Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Nov 1, 2012.


Do I support this proposition?

Poll closed Nov 1, 2013.
  1. Anti-abortion: Yes

    0 vote(s)
  2. Anti-abortion: No

    0 vote(s)
  3. Pro-choice: Yes

  4. Pro-choice: No

  5. Other (Please explain below)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Essentially, totally different from what she said. You are saying that she would have had a third trimester abortion if they were allowed, simply due to pressure from the dickheaded boyfriend to have one. Which is possibly nonsense- at least in the state I live in, a father can sign away rights to the child.
    This is why I believe that the article and case in question supports my argument against Bells claim that no one would ever terminate late term.

    However, Seagypsy made a point I cannot refute- so I was allowing some sheepishness on my part.
    I think we can agree at this point that you and S.G. said very different things.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    There's no "Simply" about it, especially if you understand the dynamics of an abusive or co-dependent relationship. Carrying the baby to full term may well have been permanently detrimental to her mental health. Take a step back, take another look at the article. She's already willing to pay someone to beat the crap out of her, clearly she doesn't care about her own well being. What would she be willing to do if her boyfriend left her?

    And your experience is relevant because you live in Kansas?

    I don't recall Bells ever having said that.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly Banned Banned

    My argument here is that we cannot condone taking another human life (Killing another human brain) simply because someone has emotional issues/relationship problems.
    If a man kills his wife who threatened a divorce, we don't say, "Gee, that poor guy. He must have been really upset."
    I'm not saying I don't empathize, at all- it's actually a fault of mine. I'm too likely to and often need to second guess myself.
    No, I don't live in Kansas and neither did that girl- she was in Utah.
    I should have said, "This is why I believe that the article and case in question supports my argument against Bells claim that no one would ever terminate late term without justifiable cause of Medical Necessity."

    Sorry, I got in too big a hurry and since I knew what I meant to say... I didn't properly finish it out.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    You really are clueless aren't you?

    Have you read any literature regarding things such as PTSD and how it applies to abusive relationships?

    Would you rather the girl committed suicide just so that we could save the baby?

    Do you even know what postpartum psychosis is? (i've mentioned peripartum psychosis previously, it's related).
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Let me ask you something Neverfly.

    Are you willing to imprison a woman in a psychiatric ward in a hospital, under a suicide protocol for as much as six months in order to force her to carry the pregnancy to term?

    A pregnancy that, one way or another, may not even have been her deliberate choice, and she took every reasonable step to avoid?

    Because whether you realize it or not. That's precisely what you're proposing.
  9. Neverfly Banned Banned

    I have made my position clear. If a man loses it because he's got PTSD and kills another- we don't pat him on the back and tell him everything is gonna be ok. Do we? No, we do not.
    Are you telling me that a woman will wait until the third trimester and then suddenly develop these conditions?
    Claiming that I'm clueless because I stand by the current standard of society in which we do not excuse killing other humans is nonsense.
    No, it is not precisely what I am proposing.
    Let's examine what you're claiming and compare it to the position I've given:
    My position:
    A woman has the right to abort for whatever reason 1st and 2nd trimester.
    You said 6 months- that means she's ending the 1st trimester- so she could have had the abortion in those three months and still has another three months to get one.
    Do you see the fallacy in your claim?

    In which case she did and does have the right to abort- not wait until the third trimester when the brain is established to then kill it.
  10. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.

    Or perhaps women who want abortions should not go to Catholic hospitals.
  11. seagypsy Banned Banned

    lol of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I still like the idea. I don't like the idea of wanton killing but I don't subscribe to the idea that anyone is entitled to life. We tell ourselves that as a society to make ourselves feel better, but evidence suggested by how we impose and enforce laws suggest that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are simply privileges that some have and others do not.

    That would seem to be a simple solution. But I'm guessing there are some towns that do not have state run hospitals and there may not be one close enough. If the closest emergency room is at a catholic hospital with any other option being an hour or more away, I can see why one would go to the catholic hospital in an emergency. It definitely gives me something other htan schools to consider when looking to buy a house, I won't move to a town that has no state run hospital in it.
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    And here we go with the reading comprehension again.

    That's what peripartum means, yes. Anything that is 'peripartum' extends from partway through the third trimester to a few months after birth.

