abortion and South Dakota
February 25, 2006 by thinking girl
On Wednesday, officials voted to put an end to most abortions in South Dakota. It hasn't been passed yet, but if this bill goes through, it could mean the first successful challenge to Roe v. Wade in the USA. The case will go to the Supreme Court, who then has the choice of hearing the case or not. Some say it is unlikely the court will even hear the case, which will mean the bill will be effective only in South Dakota. However, that means women in South Dakota won't be able to ahve access to safe and legal abortions! This is bad news!I just don't understand how women, who are actual human beings and citizens, get less concern than fetuses, who are essentially parasites and cannot survive outside of the woman's body. Fetuses are not citizens - you have to be born to be a citizen! How can it be that women are not as well-protected and respected as "people" who don't officially exist yet?
The state of SD wants to control women's bodies. By controlling a woman's body, you control a woman, for all intents and purposes. Now, only those women who can afford to leave the state will be able to access abortion. Guess what that means? More poor mothers. More welfare. More demand for state-funded daycare. More wards of the state. More children growing up in poverty. More mothers at their wits' end. More legal battles over child support from absent fathers. More men paying child support for children they didn't want or plan for. More children who are unwanted. More children born with medical problems, like fetal alcohol syndrome, low birth weights due to cigarette smoking, crack- and heroin-addicted babies, HIV+, Hep C+, etc. More botched "back-alley" abortions, complications of which are paid by the state Medicaid program. All of this amounts to, over time, increased taxes. It is obvious to anyone who opens their eyes and looks around: poverty breeds poverty. How is this a better scenario than abortion? Is this the kind of control of women's bodies SD is looking for - at the expense of other social programs?
Reproductive freedom is a major issue for women. Yes, there are lots of options available - to those who can afford them - to avoid pregnancy. Yes, there is always abstainence. Yes, there is always adoption. But these things don't always work. Abstainence is a joke in this world - to expect women, teenaged women, grown women, married women, to abstain from sex is ridiculous. It just is. All sorts of different women have abortions. Can we really expect women from all walks of life to avoid sex in order to avoid pregnancy? Completely unrealistic. Birth control options don't always work. Women get pregnant while on birth control all the time. Besides, these options are highly gendered - there is only one option for birth control available to men to protect against pregnancy, and most guys hate using it. Birth control isn't 100% reliable - so even if all precautions are taken, pregnancy can still occur. And birth control isn't cheap - thank god for programs like Planned Parenthood that give out free birth control and condoms. The option of adoption isn't always feasible. It is difficult emotionally for a woman to give away a baby that she carried in her body for 9 months, went through the pain of labour to give birth to, and has held and nurtured. Besides that, adoption doesn't work for women who simply don't wish to go through pregnancy and childbirth. Some women incur health problems while pregnant, and sometimes those health problems aren't cured by childbirth, but stay on as part of the woman's body for the rest of their lives. Yes, the legislation in SD allows for abortion in the case of a threat to the mother's health, and in case of rape. But this is entirely insufficient for a woman who does not wish to be pregnant! Besides, sometimes health complications arise late in the pregnancy, and late-term abortions are not always safe for a woman's long-term health.
So, call abortion a form of birth control if you like. Other forms of birth control don't prevent pregnancy, but rather cause a fertilized egg not to attach to the uterine wall, such as IUDs and the Morning After Pill (which is also widely held to be controversial and pro-life groups try to prevent access to this as well). I don't mind if abortion is used as a form of birth control. It's a pretty expensive way to prevent pregnancy, and it carries a higher degree of health risks for the woman, but if it is the last chance a woman has to avoid pregnancy and parenthood, so be it. Women MUST have the option of abortion, and it MUST be safe and legal. I know that I live in Canada, and what happens in SD doesn't have much bearing on my life here day to day, but when women's rights are threatened, we all need to take a stand. If you need further convincing of the social reasons why abortion must be available, please check out this post I found on Blog for Choice day this year. The author states her case logically and eloquently.
