Red Queen points out a crucial missing element from the argument going on over here:
The question of when life starts may be fun to debate in a purely philosophical exercise, but it has nothing to do with the actual problem of women who are pregnant and don’t want to be. The real debate is who controls your body? You, your nearest patriarchal overseer, the assholes in navy blue suits who vote for our laws? If you believe that you are the only person capable of making decisions about your own body, then you believe that everyone is capable of making decisions about their own body. If you believe that there is ever a time when someone else gets to make decisions about a body not their own (which is slavery), then you better be prepared to line up for mandatory blood donations. If you’re okay with a little bit of slavery, it’s best not to assume that you’re going to be the slave owner.
The epithet “forced birther” may not win any friends with folks on the anti-legal-abortion side of the fence, but if you actually take their arguments at face value, that is exactly what they are. While usually making an exception for conditions which threaten the life of a pregnant mother (though mind you, they are the ones setting the risk level over which this threat is unacceptable), they are suggesting that our government ought to proudly step in and force women to give birth to children.
Now, forced birthers would choose to frame it differently, probably in terms of murder. This is why I, reproductive rights noob that I am, have only been tackling the ludicrous claims that zygotes have equal rights to adult human beings. Because this issue is cut and dried. There is no murder possible if there was never any sentience. But it’s been useful with me to engage folks like Neil and Theo, who believe this nutty view, if only to expose where their real priorities lay. They would sacrifice the rights of adult women on the altar of the (yes, human) zygote.
Why do they persist in valuing the “rights” of even a non-sentient one-celled organism to exist over the rights of a woman to have control over her own body, and thus the course of her own life? Perhaps it’s:
- A religious belief that the zygote (but not the sperm) has a soul.
- A desire to get off on controlling the bodies of other people.
- Both of the above.
- A fourth option which I am too close-minded and/or dense to comprehend.
Obviously different individuals may have different answers here. Forced birther zygote worshippers, I invite you to tell me your own answer. I’d really like to understand how one can even come to hold your perspective.
I can’t believe I actually posted this without a title originally. Sure, we were having technical problems for a while but it’s still pretty lame.
A thought just occured to me. Dear zygotes-are-fully-fledged-humans believers like Neil and Theo: do you in fact agree with me that a human zygote isn’t sentient? That it perceives and feels nothing more than any other one-celled organism does? Maybe you do not share this assumption, which to me seems obviously a priori.
“but it has nothing to do with the actual problem of women who are pregnant and don’t want to be. The real debate is who controls your body?”
Actually I think the real debate is whether or not that is, in fact, the real debate.
If a fetus is a non-human clump of cells (or parasite, as some would have it) then there is only one individual involved and the debate is indeed over who controls that individual’s body. And of course the answer is obvious too, since there can’t be any compelling reason for the government to force a person to carry a parasite around.
On the other hand, if a fetus is a human being (neverminding how we come to such a conclusion) then there are two individuals involved, both of whom possess human rights. And of course the case for government intervention is plain and obvious.
So it has always seemed to me that the key is, as Quin states, whether or not the fetus is a person. It has to be said that there’s no logic in declaring, arbitrarily, that a fetus is not human just before being born, but is human just after (can the doctor break its neck as long as s/he hasn’t already slapped its bottom?) On the other hand, it’s equally illogical to declare that, say, a 4-month preemie that can barely survive in the NICU is equivalent to a healthy full-term baby.
It seems to me that the perfectly reasonable answer is that a fetus is human at such time as it could survive without extraordinary measures outside the womb. Of course we can’t currently know when that time is, and it’s likely variable per fetus.
So, it’s an unanswerable question, and in any case those people who are impassioned about it aren’t interested in an answer, unless it be all the way on their end of the scale. Some are indeed “forced-birthers”, while others do indeed feel they should be able to terminate a pregnancy up to the moment of birth. They aren’t likely ever to see eye to eye.
Quin, as much as we may disagree (and as much as I’ve thrown my share of daggers), I’m not going to say that you are dense on this one. If you are a feminist; if you care deeply about oppression around the world; if you care about the horrific way that Americans have treated those of a different ancestry; if you look at world history and see how humans have systematically destroyed each other and justified that destruction on the basis of inferiour physical or mental capabilities…
… then being pro-life is a matter of social justice.