    'Peri + partum' Around + Child birth.

    Pre-partum psychoses are also applicable here.

    Here's a hint, that's not why I am calling you clueless.

    Actually, yes it is.

    Let's examine your reading comprehension.

    No I did not. Here's what I actually said:
    Do you see the bolded portion? It's a qualifier.

    It means "Up to six months". Now, given that three months is less than six months, then a period of three months is included in the statement "Up to six months".

    You haven't demonstrated a fallacy in my claim, you have only demonstrated a failure in your understanding of my claim.

    Regardless. You're still proposing that we should lock women away for whatever period, which was the point being made.

    Incidentally. I'd like to know where you got this "Third trimester" thing for brain establishment from, because the last time I checked a pregnancy guide, the brain has already developed into five areas, with some cranial nerves visible by the time you get to Seven weeks (eg Source), with brainwaves measurable by eight weeks. And by twenty weeks (second trimester) can here and recognize the mothers voice, and has already developed senses of smell, sight, hearing, taste and touch (eg Source). Also note that this source also states that the brain is fully formed by twelve weeks.

    So your position is not self consistent, and I'm curious as to what standard you're using for your arbitrary line in the sand.

    Or perhaps you should simply refrain from commenting on something you clearly know nothing about.
  13. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Bells claimed:

    Her remark about 'Nah, can't be shagged' was dishonest attempt at suggesting that I or Neverfly claimed that the reason would be just for the hell of it. I know I only ever offered the suggestion that the abortion MAY be elected for reasons other than eminent risk to mother's health or medical problems of the fetus. Neverfly can testify to what he claimed as I do not read all of his posts.
    Bells interpreted that to mean "can't be shagged" with it. A reasonable person would have acknowledged that reasons, other than those I gave, could include social pressure.

    Her remarks about 30 seconds before deliver is another attempt to misrepresent what was said by Neverfly. Neither of us suggested that a woman would abort thirty seconds before birth, he was making a point about the claim that a fetus is not a person 30 seconds before it is born but is a person 30 seconds after, according to Bell's claims. But the statement is irrelevant because she says "especially" which means "with even more certainty" in regards to 30 seconds before birth as opposed to "exclusively" or "specifically". I could have omitted the last statement as it has no relevance to the situation but I'm sure she would accuse me of lying or misrepresenting if I did. You are free to interpret her post as you see fit. This explains my understanding and the premise in which I explain the following:

    My point for readdressing the 17 year old girl was in an attempt to show that if it were legal, a woman MAY elect to have a third trimester abortion for reasons other than to protect her own health or to euthanize a terribly diseased or malformed fetus. I mistakenly assumed that her right to abortion was present up until the third trimester. And that "she didn't want the abortion in the first place." And that she only wanted the abortion as a result of the fetus' father not wanting it and threatening to leave her.

    I was then admonished and called names for that assumption. Now you are telling me that assumption is correct after I concede to the argument.

    While I do not deny that the implication is there in the article that she wanted the baby and didn't decide to end the pregnancy until the 7th month, but we cannot know for certain what the girl would have done had the laws been different. We also cannot assume she waited until the 7th month to tell her boyfriend. She may have told him at 6weeks and he was ok with it but gradually got scared as time passed and change his mind. Then started pressuring her at 2-4 months. It's possible that she agreed to abort early on not knowing it was not legal to do so. And after spending months trying to find a way to get an abortion she finally gave into desperation at 7 months. There are just too many possibilities as to how it all played out for us to make any assumptions as to when her decision would have been made if no legal, financial, or transportation related barriers had been in place to impede her ability to obtain a legal, and safe abortion.

    As much as your claims support my original claims and it would satisfy my ego in telling Bells that you agree with me, I will not knowingly and intentionally deny logic and reason out of glib satisfaction at "proving" an opponent wrong.

    I am not the dishonest person that I have been labeled as in this thread.

    Now moving on

    After reexamining the situation she was in, I assumed that her age was the only legal reason that probably blocked her from getting an abortion. But I have been going over the Utah statutes on abortion and it seems it is illegal to get an abortion at ANY time for ANY reason other than to preserve the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or abnormality of the fetus. If my wording isn't perfect, it is not intentional, I have posted the actual statutes below so, interpet them as you will.