Babies & fetuses are parasites? Uh, Ok. That’s a bit of a stretch…..
par·a·site:
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Definition courtesy of Dictionary.com
Yep, fetuses are parasites. They receive nourishment from another living organism, their existence is dependent on the host, and they contribute nothing to the survival of the host. I don’t hold the position that babies are also parasites, they are simply dependent. But yes, I do think fetuses fit the definition of a parasite. People may not like to think of their unborn fetuses as parasites, but that’s exactly what they are.
So basically, you’re saying that human beings are parasites?
I don’t understand the word/definition manipulation that is put forward by abortionists. If one were to look at any other species of mammal, such as rabbits, monkeys, apes, dogs, cats — we look at their unborn babies as what they are: rabbits, monkeys, apes, dogs, cats. But as soon as we’re talking about ‘abortion’ and ‘women’s rights’ the actual definition of an unborn human is twisted into parasites, ‘non-human’ organisms, and other sorts of word and definitional manipulations. The reality is that these manipulations are used to de-humanize the act that is being done. Abortion is not bad if it’s a parasite…we’re ridding women of parasites. I’m not saying that I’m for or against abortion or the women’s right to choose. But what I am against is the manipulation of the facts, the reality of the situation from both sides. Humans and foetuses are babies, they’re human, they’re our offspring. Calling them parasites, well, you might as well call all living organisms that produce offspring parasites.
Mammal offspring create babies from the inside…eventually nurturing them as they are born. Just because they haven’t breathed ‘outside’ air doesn’t negative their existence or value. When a reptile produces an egg and lays it, is the organism inside the egg not the same reptile?
I think you are confused, and confusing the argument.
First, I am saying that human fetuses are parasites, not that humans are parasites. (By the way, all mammalian fetuses grown inside a female of the species are also parasites - not just human ones!)
Second, when we study other mammals, reptiles, birds, etc. we do not consider their unborn offspring to be full fledged members of the species. We call them what they are: pig fetuses, monkey fetuses, robin eggs, alligator eggs, etc. Why is it so difficult and so threatening to call human fetuses the same? because we have an emotional attachment to progagating the human race?
Third, pro choice advocates do not claim that fetuses are not human. They claim that fetuses are not PERSONS. Human fetuses are just that - fetuses that are human. Same as we say that reptiles and birds lay eggs, and that those eggs are species-specific (Goose eggs, duck eggs, robin eggs, etc.). Human fetuses are not human persons, just as duck eggs are not ducks. It is an arguement of degrees.
Fourth, pro lifers manipulate their language to suit their goals. By calling human fetuses babies, they purposely humanize those fetuses to make their point that abortion is murder. Most anti-abortionists are religious, and the issue of when life begins is a major one. They pretty much all claim that life begins at conception. Liberal pro choicers argue that life begins at birth. Moderate pro-choicers argue for various other points along the way - some say life begins when the primal streak develops - about 14 days. Others argue that it doesn’t matter when life begins, it matter when personhood begins, and try to develop guidelines for this, a major one being that personhood begins when senscience (sensation to pain or pleasure) begins at around 19 weeks (this is the line of argument to which I adhere).
Fifth, fetuses are not babies. Human babies are born, they exist outside the womb. Fetuses are parasitic organisms that are entirely reliant on a host. May I remind you that the host on which a human fetus is dependent is actually a human person with full rights and full agency. I don’t see how the “rights” of a human fetus, which is nothing more than a potential person, should take precendence over the rights of a full-fledged human being. It’s like saying that a dog should have more rights than its owner. the notion is ridiculous, although we should afford the dog some rights, as we should afford a developing fetus some rights depending on its stage of development. However, these rights must never supercede that of the full-fledged moral agent carrying that fetus!
Sixth, I am also against manipulation of the facts, as well as unclear and unsound arguments!
Seventh, I don’t think pro choicers look to deny the existence of human fetuses. They look to establish that those fetuses should not have rights that outweigh those of the pregnant woman. A human fetus should not have more value than a human woman. That is completely illogical by all rationality, unless your goal is to control and subvert women.