While you certainly do not, and may never not, agree with my ultimate conclusions, you can at least see how much of the language used by the pro-choice movement echoes that used in other times when humans have denied each other basic rights. The systematic dehumanisation of the “other” is the most obvious of these parallels.
I’m a woman. Any restrictions on abortion that my advocacy would create would necessarily implicate me as well (although only to a small extent). Of course, many of my friends are women are well, some of whom have had abortions. A lot of my pro-life (as opposed to “squishy middle”) views come from their experiences. Many of them felt helpless to avoid having an abortion: their boyfriends demanded it (even though they wanted the baby); the laws in their state presumed that unwanted babies would be aborted, so resources for pregnant and parenting women were scarce; their boyfriends were lax about birth control, declaring that their girlfriends could “just get an abortion;” and, often, they cried and felt horrible regret – regret that showed that they never thought of their “blastocyst” as akin to a gamete.
It became obvious that abortion wasn’t really about controlling one’s own body, but about the ultimate misogyny: declaring that a woman’s body, with its capacity to get pregnant, was inferiour to a man’s body, and then patterning our entire social system so that those who are not pregnant are advantaged. The abortion debate shows that we are still at the stage of feminism about arguing over whether or not women should have the right to make their bodies like men’s bodies (i.e. non-pregnant), rather than acknowledging the misogyny behind asking women to change their basic biology to accommodate a society that is hostile to it.
“. . . some of [my friends] have had abortions . . . Many of them felt helpless to avoid having an abortion: their boyfriends demanded it (even though they wanted the baby)” — theo
I’m very sorry to hear this. That is a terrible, terrible crime. I would suggest that forcing someone to carry a baby to term against her will is also a terrible crime. I would further suggest that institutionalizing either or both of those crimes and legitimizing the coercion is one of the worst things that could ever befall a society.
Jad,
We are in total agreement. I absolutely oppose rape (for many reasons) and the forced insemination of women, because no woman should have a pregnancy forced upon her.
Once she’s decided to be pregnant, or acted in such a way as to be pregnant (knowing full well that we evolved to enjoy sex because that would encourage procreation), well, then, no one had “forced” her to be pregnant, except maybe her boyfriend or Trojan. Again: if a woman had sex voluntarily, denying her an abortion is not forcing her to be pregnant.
By the way, when, in your world, has a woman made a choice to be pregnant? If she is eight months along and decides that she doesn’t want the child, should she be allowed to abort? Six months? Four months? In your world, can she abort at any time for reasons unrelated to physical health, or is there a point at which she has consented to pregnancy? If it’s the latter, what is wrong with having that point be the point at which she decided to not use adequate contraception during sex? (Definition of adequate: prevents pregnancy from ever happening. Use at least three reliable methods of birth control, and the chances of getting pregnant are about one in a million, or what is basically impossible.)
Final time; 99% of women who seek abortions were not, in any way, forced to be pregnant. It is wrong for her to punish her baby with the death penalty because she happens to not like the logical result of her voluntary actions.
Got it. Only force birth on women who have sex. They deserve it, after all.
@theobromophile So women feeling regret, feeling shame, feeling trapped… that only matters if they agree with you? Using the language of social justice doesn’t make something a social justice movement—it makes it, in this instance, a religious campaign gleefully appropriating the language of social justice.
I think the decision as to whether or not to carry a pregnancy needs to be made by the person who’s pregnant, with advice from her doctor. Right now, a lot of other shit comes into play—state law, getting medical care, paying for medical care, paying rent, buying food… and it shouldn’t. We should shape communities so it doesn’t. We should build institutions that help. But all that takes on a decidedly sinister air if when a woman says, “I don’t want to do this. I can’t do this now.” we reply, “Oh, honey. We’ll give you everything you need. Everything you desire. Everything except that. You have to do this. You don’t have any choice.”
And then we’ll sew buttons into your eyes. That’s all. Just one little thing. More cake?
That applies all through pregnancy, and I don’t see why it shouldn’t. Getting the latest late-term abortion possible isn’t exactly a fad.
“I got mine a week before I was due.”
“A week…? Honey. I got mine two days. Two days! The doctor looked at me funny, but I said I’d cut her with my feminist card.”
“Both of you just got schooled. I got mine a week after I was due!”
gasps.
“No shit. They said they were going to have to induce labor, but I said, oh, don’t bother, just give me an abortion.”
“Denying her an abortion is not forcing her to be pregnant”.