    I also discovered in my reading over the actual Utah Statutes that it is illegal to pressure someone into an abortion. She could have had the boyfriend arrested for what he was doing. And I am curious if any charges were ever brought against the boyfriend for doing so.


    Unless I am mistaken the boy that went to jail for beating her was NoT the father but a third party friend of the girl. And he went to jail for illegally trying to cause a miscarriage.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    No one is "permitted" to commit a crime Neverfly. If someone is insane at the time they commit a crime, then in the normal course of the law, they are found not guilty because of that insanity.

    You do not consider 'by reason of insanity, temporary or otherwise' to be a valid legal defense?

    Because you are the one who keeps pushing the line of convenience Neverfly. And "frivolous".

    She was 17 years of age and she was desperate enough to have someone beat her, risking her own life... You think that is what someone normal and mentally sound would do? And this is the example you are going with for reason of "convenience"?

    I linked you quotes and studies which show clearly that women are not aborting in the third trimester for "convenience". You respond with desperate teenage girls who are not given access to abortions in the first place and who are in appalling and desperate situations. And you expect to be taken seriously?


    You discounted those studies because they did not provide a mental illness clause earlier. So now you believe the study and you accuse me, the one who provided the study which showed why women are getting third term abortions, reasons you discounted and dismissed earlier, preferring to focus on "convenience" earlier.. and you call me intellectually dishonest? I never claimed otherwise. You did. You stated that women should not get abortions in the third trimester for reasons of convenience. I advised you that they were not and provided the studies to back up my claim that women are not waiting until they are past two trimester's of a pregnancy and aborting for convenience or because they changed their minds. Because no woman in her right mind would put herself through that and then change her mind. But you discount that.

    Again, show me one woman, who in her right mind, would wait until the third trimester to get an abortion. You keep bringing this point up and each time it has been unsubstantiated and without any proof. You are operating on a 'what if' scenario. Support your claim that women wait until the third trimester for an abortion for matters of convenience.
    Excuse me, but I have provided evidence which supported my claim of why women seek abortions in the third trimester. I am not the one still demanding that the law must not allow women to abort in the third trimester for reasons of convenience and when you are challenged on this, you have not been able to substantiate or support your claim that women wait until the third trimester to abort for "convenience". So support your claim Neverfly.

    Your lack of comprehension knows no bounds.

    The onus is on YOU to support your claim that women would abort in the third trimester for matters of convenience. Provide some studies to support your claim that women are waiting until the third trimester to abort for convenience sake. I advised that women do not wait that long for an abortion for convenience sake and I also provided interviews from a doctor who did third trimester abortions and he stated why women came to him for these abortions and convenience was not one of them. I also provided studies and reports looking into why women abort in the third trimester. Convenience was not one of them.

    And yet you persist in demanding the law does not allow women to abort for convenience's sake in the third trimester, even though you have no evidence that women are doing it for that reason.

    You have refuted nothing and what evidence you tried to pass off in this thread amounted to you and your wife misrepresenting and lying about a study in this thread.

    So back up your claim that women are aborting or would abort in the third trimester with a scientific study which details or has at least a survey which looks at women who are aborting in the third trimester for the sake of convenience and then you can make the claim that the law needs to change to prevent these so called women from aborting in the third trimester for convenience, even though there are none that you have been able to show with any scientific studies.
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Like I already said - I've been giving examples of triage and life-and-death situations where homicide occurs. Police officers, other people who carry firearms by duty and are allowed to use lethal force, firefighters, emergency room doctors, etc. etc. All these people, in their line of duty, sometimes kill people, and the law makes clear which of those homicides are culpable and which are not: it considers the circumstances in which the homicide occured.

    If the law can settle these things for police officers, etc. why not for doctors and others who treat pregnant women?

    Apparently, some people just want a decontextualized understanding of pregnancy and abortion: some people want that all abortions are to be considered culpable homicide, and some others want that no abortion be considered culpable homicide.
    But both views are too simplistic, as has been worked out at length in the many threads like this.