As a woman, I should have full decision making powers over my body and what happens to it. Nobody else gets to decide that - not any man, not any woman, not any court, and not any human fetus. I decide. Nobody can force me to carry a fetus I don’t want to carry, just like nobody can force me to quit drinking, smoking, using drugs, or otherwise abusing my body during pregnancy. Since that hypothetical fetus is reliant entirely on me for its very existence, and not the other way around, I get to decide whether to host that parasite or not, and the manner in which I host it. And so should every woman in the entire world have the same right, no matter where she lives, how poor she is, how old she is, or how moral she is. A society that puts more value on a human fetus, a mere potential person, than on a human woman is not an egalitarian society.
Women aren’t smart anuff to make those decisions, don’t ya know?.
We can thank the good fundimentalists Christians that control the Gov. in SD, I bet.
They’ll just wait until the unwamted, neglected, angry ones grow up & put them in prison, anyway. After beating them down w/with their big morality stick.
What’s interesting to me is all the passion and energy that goes into fighting abortion and saving the lives of these “unborn” people. Yet at the same time, there doesn’t seem to be as much of a fight against things like the war in Iraq, where people are also dying.
Consider also ridiculous debates like that of Terry Schaivo, whose “right to life” was in some dire need of protection. Nevermind the fact that, for all intents and purposes, she wasn’t alive as it was. Meanwhile, millions of people around the world are dying as we speak of poverty and other injustices. Who’s protecting their right to life?
Given this kind of logic, any argument made under the banner that “human life is sacred” is pretty laughable. Let the woman decide.
I think in the U.S. we get carried away w/this stuff, because we have a skewed(sp?) veiw on the ‘value’ of a human life.
Even tho there is poverty, violence, & things like that here, we don’t see people starving to death before our eyes, etc. So, we get involved in silly debates like the ‘Terry Schaivo’ hoopala.
Fundamentalists Christians, Moral Majority or what ever they choose to call themselves walk a narrow path.
Jenn> I have to disagree with you, I’m not confused, nor am I confusing the argument.
A woman can choose whatever she wants…. sure, I agree with that. That is egalitarian. But egalitarianism is not taught by telling people they can do whatever they want to their own body (without consideration of others). That is selfish, irresponisible and troubling. There are SO many in this world that struggle to live because they have have mental problems that tell them to die or struggle from addiction to drugs and alcohol or debilitating disease, or do the same to their babies (born or yet unborn). Women and men and their families go through incredible anguish because of these problems. Hell, fetal alcohol syndrome is probably THE leading reason why we have youth criminals! To say that women can abuse themselves however they want (whether said hypothetically or not)is not promoting anything but a society of inward-focused, selfish people. That is the kind of message are you sending to ANYONE let alone women. How can that be liberating or forward thinking?
I really do think that your radical feminist views have put you on a high loft somewhere, beyond the realm of common sense, social awareness and real-life experiences. Books will get you so far, but you’ve gotta see the world for it’s reality, not only its philosophies.
I would imagine in law enforcement one would see a variety of behaviours and negative outcomes that result in people not considering the effects of their actions. Or, perhaps it is what they do to their bodies through substance abuse or what they would do to themselves or others if they do not receive some sort of medical treatment. I can also imagine how studying various aspects of criminology with a strong background in social theory and philosophy would not translate to the practical day to day work of law enforcement. I agree that people do thoughtless and selfish things to themselves and their bodies without consideration of their effects. Smoking for example, is hazardous to both the smoker and anyone inhaling second hand smoke. Yet, smokers and their family members aren’t required to pay more into healthcare or be accountable for their choice to smoke in any way even though it is draining the already stretched resources of our healthcare system available to everyone. There is plenty of education on why people should not smoke yet, as with legal substance abuse, obesity and even the legal right to refuse certain life saving medical treatments people in Canada are given the freedom to choose what they do and do not want to do to their bodies.
It maybe true that an alcoholic or junkie pregnant woman might not give a foetus or newborn child the chance it deserves to grow up into a healthy, sane, confident and productive member of society. Yet, I don’t know how realistic it is to provide the conditions for her to be able to for the 18 years until the child reaches adulthood, and then what about mother after this time? I am against taking away this women’s right to decide for herself what to do with her body and enforcing that she have an abortion. ALWAYS, women must have the right to chose and have access to a safe abortion and the associate health care as an option for birth control or, for health reasons.