I have to take issue with this, because, yes, that is exactly what it is. Your contention seems to be that she allowed herself to be pregnant, so she should stay pregnant. But no matter what the circumstances of her pregnancy are, there is technology enabling women to not be pregnant if they don’t want to be (ie- abortion). By saying she is not allowed to use this technology, you are saying that she HAS to stay pregnant- you are forcing her to be pregnant.
It is akin to someone skiing and breaking their leg, and then coming up and saying “No, you can’t get a cast- you knew that the danger of skiing was that you might break a leg and took that risk”- you are forcing them to keep a broken leg.
“We are in total agreement. I absolutely oppose rape (for many reasons) and the forced insemination of women, because no woman should have a pregnancy forced upon her.”
Good. Glad we’re all on the same page.
“Once she’s decided to be pregnant, or acted in such a way as to be pregnant (knowing full well that we evolved to enjoy sex because that would encourage procreation), well, then, no one had “forced” her to be pregnant, except maybe her boyfriend or Trojan. Again: if a woman had sex voluntarily, denying her an abortion is not forcing her to be pregnant.”
And I must retract my last statement. How does choosing to have sex = choosing to be pregnant? True – people enjoy sex. Unless they’re asexual. Also true – sex can lead to offspring. Unless one member of the couple is infertile. Or they’re both of the same sex. Or they’re too old to reproduce. Or the egg is fertilized but fails to implant. Or…. Honestly I could probably continue in this vein ad infinitum.
Enjoyment of sex aids in reproduction, but it’s a mistake to assume that that is its *purpose.* Bonobos use sex as a social tool to facilitate harmony and resolve conflicts. This is an instinctual usage of sex that has nothing to do with reproduction. Homosexual relations are also found throughout the animal kingdom. Once again, the ‘purpose’ of sex in these relationships is for bonding, not reproduction. Why on Earth wouldn’t bonding also be a part of heterosexual sexual relations?
Beyond bonding, sex *is* fun. It’s a rush. It’s exhilarating. For some people it’s the best thing they’ve ever found in their lives. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to enjoy it in peace?
Really, though, I think this is the money quote:
“Again: if a woman had sex voluntarily, denying her an abortion is not forcing her to be pregnant.”
I’m not sure how this sentence avoids imploding under the weight of it’s own contradictions. If a woman is pregnant and does not wish to be, then denying her an abortion is in fact *forcing her* to remain pregnant. No one has any idea what precautions she took or did not take to avoid becoming pregnant, and no has any right to, either. The only pertinent facts are that she is 1) pregnant 2) does not wish to be.
Moving on, though, I’d like to take the next paragraph in two pieces.
“By the way, when, in your world, has a woman made a choice to be pregnant? If she is eight months along and decides that she doesn’t want the child, should she be allowed to abort? Six months? Four months? In your world, can she abort at any time for reasons unrelated to physical health, or is there a point at which she has consented to pregnancy?”
In my world, the choice to be pregnant can be made at any time, before, after or during conception. However, it is a nonbinding contract the woman makes with herself that can be canceled at any time. Furthermore, I do happen to believe that a woman as rational actor should have the right to abort her pregnancy at any stage for any reason.
To explain my reasons, just consider the reality of abortion services today. Only 13% of US counties has even one abortion provider serving its residents. 13%. Moreover, abortions are an expensive surgical procedure that is not covered by medicaid or any other type of government funding. Even with many private insurance plans women are out of luck. Taking all that together, by the time a woman realizes that she’s pregnant and both scrapes together the money for an abortion and transportation to a provider (especially if she’s poor), she may already be in her second trimester, which is a usually a much more costly procedure. Plus, the nearest provider may not perform the needed procedure by which point is back to square one. By the time you get to the third trimester, there are only two places in the country that provide these services, and the price of such major surgery is correspondingly large. Practitioners can only afford so many pro-bono cases. And let’s not forget what happened to Dr. Tiller just for daring to help these women in the first place.
Even if this world were perfect and abortion were available cheaply and easily to those who need it, I’d still argue that no one besides the woman in question should have any right to decide whether to bring a pregnancy to term or not regardless of what stage the pregnancy is in. Most women who get abortions either want them as soon as they realize they’re pregnant, or when they learn that their fetus is non-viable. The other major of group who decide to get abortions usually do so after they learn they’re pregnant and do some serious soul searching. Of the remaining few who fall under no preceding category, I don’t know why they want abortions and it isn’t my business to know. Period.