    I don't switch viewpoints. My viewpoint simply doesn't fit into some people's preset little boxes, so they conclude that I am "switching viewpoints."
  16. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Though I have never used the presence of the brain to establish the line for personhood, i have seen many sites saying so many different things that it is hard to know which site to trust. One will say it starts forming at 8 weeks other at 5 weeks, and then there are those that say it starts in the first trimester but is not fully formed until 20 weeks. And all sorts of varying claims in between. I don't know how one would know which site can be trusted. My doctors told me the brain wasn't fully formed enough to survive outside the womb until about 24 weeks. This is why I stick to "viability" as being my line at which I draw the line of personhood. If it stands a reasonable chance of living outside of the mother, even if necessary to have assistance with machines, I think it deserves personhood.I leave it up to the doctors in each case to decide if the fetus in question is viable or not. Not meaning that the mother cannot abort if her life depends on it, or the fetus has serious abnormalities (i don't consider six toes to be serious but I do consider cerebral palsy or the absence of a skull to be serious.).
  17. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Yadda- I already gave my argument against this. Repeating yours makes no difference. If you want to convince me that we must allow insane killing, you must also explain why we must allow other insanity driven violent crimes.
    Your qualifier makes no difference to me because you still misrepresent my claim. You must modify your qualifier to "As much as three months." In other words- the last trimester only.
    Now, let's assume you already have modified it so I can just answer now and not bother to wait for you to do so.
    She had six damn months to take care of it and if she didn't and waits (As Bells says she would not do so) until the last trimester- It's not our problem. Got it?
    I just showed it to you again. If you repeat your fallacy a third time, I'll have no choice but to just ignore it.
    Not 'whatever' period. You're misrepresenting my claim, again. Stop doing it, Trippy. It is intellectually dishonest.
    The third trimester is the only applicable term. In which case, she reasonably had two trimesters before it to act- once it becomes a human brain, we cannot condone killing another human, no matter what excuses you throw at it.
    That isn't on par with what I had read which puts it at about 22 weeks. Rather, development began at eight weeks. You just listed sources that break down different developments. I have said "established the brain in full," not some parts of it. My personal take is the brain is the primary focus as that is what I think makes us human.
    Ok, dude- I'm calling you a liar, now. Show me the inconsistency instead of inventing claims off the top of your head as Bells does.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
  18. seagypsy Banned Banned

    of course it is, but maybe you aren't real familiar with American laws. What we common laymen refer to as insane, is not the same as what is required for the courts to determine someone insane. Anyone of us would likely think a serial killer to be insane, and by most definitions they are. But to be considered insane for purposes of criminal defense there are guidelines the courts and legal psychologists have to adhere to that are so stringent that it is nearly impossible to be granted an insanity plea. Otherwise, our serial killers would all be in mental institutions rather than high security prisons. And as for the defense of temporary insanity, that one is even harder to prove. Otherwise, women could blame the act of killing their husband on PMS, a recognized mental/physical condition that can cause hostility, aggressiveness, and poor judgement among other physical and psychological symptoms. Being distraught over the potential loss of a lover or disruption to lifestyle or general depression, or basic stupidity is not something the courts normally allow to be considered insane.

    I can't comment on the rest of your post because you seem to be bouncing all about and I can't keep track of what you are talking about.
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Only if the judge accepts the insanity plea. If he does, they are not released, now are they? Let go to do it again? Nope- they get locked up.
    Lame. Making excuses does not alter the fact you repeatedly claim I have said things I've not said. You took an example from one argument, then changed it slightly and claimed I used it for a different argument.
    Again, you're misusing my usage of the word "Convenience."
    Read back- I only used that word when describing where you drew your arbitrary line at birth out of convenience- regardless of the science of it.
    As for the girl- she committed a crime. Don't like that? Too bad. She committed a crime.
    You keep bringing up studies which are flawed because only medical approval from 2 doctors allowed the abortion at all. Stop using that intellectually dishonest tactic.
    Agreed. In spite of repeatedly being shown the flaw- you keep thrusting them out there as if they prove something. I find it unbelievable, too.
    No, I did not. That is not what happened. I pointed out that your claims of Mental Illness may be questionable considering that none of the medical reasons listed included it. I did not discount that the studies were valid for what they show, and they do not show what you're claiming they show. Because they were performed in a setting where third trimester abortions are disallowed unless 2 doctors sign off that they are medically necessary- it does not reflect what would happen if the abortions were allowed regardless of medical necessity.
    Absolutely yes and I claim it now, again.
    I did not discount the studies as accurate for what they represent. I discounted them as applicable for what you're claiming.
    The studies only reported on approved medical reasons because any other reason was disallowed by law. All of those women had to have 2 doctors sign off that it was medically necessary to perform the procedure- this demonstrates those studies cannot be used to prove that women only get them for medical reasons in an unrestricted setting. The studies were in a restricted to medical reasons only setting.
    Do you understand that, yet?
    You provided studies in which women were disallowed to abort for any reason other than medical necessity and had to have 2 doctors sign off on it. This clearly cannot be used to show that women only get them out of medical necessity in an unrestricted setting.
    Demonstrated above- yours is the problem, here, not mine.
    I cannot prove a negative. I do not claim that they will- I claim that it creates a precedent in which we are allowing to kill another human being with no justifiable cause.
    The onus is on you to prove that I'm wrong. I have said before that it's not necessary to prove that someone would kill with no justifiable cause- rather, it creates a precedent that allows it to happen.
    I did provide a relevant article- I'll repost it here; From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/26/u...lied-about-procedure.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm
    (Entirety in the spoiler)
    An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure
    Published: February 26, 1997