Remember, it wasn’t until very recently that disabled people were sterilized in Canada without consent because they were considered unable to make sound decisions for themselves about their reproductive rights. This form of Eugenics began in England and such practices like sterilizing the disabled was widespread throughout Europe and North America. In fact, Eugenics helped pave the way for the rise of the Nazi movement in Germany including the Jewish genocide and heinous experiments conducted on women, homosexuals and people of various cultures. It was only after the Nazi movement gained attention outside of Germany that Eugenics practices started to be re-evaluated.
To me, it’s a slippery slope when you start taking away individual rights, especially regarding the body, even if they affect other people or, society at large. A lot of times it seems like people are affected by decisions that they do not have any control of. At least let our bodies, especially women’s bodies, be autonomous and free from control and the unjust treatments they were subjected to in the past and unfortunately are still subjected to today. It is my hope this type of discussion moves us forward toward equality rather than backward.
thanks for the contributions, Matthew, l>t, and Angel, and Dave, for providing a voice of dissent for my position.
Dave, I think Angel makes the point very eloquently that when we start to talk about taking away a person’s rights to control their body, we are in a dangerously slippery position. Denying that a person has full control over her body just because she is burdened/blessed with the responsiblity of growing an organism inside that body leads to all sorts of problems, including, as Angel mentioned, eugenics, nonvoluntary sterilization, as well as nonvoluntary euthanasia or other medical treatment, etc. The thing is, if we agree that a person has a right to control his or her body, and we certainly do have this right entrenched in standards of human rights and freedoms, we have to uphold that right, even if we disagree with the outcome of that decision. Of course people do stupid and irresponsible things to their bodies for a variety of reasons. The question becomes, was that decision autonomous, or was he or she subjected to undue coercion such as that which might arise from circumstances of oppression, mental illness or compulsion, addiction, mind control? If not, we must respect his or her choice, no matter if it leads to poor health, addiction, or even suicide.
I think in your previous comments you were indeed guilty of confusing the argument pro choice advolcates make regarding the status of a fetus, as I outlined clearly in my response, point by point. If you were not confused, I fail to see how you could have made the initial remarks that you did. If what you really meant to say was that you believe life and personhood begin at some early stage in fetal development, you should have said so.
I heartily disagree that my studies have removed me from reality - if anything, they have brought me a good deal closer to understanding the reality of the world in which I live. I certainly do see the world for its realities - I look around and see the reality that this world is rife with inequalities for all its philosophies and theories. I’m not a young pup - I have had a life outside of academia for quite a lot longer than you have, and a wide variety of experiences as a result. I live a real life in the real world with a real job and real friends and real responsibilities, just like you. Also, you overlook the fact that theory is in fact a form of activism, and contributes in important ways to the how we live in the world. Without theory, society would never have evolved to this point, and to remove it now would cause society to devolve into a state of anarchy. Theory is a necessity; surely someone with a master’s degree would know that.
it’s unfortunate that you have chosen to try to dismiss my views as “radical” and insensible. I don’t think that type of derision is warranted simply because you disagree with the very logical and rational argument I have outlined. in an earlier post, one commenter - Mike - disagreed strongly with a position I took, yet he did not accuse me of lacking common sense; he simply disagreed and told me why. IF you disagree with me, present reasons why, and I will defend my position, and you are welcome to defend yours and actually answer the responses I have made, if you can. It’s fine to disagree with me and engage me in a debate; it’s not fine to attempt to chastise and dismiss me in order to try to win your point. for shame.
First lets ditch the agenda filled political verbiage. There are only 2 sides to this issue: anti-abortion and pro-abortion. The issue is abortion plain and simple and there is a camp that is against it and a camp that supports it.
So in your world view a person (under equal rights men and women) have complete and total control of their own bodies in all situations?
If so you must be against seat-belt laws, helmet laws, OSHA, speed-limits or any law that restricts our freedom to do what we wish with our own body.
Additionally we can assume you support legalizing drug use (crack, heroin, crystal-meth, paint thinner etc.), legalized euthanasia, legalized suicide, legalized prostitution.
