“Is the idea that the women that had to make that decision not capable?”
Precisely. My only regret I can’t “like” this more than once
The whole idea of the FWA mindset is that the proponent is of such moral superiority that he (almost always a guy) has the power to override the decisions of women concerning their bodies. That women are too “selfish” or “slutty” to handle such importing things such as their own health and families.
There’s no one on this planet making a decision that has weighed the options more or is MORE serious than a woman getting a late term abortion. That is not something that is done lightly. Its difficult, its physically painful, it requires money and planning. (In Canada, ironically enough while it is covered by our health care, it requires travel to America because no Doctors in Canada currently provide that procedure). And I can imagine they never ever get to talk about it, to anyone, because knee-jerk reactionaries lurk everydamnwhere.
And yet we don’t question tweens who have babies in the same way. Nah, we just put them on reality television shows.
Birth is a clear enough bright line as any.
Once born, they are people in a legal sense.
They have an independent and autonomous existence from any single individual human being in a way the unborn never can be.
The whole “is a fetus a person” debate is complete garbage anyway. It never addresses why abortion is legal in the first place, because a pregnant woman is the only human being who keeps a fetus alive.
Right?
Honestly I have more respect for the people that oppose all abortion than I do for the “cross this imaginary line and its now wrong” people. So yesterday was fine and today is not? Why? Because you say so? Ok…
What’s the difference between a fertilized egg; a corporation; and a woman? (Beat.) One of them isn’t considered a person in Oklahoma!
Yep, thanks chgoliz.
I think you’re mistaking the line of discussion, M. I wasn’t conflating abortion and infanticide but suggesting the utilitarian arguments used for the first would equally justify the second. Which they do.
Google Peter Singer or Julian Savulescu together with the word "infanticide.
Nevertheless, other people do connect abortion and infanticide. Refer to “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” published in the prestigious British Journal of Medical Ethics.
You were taking a pretty far out there argument and making claims that is is something fairly well regarded. Something which provides a convenient opening for stock FWA arguments, but has no relation whatsoever to the situation.
The people who usually connect abortion with infanticide are generally looking to ban abortion and use infanticide for shock effect. The two are not related for the simple reason that infanticide involves ending a life which can be cared by someone besides the parents.
To put it simply, it was always bullshit analogy, regardless of who is making it because of the basic physical differences between birth and pregnancy.
Kind of a …master race? Sounds great.
Yes. With the option to later move on to other planets.
Got a better idea how to deal with the marching morons future?
No. There’s a clear line between abortion and infanticide, which is that we legally recognize personhood at birth. That recognition of personhood is a kludge, but it’s the least wrong solution to the problem.
Isn’t the problem here laws permitting forced sterilization? A group in the late 1800s/early 1900s that labeled itself as Progressive pursued a racist and discriminatory policy of eugenics (along with anti-immigration policies, anti-miscengation policies, disenfranchisement of minorities, and a lot of other terrible policy). It was good that this was banned since it was illiberal and discriminatory just as abortion bans are, and it was good that the New Deal Democrats defeated and ended the old Progressive movement.
Those laws do rest on a shaky heap of jurisprudence, but rely on a philosophic idea of personhood, and the generalization of the Enlightenment principles of equal rights and universal equality. You don’t need to drag religion into it at all, since they weren’t established on religious ideas but legal principles. Religion is not the basis for jurisprudence in the US.
I thought ‘colonizing the moon’ was a good idea really.
Just avoid the moon nazis…
Using them to colonise the moon sounds like a great idea. Do we have to supply them with oxygen?
I don’t actually believe in the marching morons future
If you are familiar with the story you will know they never get there… oops. Though to be fair the world was seriously overpopulated by morons and anyone with an IQ was conscripted into 80+hour workweeks to keep things running.
I think it can help to look at what most people can agree on - infanticide is worse than late term abortion, which is worse than early abortion, which is worse than the morning after pill, which is worse than condoms or other contraceptives. Wherever you draw the line and say that this should not be allowed, no woman actually wants to bring a foetus to term, give birth and then kill her child. Nobody wants to have a late term abortion rather than an early one. Nobody would rather abort a foetus than stop conception from happening at all.
If it’s framed as a slippery slope argument, this is completely misrepresenting what the pressure from the different sides is actually doing. Not supporting comprehensive sex education, contraceptives and the morning after pill, then putting financial and logistical barriers in the way of access to abortion pushes everything back, making it more likely that the foetus will be at a later stage of development or maybe forcing a woman to bring a child into a very unsuitable situation. It can also put women in danger if they try risky procedures when they can’t get proper care, and can place excessive burdens on families when more choice would have allowed them to care for the children they have (or not to have them at all).
While infanticide and abandonment are very real, where I’ve seen it it’s generally been due to an extreme lack of choice and desperation on the part of the mother (or more often pressure from others). Giving women choices and power at every stage can be hard to accept for people who see abortion at any stage as killing a person, but I think it can be justified even under that perspective.
ETA: this is the one sticking point that would keep my wife from voting Bernie Sanders. I don’t think she’s alone in this and I hope that finding ways of reframing the debate will convince a number of evangelicals to abandon the “pro life” party in favour of a candidate who is a lot more representative of their views.
I’d just like to hear them justify why they think the Republican Party is the pro-life party. Sure, the GOP makes a lot of anti-abortion noise during campaigns. But once in power it’s a different story.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on an anti-abortion platform. Once elected, he turned his back on the anti-abortion crowd. Bush II - and most of his allies in Congress - promised to ban abortion. And yet when Republicans controlled the House, Senate AND White House for a couple years during his Presidency - and the Democrats could not have stopped them - they… forgot?
Instead they stopped funding for international family planning programs. Something that doesn’t affect American voters. (And which likely leads to an increase in abortions.)
Granted, now they work harder to give the appearance of doing something. Like spreading myths and lies about Planned Parenthood so that they can launch “investigations.”
The closest thing to a real exception is Bush II’s change to the Nixon-era “Right of Conscience Law.” But let’s be honest here: This was done two days before Obama took power as a dirty trick, a change Republicans would never make otherwise. A change made AFTER they lost the election. In changing it back, Obama mirrored the policies of the last five Republican presidents while they were in office. (Including the first 2920 days of Bush II’s 2922 days in office.)
Beyond grandstanding the only support the GOP give to the cause is when they think they can get away with it without the general public noticing. Usually at the state level where it gets a lot less press. Once in office they’re a whole lot less committed to the cause than during elections.
Regardless of what culture a family belongs, I’m talking about individual people here, and an individual person’s body is his/her/their domain, not yours. If your family culture permits you into someone else’s body, I think your familial culture is dysfunctional.
Well this is why I’m trying to separate the legal from the moral. I want to suggest that it might possibly still be immoral to abort a child even if it is (and should be) legal.
I take your point about cultures not having rights to encroach on a woman’s body. Indeed. Societies inevitably encroach on our minds though don’t they? Older societies might coerce a woman to abort a girl; our own is more likely to idolise health and beauty to such an extent that no coercion is necessary. If the child has Down Syndrome or has dwarfism …well we know what happens. I think that is just as dysfunctional.
Well I’m not at all convinced that a society that turns its back on the weakest and most feeble is worth preserving. But then I’m also not convinced that intelligence and education are any guarantee of anything good for a society either. Name any influential institution or organisation that you hate and you’ll find highly intelligent and educated people.