    A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies.

    He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.

    Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he intentionally misled in previous remarks about the procedure, called intact dilation and evacuation by those who believe it should remain legal and ''partial-birth abortion'' by those who believe it should be outlawed, because he feared that the truth would damage the cause of abortion rights.

    But he is now convinced, he said, that the issue of whether the procedure remains legal, like the overall debate about abortion, must be based on the truth.

    In an article in American Medical News, to be published March 3, and an interview today, Mr. Fitzsimmons recalled the night in November 1995, when he appeared on ''Nightline'' on ABC and ''lied through my teeth'' when he said the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.

    ''It made me physically ill,'' Mr. Fitzsimmons said in an interview. ''I told my wife the next day, 'I can't do this again.' ''

    Mr. Fitzsmmons said that after that interview he stayed on the sidelines of the debate for a while, but with growing unease. As much as he disagreed with the National Right to Life Committee and others who oppose abortion under any circumstances, he said he knew they were accurate when they said the procedure was common.

    In the procedure, a fetus is partly extracted from the birth canal, feet first, and the brain is then suctioned out.

    Last fall, Congress failed to override a Presidential veto of a law that would have banned the procedure, which abortion opponents insist borders on infanticide and some abortion rights advocates also believe should be outlawed as particularly gruesome. Polls have shown that such a ban has popular support.

    Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, has suggested a compromise that would prohibit all third-trimester abortions, except in cases involving the ''life of the mother and severe impairment of her health.''

    The Right to Life Committee and its allies have complained repeatedly that abortion-rights supporters have misled politicians, journalists and the general public about the frequency and the usual circumstances of the procedure.

    ''The abortion lobby manufactures disinformation,'' Douglas Johnson, the committee's legislative director, said today. He said Mr. Fitzsimmon's account would clarify the debate on this procedure, which is expected to be renewed in Congress.

    Mr. Fitzsimmons predicted today that the controversial procedure would be considered by the courts no matter what lawmakers decide.

    Last April, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have outlawed the controversial procedure. There were enough opponents in the House to override his veto but not in the Senate. In explaining the veto, Mr. Clinton echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons and his colleagues.
    ''There are a few hundred women every year who have personally agonizing situations where their children are born or are about to be born with terrible deformities, which will cause them to die either just before, during or just after childbirth,'' the President said. ''And these women, among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless the enormity -- the enormous size of the baby's head -- is reduced before being extracted from their bodies.'' A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton said tonight that the White House knew nothing of Mr. Fitzsimmons's announcement and would not comment further.

    In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said. ''The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else,'' he said in the article in the Medical News, an American Medical Association publication.

    Mr. Fitzsimmons, whose Alexandria, Va., coalition represents about 200 independently owned clinics, said coalition members were being notified of his announcement.

    One of the facts of abortion, he said, is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. ''It is a form of killing,'' he said. ''You're ending a life.''