And after that long-winded rant, onto part II.
“If it’s the latter, what is wrong with having that point be the point at which she decided to not use adequate contraception during sex? (Definition of adequate: prevents pregnancy from ever happening. Use at least three reliable methods of birth control, and the chances of getting pregnant are about one in a million, or what is basically impossible.)”
Fine. Wonderful solution for all the rich people of the world. For the poor, not so much. Insurance plans may cover Viagra, but good luck on BC pills. I’m on Yaz right now for hormonal issues – it’s nearly $80 for a one month supply. That adds up to a lot of money over a year. Condoms aren’t free either, even if they are cheaper than the pill. Other methods of birth control also cost lots and lots of money when used consistently over time as they need to be to remain effective.
Our schools in the meantime push abstinence only bull$hit that lies to and miseducates our youth about the contraception that is available. And even if you get one of the implanted forms, there’s no guarantee that some holier-than-thou nurse with an entitlement complex won’t remove it without telling you.
So. Does everyone who can’t afford to pay for three different types of birth control have to suck it and clamp their legs together? What if the impossible happens and all three types fail (or are sabotaged)? Do they still have to carry the pregnancy to term or do they get an exemption for forking over enough cash to Big Pharma before they got knocked up?
“Final time; 99% of women who seek abortions were not, in any way, forced to be pregnant. It is wrong for her to punish her baby with the death penalty because she happens to not like the logical result of her voluntary actions.”
I think you’re overstating your figures here. I doubt the total number of rape and incest victims amount to only 1% of the total number seeking an abortion. That’s not including women who weren’t raped but who had their birth control tampered with. Holes pricked in condoms, BC pills swapped out, etc….
As for the rest… you’re right. No one ‘forced’ them to become pregnant. They were just recklessly charging around trying to have healthy relationships with their husbands and/or boyfriends, having nasty, kinky fun you aren- no one born with a uterus has any right to have, and generally acting like over-entitled self centered cows. How dare they!
Really, why are you advocating that all hetero women be either frigid or convert to lesbianism? I honestly don’t see appeal to this dichotomy.
Finally, your final point about abortion = death penalty. The analogy does not hold. A fetus is not an independent being. It’s not even a remotely sentient being. It sucks all its nutrients from the mother’s body and cannot exist without her. For the entirety of pregnancy the mother’s system is warped and twisted to accommodate this thing growing in her womb, sometimes to dangerous extremes.
In no other circumstance do we require one person to give up the use of their organs to save the life of another. If a driver strikes a pedestrian and causes lethal injuries, then no matter how culpable the driver is for the accident they Cannot be forced by law to give up their organs to keep the pedestrian alive. You can then argue that if the pedestrian dies due to the refusal they’ll be charged with manslaughter. Possibly true. It depends on the accident. But they will be charged with striking the pedestrian with their vehicle, NOT for refusing to donate and organ. This speaks to the principle of bodily sovereignty, and by refusing to allow a woman to get an abortion, you are denying hers.
My final point: abortion, the refusal to lend the use of one’s organs to another lifeform, is one of the most basic human rights one can fathom. The only thing that could be reasonably criminalized would be the act leading to the necessity of an abortion. In this case, all heterosexual sex between fertile partners.
Good luck with that.
A couple more things:
An error that has a one in a billion chance of occurring happens once every second at one gigahertz.
Or: Even living under your rules, even assuming perfect access to reproductive health services, on a planet with six billion people, you just casually wrote off the agency of six thousand people. You decided that they, being a statistical abnormality, are unimportant.
I presume you’re comfortable with that.
You are comparing colonized peoples, transported slaves, women of every experience, oppressed queer people, trans people, black Americans, oppressed Iranians being murdered even now, and on and on and on and on…you are comparing these very real people to a cell. You are saying that the struggles my partner and I face are not substantially stronger than those faced by a protein-matted cell in some woman’s womb. You are saying that not only does this cell have desires and agency and value, but it has desires and agency and value no less strong or meaningful or deserving than ours. That its existence is just as substantial. That its suffering is no less. That its screams will be heard—nay, must be heard—despite it literally not having a mouth.
Fuck you.
Or: Even living under your rules, even assuming perfect access to reproductive health services, on a planet with six billion people, you just casually wrote off the agency of six thousand people. You decided that they, being a statistical abnormality, are unimportant.