What about legalizing organ donors for profit? If I can pay a doctor to remove my fetus for a fee based why shouldn’t I be able to receive a fee ($50,000 will do) to sell a kidney or an eye or how about a million bucks and you can have my heart? I bet alot of suicidal parents could set their kids up for life doing a full body total organ financial transaction. Their body - Their choice - Their freedom right?
Those are the obvious ones. How about legalized public nudity? My body - I can put clothes on it or not.
Legalized public sex? Two consenting adults doing what they want with their body.
Now lets get to children. The party line for pro-abortion is against parental notification laws. Based again on a child/girl’s right to her own body cannot be infringed. So everything we stated above should apply to children too.
Of course when a 12 year old girl has an abortion the clinic doesn’t have to notify the police that a rape occurred. 12 year old abortion = 12 year old sex at some point, even if it was consensual a statuary rape occurred at a minimum. So the pro-abortion position becomes equal with NAMBLA’s. If a 65 year old man can convince a 5 year old girl to give him a blow job, anal sex, or whatever then it is all good yes? 2 people with complete autonomy over their own bodies without evil government intrusion.
So now it is unconstitutional for laws baring a 12 year old crack addicted child prostitute from engaging in sex in a public park with a group of men. WOW aren’t we glad feminism freed woman and gave them their bodies back!
But that’s not all with abortion on demand, reasons for the abortion don’t come to matter. So parental sex selection, think China with it’s 40 million more men that women isn’t cause for concern? As soon as they find the “Gay Gene” then people who can reproduce, heterosexuals, should be able to abort those fetuses too. How about Human livestock? A woman should legally be able to get pregnant and abort for the stem cells at month 5 and repeat it over and over again for profit right? Her body - her choice. Human Cloning? Again she wants to carry a clone she has that right. How far away are we from cross-cloning a human with an animal to create a hybrid?
Obvious to most people, a more reasoned approach is the concept of complete freedom over one’s own body isn’t always in the best interest of the community. Therefore the community has an interest in restricting what you can and cannot do with your body.
As far as abortion goes I only listen to why or why not a pre-born (as all pregnancies begin biologically destined for birth) human-being is or is not a person. Dogmatic and religious arguments fall flat and can not be proven. Only science can be hypothesized, tested and proved. Just as in 1973 we didn’t have the technology or science to fully view inter-uterine activity and development by the pre-born we do have that today.
Your argument that a living entity can be human while not necessarily a human “being” is not rational. “Being” by definition merely infers existence regardless of size or location.
Chris - wow, way to over-simplify. good job!
here we go:
1. actually, ditching the “political verbiage” by referring to the debate as “pro-abortion” vs. “anti-abortion” is not at all apolitical. Why? Because many, many folks who call themselves “pro-choice” wouldn’t necessarily ever call themselves “pro-abortion” - many pro-choicers would never dream of having an abortion themselves, even if their pregnancy was unwanted and unplanned, but they still support women having the right and ability to choose differently. Also, many who call themselves “pro-life” or “anti-abortion” change their tune when it comes down to getting an abortion to save their own or their partner or daughter or sister’s life, or to prevent her from carrying a product of rape and/or incest. So no, you can’t just simplify things down to “pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion.” There’s always politics in language, and your claim that these terms are apolitical is a load of crap.
2. As far as trying to catch me up on being inconsistent, grow the fuck up. seriously. Saying that women should be able to decide whether or not to continue and complete a pregnancy isn’t the same as saying that satefy laws (including drug laws) should be repealed because they interfere with bodily freedom, or the same as saying that 12 year olds should be able to consent to sex or we should be able to get paid to donate our most vital organs. give me a fucking break.
3. The reasons for abortion are irrelevant. If a woman doesn’t want to continue to carry a fetus, she shouldn’t have to, for any reason. I trust women to make the best decision for themselves and their families. I don’t trust the state, or anyone else besides that woman, to decide on her behalf. Considering the shitty track record our society has in making decisions that are not supportive and protective of women’s rights, of course I wouldn’t. And, as sad as it is that some women don’t choose to carry female fetuses, that’s not the fault of abortion - it’s the fault of a misogynistic male supremacist society.
