope with the resulting child - no light undertaking I know - or terminating, killing, extinguishing, whatever you want to call it, a unique human being. Presently at tens of thousands per year in Canada. And I just really think, or perhaps want to think, that
we as a society can do way better than that.

**edited to fix the link, thanks Earthmom!!!**

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

earthmother, you have taken an instant dislike to me. That's ok. I have long since ceased to judge my worth by other people's opinions.

However, please let me say that you are wrong about me. I see all the shades and hues between the black and the white. You speak about abortion resulting from rape or incest. You bring up these exceptional extremes to justify abortion for all and then accuse me of seeing the issue as back and white? Perhaps it is you who are unable to distinguish between need and want - various shades of grey.

There are many different shades of emotion out there sitting in abortion clinics. To class them all as noble and justified is as wrong as classing them all as murderers.

I do neither. Can you say the same?

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Rabid Gerbil ]

You gather wrong.

And I'm not your "dear".

Can we PLEEEEEAASE keep this civil and somewhat productive?

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"I appreciate your passion for this issue."

---

I appreciate yours as well, Trinitty, I truly do. To be quite honest, I don't think our positions are quite as far apart as it might seem, even if the conclusions we draw differ.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"However, (you knew that was coming didn't you)"

---

Let's just say I suspect it might be [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] .

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"I argue that the human life that is routinely extinguished is sadly a victim of location."

---

Problem is, in principle I agree and I certainly respect your position - whether it is derived from a religious or some other ethical or moral belief systems is wholly irrelevant to me. I know it's a dicey question and I'm far from unaware of how fetal developmental biology works. That is in large measure why I have as little patience for the often cavalier way in which the "pro-choice" side routinely handles this question as I have for the rigidity with which the "pro-life" side routinely does. Anyone who thinks this is or should be a simple question is either delusional or blinded by dogmatism and there is, unfortunately, plenty of both on both sides.

What it boils down to is a question of when does a zygote become a human being? Is it at the zygote stage? Later, perhaps when its heart starts beating? When neural density hits point 'X'? When it's capable of independent movement? The moment it takes it's first independent breath?

At what point can society rightfully step in and say "This is a person with rights that supercede yours"?

I don't know, with any degree of utter certitude, I honestly don't. I don't think a zygote is a human being, deserving of the same rights we would give any other, but I don't think that a fetus only becomes a human being once it fully passes through the vaginal canal. It's somewhere in between those two points, but I don't know for sure where.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"To me, and to scientific definition, this is a human being. It will never be born a bovine."

---

To be sure, at the zygote stage a genetic blueprint that is a unique combination of the mother and father's alleles is present and can only lead to a human being and nothing else. It is not a bovine, lagomorph, feline, nor any other creature, and it never shall be. Nor is it a like a kidney nor piece of diseased flesh. But, does that make it a human being? It [i]will[/i] be a human being, but at what point [i]is[/i] it a human being, worthy of all of the rights and consideration thereof?

This isn't a question science can answer by itself. What is it that makes a human being a human being? Is it our chromosomes? Our neural net? A particular aspect of our physiology? Some gestaltic combination thereof?

For better or ill, science doesn't offer any simple answers here. What makes something a human being is a matter of opinion. Science can list those things that all human beings have in common - such a list would fill libraries of books - and indeed a developing fetus has most of these things very early in its developmental cycle. But which of these things matter, which are [i]definitive[/i]? That science cannot answer, at least not yet.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"I do realise that there are two people; two lives involved which is why I rant, rave and scream for more help for women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, even pregnant period. Being single or and/poor being pregnant is terrifying. But it's only life or death for one party involved. Of course in cases where the mother's life is in danger, an abortion must take place. But these cases are rare."

---

Extraordinarily so, and I know of few even amongst the most rabid of the "pro-life" side who would argue that such procedures should not exist as a matter of last resort.

That issue aside, and it's a common tactic on both sides to look only at the extremes as though those alone define the issue, even if society could ensure that no woman who found herself pregnant would want for resources or support, there would still be women who would wish to terminate their pregnancy. I've seen too many cases where resources or support were not at issue to believe otherwise. This is not to say that society should not do everything reasonably within its power to help pregnant mothers - though what constitutes "reasonable" is wholly another debate - only that doing so would not end the debate.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"It's a toss-up between being pregnant for nine months and having to cope with the resulting child - no light undertaking I know - or terminating, killing, extinguishing, whatever you want to call it, a unique human being."

---

It's really more complicated than that, though.

I come at this from a libertarian - albeit not necessarily a Randian Objectivist - point-of-view (and, yes, I'm aware that's not a particularly popular philosophical base in these parts). I see this as fundamentally a question of rights in conflict and it is from my analysis of the nature and precedence of those rights that I unhappily draw the conclusions I do.