Exactly!
This happens way too often with people opposed to legalized abortion. Whenever they are confronted with information about problem situations that should give most people pause, they retort with “That’s so uncommon, why are you bringing it up?” This particular instance is a new one, but I’m already familiar with “Almost all abortions happen because of consensual sex” and “health problems aren’t all that common”. I don’t know the best way to respond; whether I should call them out on not making any proof of this (or in some cases, outright lying and making up statistics), or if I should play along with their game and concede the point, but then fault them for seeking to punish people for being part of a statistical anomaly.
True, but the consequences of not giving up your organs in that situation is simple: a charge of murder.
Two problems with your reasoning:
1. status quo v. changing the status quo; and
2. your view of the law is way off (trust me).
Second first: no, you are not under any obligation to give organs, blood, or even money to save people from dying. (I will note, however, that conservatives give more to charity, even though they make less money, than do liberals. What’s even better is that we give more blood, too!) We do not require people to rescue other human beings, either.
The two exceptions to this rule are when you create the dependency yourself, and when the killing would be an affirmative act. First one: no, you are not required to pluck a dying swimmer out of the water. If she drowns while you sit there in your boat sipping margaritas, there is no legal liability. None! However, if she were on your boat and you threw her into the water, you can bet that you would have a legal obligation to fish her out of the water or be charged with murder.
Likewise, you do not have to give up a kidney to someone, but, if you were to beat a woman into kidney failure that would surely kill her without a transplant (and you happened to be a perfect match), you can bet that your options would be (1) giving her the kidney or (2) being charged with second-degree murder.
Whoops! There goes your argument.
Now, on to the affirmative act and status quo part: the reason why we do not require people to give up kidneys or to rescue drowning swimmers is that it would require an overt act or a deviation from the status quo. Siamese twins are certainly required to keep each other alive, even if one twin is dependent upon the other. Biology dictates that people’s organs are in their own bodies. Our laws and moral systems are predicated on the idea that there is no legal wrong in not changing the status quo. A pregnant woman is like a conjoined twin, not an organ donor. Her baby is dependent upon her because of the combination of biological necessity and the woman’s overt, affirmative act to create that dependency.
Abortion is not the status quo; pregnancy is. “Getting” an abortion is just that: an affirmative act that changes the status quo and is fundamentally different than every single proposed thought experiment, in which the poor person has to undertake something affirmative in order to save the life of another. Not so; she just has to avoid killing her child.
Staying pregnant is the status quo. That is what cannot be altered without justification.
Violet, you scientifically-illiterate woman… no, I’m not.
For your information, by the time a woman knows she is pregnant, the baby has a beating heart. The vast, vast majority of abortions (over 99%) take place after the baby has developed every major organ.
As a female scientist, I get upset when other women demonstrate such scientific illiteracy as to give ammunition to our detractors. Violet, no matter what you may think of abortion, and no matter how fundamentally irrational your thoughts, please do not give the misogynists their power by ignoring science. (Ditto to Amanda Marcotte. I’ve always thought that women’s studies courses should include basic biology, chemistry, economics, and statistics – and maybe a little calc – so that feminists can avoid making such horrifically wrong statements. It does our side no good.)
Oh, Violet. As you may not know, I’m not religious, nor do I belong to a “religious campaign.”
By the way, I love how the “social justice for me but not for thee” crowd gets so upset about “appropriation” of language.
AWESOME stuff. It was like during the Prop. 8 debacle, when the African-American community (70% of whom voted against allowing gay marriage) got its collective panties in a bundle because the gay-rights crowd “appropriated” their civil rights language. Then the feminists got all upset, because they like both groups and think that their fight applies to both minorities and gays, and, oh, it was a mess. Unless, of course, you believe in the dignity of the individual and therefore understand that no one group “owns” the language of social justice or a civil rights movement.
Let’s be honest: if you actually have no fight against the arguments, and if you see the horrific parallels between dehumanising various groups of people and dehumanising the unborn, the only argument you have left is to complain about “glee[ful] appropriation” of your language. The other option is to stop your whining (and swearing) and come over to the pro-life camp – the one that fights for social justice in the face of thought experiments involving firefighters and refrigerators.
theobromophile…. *shakes head*
I have several points to make here.