4. Your arguments fall flat with me because you aren’t recognizing the root causes of all the problematic things you bring up. Why try to blame abortion, and take that away from women as an option, when what is really at fault is misogyny and male domination? If you’re really so concerned about the 12 year old crack-addicted prostitute having sex in the park with a bunch of old men, why not put your energies into arguing against the social climate that allows that to happen, that forces 12 year old girls to run away from home because of god knows what abuse and sell their bodies on the streets because they have no other way to support themselves and who are exploited by pimps who get them hooked on drugs and the nasty pedophiles who want to buy her body? Don’t blame feminism for that mess - we don’t want that 12 year old on the street any more than you do.
5. Furthermore, yeah, I support people having as much freedom over the own bodies as possible while still living in a society where other people also have the same rights as well as rights to non-interference. So safety laws, yes. Legalizing euthanasia and suicide, yes.
6. you said, “As far as abortion goes I only listen to why or why not a pre-born (as all pregnancies begin biologically destined for birth) human-being is or is not a person. Dogmatic and religious arguments fall flat and can not be proven. Only science can be hypothesized, tested and proved.”
this is your problem - “personhood” isn’t a scientific concept, now, is it? so we only have philosophical arguments to determine when personhood begins. My personal stance is that personhood begins at the point of birth, but that moral consideration should be given to all sentient beings (human fetuses reach sentience at around 19 weeks). Note: I said consideration - not ultimate and equal moral weight.
7. And, I never said that human fetuses were not human beings. I said they were not human “persons” and I said that they were not human “babies.” so maybe you might brush up on your reading skills.
that’s all.
Well then it all boils down to “person-hood”. Your mental cage is that, for you, person-hood is a purely political term. That ideology puts you in the company of some rather unsavory comrades like the slaveholders of the early American South, the German SS Nazis, Apartheid South Africa and many other regimes that believed in person-hood as a practice open for political definition in pursuit of Machiavellian objectives.
In fact since recorded history began societies have been defining and generally stripping human rights based on the concept that an individual or group lacked the measure for full person-hood. Too many countries still have active systems where they codify a sub-human class. Examples of this include India and their “untouchables” as well as for women in most countries under Islamic Sharia law.
Peculiarly in America, The Supreme Court legally granted person-hood under the Fourteenth Amendment to non-biologic entities, in the case of corporate person-hood (see Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company), before they even granted federal woman’s suffrage. What a disgrace!
Historically this question has been one to use and abuse by governments for their political purposes. We only recently have achieved a level of medical and scientific technology in which we can conceive a true basis of person-hood.
At where do we draw a line in the sand? A human person can live without many things; heart, lungs, motor function etc. Only the brain (stem) is required. We even know without a doubt that Birth is a non-event neurologically speaking.
If you base person-hood on the concept of sentients (the formation of a mental “Self” model or neurophysiological ego development). Then certainly all infants and many of the elderly and disabled will NOT qualify.
If you base person-hood on the formation of a neurophysiological “world” model then most biological creatures above the order of plant life would qualify.
In the other direction if you base person-hood on unique human DNA then you get unworkable situations with organ donor recipients and people who are chimera’s (possess more than one unique DNA type).
The development and operation of higher brain function (brain activity beyond the mid & hind brain stem) is where those that ended Terri Schiavo’s life placed that marker.
Remember fetal brain development begins in week 5-6 of the pregnancy. This can be right at the time a woman first realizes she is pregnant. Higher brain functions are easily visible at 36 weeks pre-birth and likely will be seen earlier and earlier as technology advances.
see: http://www.nibib.nih.gov/HealthEdu/PubsFeatures/eAdvances/28Mar06
At some point in the future medical science will firmly establish when person-hood begins. A mark in which the 14th amendment to our Constitution can enshrine as when our inalienable rights begin. At that point in time past generations will be judged as having played fast and loose with what they knew and when they knew it just as we judge today those past regimes that stripped person-hood for their own personal and political objectives.
Pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists (who allow for rape, incest and it makes them feel icky type stuff) will wind up on the wrong side of history; they are already on the wrong side of medical science. Abortionists will be viewed as ignorant at a minimum and likely with disgust and scorn by future generations who will have the the tools and technology which will act as a voice for the pre-born.