    And while he said that troubled him, Mr. Fitzsimmons said he continued to support this procedure and abortion rights in general.
    The studies were flawed as evidence because the only way they could abort was because two doctors signed off that it was medically necessary by law. They were disallowed for performing it for any other reason. Only a study in which that restrictive legal requirement is not present would settle that issue.
  20. seagypsy Banned Banned

    That's just it, Neverfly and I have both stated our positions and though they are not identical, they both allow for abortions on demand up to a certain stage of pregnancy.

    He has stated he would draw the line at when the fetus has a brain. I have stated I would draw the line at fetal viability (something only a physician in each case can determine).

    After that we have both concurred that aborting for any reason other than to preserve the life of the mother or the fetus is has serious health problems, should not be allowed.

    So as you can see, neither of us have been on an extreme end of this debate. We have both been supporting moderate positions.
  21. Neverfly Banned Banned

    That is the exact argument I gave, only my example was more personal- as a soldier in combat.
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    The reason the study is flawed as evidence is because it's like showing that women like to wear a scarf on their head because a study done in Pakistan showed that all women observed anywhere out in public wore their scarf. Or claiming that none of them like to wear mini-skirts because none are seen out in the markets of Pakistan ever wearing them.

    It's actually because they are not allowed to wear miniskirts and not allowed to go out without wearing the scarf.
    The study would need to be done in a place where they are permitted.
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Not a Complete Disaster

    I find it interesting that nobody is willing to identify as anti-abortion and either agree or disagree with the proposal.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Possible explanations:

    • There are no anti-abortion advocates taking part in this discussion.

    • Anti-abortion advocates taking part in the discussion don't want to admit that they would suspend a woman's human rights for forty weeks, despite the clear implications of LACP under American law.

    • Anti-abortion advocates feel their political appeal is threatened by the prospect of other people stopping to think about what LACP entails, and are working very hard to distract the discussion from such considerations.

    • Anti-abortion advocates are intellectually stunted to the point that they do not understand the general concepts of implications, ramifications, or logical results of an abstract process.​

    The first of those possibilities is observably wrong.

    The last, well, I'm as certain as I can be that anti-abortion advocates do not appreciate being viewed as retarded. Nonetheless, while we can strike the first of those possibilities for being observably wrong, the fourth does seem to be in effect insofar as people making anti-abortion arguments refuse to acknowledge certain implications of their rhetoric.

    "I am without any parallel that might compare or provide example of a similar circumstance. This is truly unique to the abortion question." Bowser

    I believe our neighbor hit the proverbial nail as squarely as possible: There is no living analogue to the questions implied by LACP. Influenza and E. coli are absurd comparisons, and not because they are microorganisms, but because there is no law preventing someone from medically addressing the presence of these microorganisms within their body. The argument, like so much anti-abortion rhetoric, misses the point.

    And in terms of rhetoric, it is certainly one thing to insist on the rights of the unborn, but because of the unique issues involved, it is impossible to avoid the considerations of a woman's human rights during pregnancy. One cannot simply sweep the point into the dustbin and forget about it.

    In a society without a supreme guarantee of equal protection, it is easy enough to design cosmetic solutions to the problem: Simply ban abortion, enumerate the optimal maternal conduct for the health of the fetus, and oblige women to that conduct by force of law.

    In a society that does have a supreme guarantee of equal protection, though, what is the solution?

    The best summary of the most ferocious parts of this debate would be that the anti-abortion advocates are vociferously reiterating their justification for LACP and its implications while trying to avoid considering those implications. Certes, this looks fundamentally dishonest, but we must remember that all they are doing is shouting out their articles of faith.

    As far as I can tell, though, LACP really does seem to be just about abortion. The rest of it? Well, it doesn't seem the anti-abortion argument really cares about the implications; and that is, morally and ethically, the best that can be said about it.

    And this is part of the reason why the anti-abortion movement is more and more viewed as misogynistic. It's not just the damaging implications the argument has for a woman's human status, but also the grim determination to disrupt any consideration of those implications. Quite clearly, resolving the question of a woman's status is something the movement does not wish to do.

    It's one thing to make a mistake because one hasn't thought through the implications of an action. It is another to actively work to disrupt other peoples' consideration of those implications.

    If nothing else, this thread has affirmed what I've long suspected of the anti-abortion movement: It really is about putting women back in their place.

    For that, if nothing else, we can say this thread hasn't been a complete waste of time and energy.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page