First: You are condemning the fetuses that you are wanting to force women to bear to term to live unwanted. No child deserves that. If a woman becomes pregnant unintentionally, and is unwilling or unable to care for the child, what then? If you want people to think of the child, why don’t you?
Secondly: Are you categorically opposed to abortion in all cases, including those of rape or incest? In cases where bearing the child to term would kill the mother? In cases where the child would be a vegetable?
Thirdly: Violet’s point about your equating something that doesn’t have *senses* yet with actual people’s struggle for equal rights is valid. Is it a safe assumption that you are a at least marginally religious heterosexual white female in at least the middle class?
Oh, and your holier-than-thou comment about conservatives donating more than liberals just makes you look like a prick.
Likewise, you do not have to give up a kidney to someone, but, if you were to beat a woman into kidney failure that would surely kill her without a transplant (and you happened to be a perfect match), you can bet that your options would be (1) giving her the kidney or (2) being charged with second-degree murder.
A woman having sex is as bad as a man beating a woman into kidney failure. You people are out of your goddamn minds.
Please explain how a woman can commit a crime against a zygote, morally equivalent to a man beating a woman into kidney failure, before the zygote even exists. If this doesn’t demonstrate that this is about sperm worship and succubus fears more than anything else, I don’t know what in the hell would.
One last thing: since the dude is 50% responsible for the creation of that kidney-needing time-traveling literal sex-crime victim, by your logic, he is then 50% culpable if the zygote doesn’t implant. After all, he could have hung around her uterus to catch any children that happened to fall out and need a blood supply. Why is the woman somehow more culpable just because she has the more convenient blood supply? For once in my life, I sincerely ask, what about the men?
“The two exceptions to this rule are when you create the dependency yourself, and when the killing would be an affirmative act. First one: no, you are not required to pluck a dying swimmer out of the water. If she drowns while you sit there in your boat sipping margaritas, there is no legal liability. None! However, if she were on your boat and you threw her into the water, you can bet that you would have a legal obligation to fish her out of the water or be charged with murder.
Likewise, you do not have to give up a kidney to someone, but, if you were to beat a woman into kidney failure that would surely kill her without a transplant (and you happened to be a perfect match), you can bet that your options would be (1) giving her the kidney or (2) being charged with second-degree murder.
Whoops! There goes your argument.
”
And you fail basic reading comprehension forever.
Let’s look at the last half of that paragraph you oh so conveniently forgot to quote:
“…You can then argue that if the pedestrian dies due to the refusal they’ll be charged with manslaughter. Possibly true. It depends on the accident. But they will be charged with striking the pedestrian with their vehicle, NOT for refusing to donate and organ. This speaks to the principle of bodily sovereignty, and by refusing to allow a woman to get an abortion, you are denying hers.”
Murder implies intent to kill. Manslaughter says accidental death. And if we take it a step further down the liability scale and say the pedestrian committed suicide by jumping in front of the car, then the driver’s culpability is roughly nil (laws suits in all cases aside).
Before you charge around accusing everyone else on this thread of intellectual dishonesty and scientific illiteracy you might clean up your own act, mm-kay?
Now let me state this as plainly as I can.
If you strike someone with your car, and they die, you will be charged with striking them with your car. Whether the charge is manslaughter or murder, is dismissed as an accident, you are charged for the act of striking them with your vehicle.
If you are capable of donating a compatible organ, you may. The law has no opinion about the matter one way or another. The only way this can help you in court is if it saves the victim’s life. But if the transplant that saves their life comes from any other person on the planet, or if they take your organ but die anyway, it still won’t have any effect on the criminal charges filed. What matters is the patient’s outcome.
Once more, just so it doesn’t get lost in a sea of text:
What matters is the patient’s outcome.
Medical details of how survived the incident have no bearing on the determination of whether the driver was initially responsible. Settlement comes AFTER guilt or innocence has been established.
In your example of beating the woman nigh unto death, you are still going to charged with physical assault regardless of whether you give a kidney or not. While you might be able to reduce the charge from murder to aggravated assault if she survives, that does not change the basic nature of what you are charged with: Your deliberate injury of this woman.
In the case of pregnancy, the deliberate act in most situations is to engage in sex. That is what the actors involved have a choice over, and that is what should be criminalized following precedent.
RE: abortion and status quo
I think I speak for most women (Quiverfulls not withstanding) when I say that it is not, in fact, the status quo for me to be pregnant. I have actually spent the entirety of my life up to this point Not Pregnant. Am I in constant deviation from the status quo?