Why hasn’t this issue gone away? The US as a whole and some States even more so have had 30+ years to get used to abortion on demand. Pro-abortion has had billions of dollars funneled into it’s industry. We’ve had pro-abortion presidents, congressional majorities and supreme courts.
Why do the majority of women in the US still support significantly restricting their own abortion “rights”.
The reason this issue is not going away is because technology and science are on the side of the anti-abortion / pro-life ideology. At least for those that believe abortion should be universally restricted for the majority of the time a women is pregnant. This is why pro-abortionists FEAR states regaining control of the issue and actually letting people vote on it.
Sonograms, prenatal heartbeat monitoring, 3D images & videos, natural labor practices, family friendly birthing rooms - These are the real enemies of the abortion lobby. Once society can embrace and accept teenage pregnancy and shed the collar of religious stigma on those young women then we will be ready to have the public discourse and intelligent debate that protects the life of all (mother and pre-born).
BTW thanks for you previous response. Although I find your beliefs ideological and lacking, I do find you open enough that you may be capable of growth. You should really explore that “sentient being” thing further; Honestly explore the concept of murder as it applies to these sentient beings with known levels of development and cognitive functioning in your own heart and mind. Maybe it will console you as you ponder the recent Partial Birth Abortion loss in the Supreme Court.
Wow - thinking girl - you are in a great position to be representative of intelligent women every where.
Sadly you don’t do us justice. Next time you try to issue a rebuttal to half way intelligent remarks you could try to represent in a half way intelligent manner.
Answering with emotion does nothing to further your purpose. It merely strengthens the resolve of your debater to sharpen their already witty tongue.
Assaulting who they are shows that you have no comeback for their words. Which shows that you have been beaten.
Good Job Chris Phillips .
Kara - it’s interesting how your IP address is just the same as Chris Phillips’.
I don’t think anything I said in response to Chris’ comments was unintelligent. Neither did I “assault” Chris - I assume you take issue with my swearing? well, tough shit. My blog, I can swear if I want. Don’t like it, don’t read it. In fact, you can be my guest to never come here again or read another word I write! Maybe you should also grow the fuck up. Or perhaps you take issue with me encouraging commenters to actually READ what I’ve said instead of putting words in my mouth?
Accusing me of being “emotional” - now that’s a new one, boy, I must be the first feminist woman to have her arguments denounced by way of calling out “emotion” and equating that with “irrationality”!
how’s that for a comeback, “Kara”?
Same IP address? Ok which wise guy at work is using my computer! There are 80,000 of you jerks so stand up and be counted. Oh wait everyone behind a corporate firewall has the same IP. Jim is that you? Oh wait Monica, I knew that was you. Or maybe it really was me. I did send the link to your site to a few people here. I do know one girl named Kara, hmmmm….? Is that you myspace/karasgirls?
Of course I’ve worn out my welcome so I know where the door is.
- Leaving to get checked out at the psychiatrist to test for multiple personalities now. Hope I don’t find any shrill emotional feminist “persons” in there.
My abortion posting on my own blog has certainly generated rather a lot of discussion on this issue already, but I wanted to comment on one thing here.
Parental notification laws. I think they are dumb for one simple reason. Either you have a situation where the parent is abusive (perhaps even the father of the underage girl’s pregnancy, though that is extreme - abusive or just not a particularly good relationship is bad enough), in which case, notifying that parent that the child is pregnant and seeking an abortion is going to cause a lot more harm than good, OR you have a situation where there is really a good, caring, trusting relationship between the child and her parents, in which case, she’d likely tell her parents about the pregnancy and abortion anyway, without any notification law. So either the law causes harm or it is redundant. Not exactly a good public policy decision to implement it.
Obviously “Disgusted Beyond Belief” is not a parent. My child cannot normally get any medical treatment without parental notification and approval. That is why when they go off to camp or do sports through school we have to sign various forms allowing for treatment in the case of injury or at a minimum provide various emergency contact numbers.
An abortion IS a life-threating procedure. Death is a real although rare complication from legal planned parenthood type abortions. Kids that get an abortion while hiding it from their parents will also tend to hide complications or warning signs after the procedure. Parental notification makes post abortion recovery much safer.