A pregnant woman - as with any other human being - has a right to control what goes on with her body. That is fundamental, in the end only your body is unequivocally yours. Pregnancy carries certain risks and consequences, no matter how one arrives at that state. A pregnant woman has a right to decide how she will deal with that, though no right to demand that anyone else participate in her decision.

A human being has the right to life, to wrongfully deprive a human being of life is held to be the most heinous crime possible, and rightly so. No one ever recovers from being murdered, pretty much by definition. But there are conditions under which society says that killing is justifiable. Self-defense is one, on a grander scale war is another. The country I live in goes as far as to say (wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another matter) that it can collectively and rightfully deprive someone of life for sufficient reason - usually in response to their having done likewise to another. Other countries have decided (also wrongly, in my opinion, but again a separate issue) that if a person suffers from certain conditions - they're born deformed, in too much pain, whatever the qualifiers - they may rightfully be helped to shed their mortal coil without necessarily deciding that they wish to. Murder is wrong, but not all killing is murder.

A zygote is not a human being by any reasonable definition that I'm aware of. Somewhere between being a zygote and being a baby it becomes one, but there is no unanimity of opinion on where that point might lay. Between those two points that fetus is wholly dependent on the mother. For most of those nine months if you were to remove it from her uterus it would quickly die - even with the best care medical technology can give.

So rights are in conflict - the mother's right to control over her body versus the fetus' right to live. As things stand today, both rights cannot be held to be equal, it isn't possible. Either the mother has the right to control her body, and thus [i]not[/i] to be a life-support system for her fetus, with all of the effects that has on her, if she so chooses, or the fetus has a right to live that takes precedence over the mother's rights. It cannot be had both ways, at least not now, one of these has to take precedence over the other.

For me the question hinges on the matter of when that zygote becomes a fully realized human being with all rights due that state. I don't know, with any degree of certainty, I'm sadly lacking in Solomonic wisdom on the matter. But I do know that the pregnant mother [i]is[/i] a fully realized human being with rights that must be recognized. So until that zygote reaches a point where it can survive on its own - a point that gets earlier and earlier as technology and knowledge improve - and not impinge on her rights, her rights have to take precedence.

This is not a very happy conclusion to me, not the way I wish things were, and one I shan't ever be particularly thrilled about. But it is the only conclusion I can reasonably arrive at given what I know, what I have seen, and what I believe.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"Presently at tens of thousands per year in Canada. And I just really think, or perhaps want to think, that we as a society can do way better than that."

---

There we agree fully.

Myria

Shall we start trying to discuss when a human becomes person? Are we all okay with that?

Well, Myria said that we cannot make up our minds about feotal rights until we decide their humanity.. in so many words. So I thought we could talk about it. I know that nobody's minds are changed here, (or it seems that way) but, I think it's helpful to talk about our views anyway.

Nothing we babble about here really "matters" in the long run anyway, does it?

You're welcome to participate if you like.

I wanted to try to post this, it may screw up and side-scroll, if it does, I'll remove it.

I thought this picture was really neat from a medical perspective, this was the first time something this risky was done. I'm sure some of you saw it, it's a ?couple? of years old. The feotus is being operated on from within the womb to repair a problem with his spine. Apparently his arm slipped out of the slit that the surgeon was using, and he grasped the doctor's finger. He's at 21 weeks gestation. He was eventually born with the operation being a success.

**edited to add, it didn't work. I'm sure you've all seen it before anyway. I just found it again today.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

Rabid Gerbil uses the term 'fetus' exclusively to denote the developing child. But that's the word used to describe the, er, fetus, _after_ a certain amount of development. Prior to that, I believe it's referred to as the 'embryo'.

Does anyone know the medical/scientific division between 'embryo' and 'fetus'? And is this perhaps a reasonable dividing line between permissible and intolerable abortions? At least for what we might call contraceptive reasons?

Myria, I just wanted to say that I'm glad you've joined babble. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

I'll post the reasons behind my definition later today if you'd like to talk about this further, it's a very important issue to me... though I'm sure people may be growing weary of my postings... however you weren't here when the last thread on Abortion toook place, so I won't feel like I'm repeating myself too much.

I'll catch-up with you and this thread later!

Trin.

I think the term you're looking for is "abortion-on-demand".

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"I'll post the reasons behind my definition later today if you'd like to talk about this further,"

---

Certainly, I'd be interested in hearing your point-of-view.

quote:

---

Trinitty wrote -

"it's a very important issue to me..."

---

Clearly so.

For whatever it's worth, for me it's an issue I've very mixed feelings about for some very simple and fairly common reasons as well as some very complicated and not-so-common reasons. As is probably obvious from my earlier rant, there's a lot that bothers me about many of the "pro-choice" positions, and there's a lot that bothers me about many of the "pro-life" positions. I'm not even overly thrilled with the position I hold, but it's the best one I can come up with that fits my own beliefs. It's a zero-sum game any way you cut it, and I hate no-win situations.