Abortion is not a deviation from a woman’s status quo, it is a return to it. True, the technical details require more active medical intervention. However, the same principles would apply if I were to surreptitiously hooked up to the apocryphal Famous Violinist so that we were hopeless entwined. In either case, I did not consent to give another life form the use of my organs, and even if it requires a team of the top surgeons in the world to separate us it is still a return to the status quo to do so.
I’m not really sure how it happened that Violet was the one who said “fuck you” and yet Theo was the one who ended up looking like the asshole in the exchange. I think because whereas Violet was being emotionally honest, Theo’s first reaction was to assert intellectual superiority in the most patronizing way possible (“Violet, you scientifically-illiterate woman…”) without actually addressing Violet’s point (that it’s abhorrent to equate the experience of a single cell to the experiences of millions of real oppressed people). Instead, as usual, shifting to a new argument (but what about later, when the fetus has a heart?) without satisfactorily addressing the argument she was actually being pinned down on.
Some really excellent points being made here by others, by the way.
I am way over fisking the exact points of wignuts on this subject. Their points are always tired and fallacious and they like to tie people up in hypotheticals that have little relation to the real world, but the whole women who choose to have sex deserve to be pregnant argument pisses me off.
We don’t deny people who smoke medical treatment for lung cancer.
We don’t deny people with difficult lives treatment for depression or anxiety.
We don’t deny people who eat bacon access to drugs that help with cholesterol.
But we do deny women access to medical treatment if they have sex and get pregnant and don’t want to be pregnant. Having my kid nearly killed me. But I got to choose to take that risk. Because of the nature of my pregnancy (hellp syndrome) I didn’t know it was going to be life threatening until I was way past the point where most doctors will perform abortions. If i had chosen differently , I would have been SOL cause someone thinks that sex is such a bad habit I should die for it. I did it to myself when I chose to have sex (with a turkey baster full of sperm apparently- dudes are never mentioned in this argument).
If you really love the babies soooooooooooooo much, then why on earth would you want to make sure that there are more unwanted children in the world? If it’s all about saving lives, then what specifically are you doing to make sure the lives of actual people are better?
And do you really think that children should be viewed as a punishment imposed on women for having sex? Do you think that’s in the best interests of actual children? Do your own children know that you view them as a curse?
My kid knows that I am fiercely pro-choice. He also knows that from the moment the stick turned blue I wanted him. That’s one of the benefits of being a pro-choice parent. My kid will never doubt that he was loved and wanted. I can imagine how horrible it is for children whose parents don’t feel the same way.
First one: no, you are not required to pluck a dying swimmer out of the water. If she drowns while you sit there in your boat sipping margaritas, there is no legal liability. None! However, if she were on your boat and you threw her into the water, you can bet that you would have a legal obligation to fish her out of the water or be charged with murder.
Wrong. Wrongwrongwrong.
You said this in the previous thread and you were wrong. You’re still wrong. You could not be more wrong, actually.
The obligation to effect rescue at sea is possibly the oldest of maritime traditions and international laws. It was encoded into international law with the Brussels Convention of 1910 and restated several times since. I believe the most recent operative law is Article 12 of the Geneva Conventions that requires all signatory states to enact their own domestic laws requiring masters of vessels carrying their flag to effect a rescue of any person or vessel in distress at sea without regard for the rescuees’ circumstances or status. Boat in trouble sends distress signal, you respond and offer aid. Happen across person floating, you take them aboard. Yes, it is a legal requirement as well as a moral one. Do otherwise and you will be charged with a crime.
Some questions arise over the status of refugees, fugitives, or asylum-seekers and the current law is that vessels’ masters aren’t competent to judge such status and are responsible for the safety of any rescuee until the rescuee is placed ashore. IOW, they may not pluck people out of a lifeboat and then hand them over to the navy of whatever country they were trying to get away from. The one thing most definetely NOT in dispute is whether they are obligated to pluck them out in the first place. They most certainly are. Always.
Simply put, if you are sipping cocktails in your boat watching somebody drown you most certainly are committing a crime and a pretty atrocious one at that. Pick another example- repeating this one casts serious doubt on your intelligence and humanity.
It’s nice when an argument gets shot out of the water with such assuredness.
As long as it’s not MY argument.