In addition if a minor is getting an abortion then they have been raped by definition; statutory rape. A parent should be informed, even if the sex was consensual, what has happened to their child. Pregnancy isn’t the only damage that will need to be addressed after a 12-16 year old has been sexually abused.
The age of consent in my state is 16 years old. That leaves almost two years of them being a minor where they can get pregnant where it is NOT a crime. In addition, if both parties are minors, then it is also not generally a crime.
And yes, I am a parent. I would hope that I maintain a relationship with my daughter that is close enough that she’ll not feel she has to keep something like a pregnancy from me, if that ever happened.
Pregnancy is a risky prospect - riskier than abortion, actually.
And you can’t legislate a good relationship between a parent and a child. Sorry, you just can’t do it. Either you have it or you don’t. If you don’t, then legalities won’t matter.
Chris - oh, how I love being told what my “mental cage” is! how charming!
I do agree that varying concepts of personhood exist. Of course they do, because as I said before, personhood is not a scientific concept, it is a philosophical one, and as many philosophies of identity exist, so also do competing conceptions of personhood. You’re dreaming if you think science, the great shining knight, is going to come along and determine for us when exactly personhood begins, because quite simply, it cannot. personhood doesn’t have anything to do with science. Personhood is a social concept based on philosophy. Think about it: do you really think that, if science were to claim personhood starts at 8 weeks, catholics and other fundamentalist christian groups would be satisfied with that? for them, personhood begins at conception, no ifs ands or buts. because that’s their philosophy.
Also, you talk of science as if it is interest- and value-neutral. silly boy. science is an inherently social practice, and one steeped in historical, social, cultural, and personal contexts. any claim of science to have achieved “objective truth” about, well, anything, is up for immediate and rigorous examination. For more on this, check out standpoint theories of scientific knowledge production. particularly helpful is Donna Haraway.
(see, there I go again with the educating on feminist theory. damn!)
Actually, no, I do not define personhood by a criterion of sentience. I define “person” as fully developed non-parasitic human being. And no, sentience is not about a development of ego - it is about the development of sensation, primarily the sensation of pain. And I consider all sentient beings to be worthy of moral consideration, as I said, including human fetuses and animals and humans in various states of brain function. And, again, I will draw your attention to the word “consideration” - I do not believe all sentient beings are worthy of ultimate moral weight, or that we should sacrifice ourselves for them simply because they can feel pain and/or pleasure. And as I said earlier, human fetuses develop sentience around 19 weeks - after this point, moral consideration attaches, but is not ultimate, ie. in the case of harm to the pregnant woman (abortion here is self-defense). Also, I consider most reasons that a woman would give for wanting to abort the pregnancy to be valid, since she is a full person and moral agent and the developing fetus is not. And, I am ok with saying that abortion is killing a living thing, but I do not consider it to be murder, I consider it to be self-defense.
And that’s about it, really. I’m not going to change my mind on that, no matter how “open” you think I might appear to be to anti-choice rhetoric. For the record, I am not won over by arguments that appeal to fuzzy wuzzy cute little babies. I don’t particularly like babies, I don’t particularly like children, I definitely don’t want any myself, I don’t ever want to be pregnant, I don’t ever want to be a mother, I think it would be an absolute nightmare, and if I found myself tomorrow to be pregnant I would have an abortion in the blink of an eye and I wouldn’t worry about its poor little soul because I don’t believe in heaven or hell or god or the devil and I wouldn’t discuss it with anyone including the father. the most concern I would have would be for my own health.
you ask why this issue hasn’t gone away? because we live in a patriarchy. plain and simple. it’s not because science is on the side of the anti-choicers - far from it - I have no idea where you would have gotten that from, but it really doesn’t matter. the issue is about more than simply when personhood begins - it is about controlling women’s bodies and lives. that’s what makes this a feminist issue. Abortion is a personal decision, and every woman should be free to make it without interference from anyone - not the church, not the state, not her parents, not the father. It is her body, her health, her life - her choice.
As for your other comments, I believe DBB handled those quite well (although I would want to include a note on confidentiality there, that rape victims who are adults are not required to press charges when terminating a pregnancy caused by rape), and I thought you were showing yourself out anyway. Please do.