Myria

Did any of you know that shrub is on the nuremburg files? just FYI.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"I am treating those arguments with logic and consistency, that's why they can, and should be, rejected out of hand."

---

Frankly I see little logic in your treatment, but plenty of dogmatic consistency. Clearly it's pointless to even discuss the matter further. I'm not a particularly religious woman anyway, I have my beliefs but they are informal at best, and I don't care to be put in the position of having to defend religion. As far as I can see religion has been the source of great good and progress in the world, it has also been the source of great evil - like pretty much every other human institution there's ever been. You clearly disagree, and that's fine, we'll have to agree to disagree.

However, you reject the opinion of those who hold religious beliefs at your peril. The vast bulk of humanity holds to one or another religious system to one degree or another. Their ethical and moral codes are informed, among other things, by their religious beliefs. They are not going to go away simply because you reject them and their arguments with a sweep of the hand. They are going to be a party to the ongoing debate over abortion and many other issues whether you like it or not.

George W. Bush, the current President of my country, is by all accounts a religious man. He could hardly not be, I have very serious doubts about the possibility of an avowed atheist getting elected to the presidency of the US anytime in the near-term future. He will be the president for close to the next three years and very likely four more beyond that. Dismiss him if you wish, reject his opinions (or those of Thommy Thompson, the one who actually made this decision) if it makes you feel better, doing either changes nothing.

One thing honestly puzzles me, though. He's not the leader of your country - or, at least, I presume he's not from your profile. So why do you care? Why do so many people here seem so interested in American politics? You don't get a voice in deciding who leads my country any more than I get a voice in who leads yours. You don't have to live with whatever laws we come up with any more than I have to live with yours. The net effect of this particular decision on a legal and political level in my country is so close to zero you'd need a scanning electron microscope just to find it - even NOW can't seem to get all that outraged about it. The net effect of this decision on your country is nil, zip, zilch, and zero.

A side-issue, to be sure, but it does puzzle me more than a little. Sure, I try and at least be aware of what's going on overall in other Anglosphere (and some non-Anglosphere) countries, but this is something so minor and had it occurred in Oz, NZ, the UK, Canada, wherever, I'd find it very hard to get worked up about it.

File it under "Things that make me go Hmmmm? in the night"...

Myria

quote:

---

One thing honestly puzzles me, though. He's not the leader of your country - or, at least, I presume he's not from your profile. So why do you care? Why do so many people here seem so interested in American politics? You don't get a voice in deciding who leads my country any more than I get a voice in who leads yours. You don't have to live with whatever laws we come up with any more than I have to live with yours.

---

Audra, NB: I know we've gone off topic, and I promise I'll take it to another thread. But I just wanted to explain why a bit, to Myria and to Tommy P.

Tommy P., I've been staring at that quote for two days, debating with myself whether to just let it lie. It made me think of two other babblers, SHHH first of all, charming SHHH, who has come here to talk reasonably to people he knows are probably going to be angry with him much of the time, and who joins in with such a lovely, generous spirit anyway -- much as Myria has done, on her own turf.

And then I thought of you. If Tommy P. doesn't say anything, I won't either, I thought, in my Canadian way. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] We'll just let it go.

But so you didn't, eh? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] The virtue of waiting, I find, and of thinking on you, Tommy, has been to turn my immediate reaction away from sarcasm towards reflection and history and poetics. Before we're here to debate, I believe, we are here to bear witness, to describe as truly, as basically as we can, the phenomena we have witnessed -- and this is one of them, Tommy P., one that matters historically.

I'm going to take it up to Politics, to a thread called The American Tragedy, although I may be a bit of time in the making.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"Aye, and that's the pity of it all."

---

Pity or no, it is the case.

Myself, I do not like the current state of things as regards the question of abortion in my own country. It's too unstable, relies too much on bad law to accomplish what is arguably a good end, and both sides are incredibly vocal but have little credibility in my eyes and those of much of the rest of the great unwashed. I don't ever expect there will ever exactly be a "solution", universal agreement on the matter, but I'd like to believe that something better than the current state of affairs is possible. Attempting to dismissing those who hold religious beliefs out of hand will not accomplish that, quite the opposite.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine wrote -

"We watch American politics, as does the world, to prepare our throats for the next thing to be shoved down it."

---

Interesting point-of-view.

You'll have to forgive me if I continue to disagree with both your one-sided view of religion and of my country. We'll have to agree to disagree and I'll leave it at that.

Myria

A good site: [url=http://www.saveroe.com/]http://www.saveroe.com/[/url]

quote:

---

Victor Von MediaBoy wrote -

"What constitutionally-protected right to privacy?"

---

Can you say "Penumbra"?

Knew ya' could...

Myria

quote:

---

Attempting to dismissing those who hold religious beliefs out of hand will not accomplish that

---

It should other people's religious beliefs have no rights to impinge upon mine, or anyone elses.

This control of women, is being promoted by men, and it is sickening.