Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, May 16, 2009
News / Sex Pro-Life Nation?
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:40 AM
So 51% of Americans now identify as "pro-life," which isn't surprising. Depending on how the question is phrased in a survey about abortion, it can be hard to give any other answer. ("Oh no, sir, I'm strongly pro-death.") But don't let the headlines alarm you too much—or the crowing from the religious right spook you. This does not mean that a majority wants to see abortion criminalized. Far from it:
Regarding abortion restrictions, the largest proportion of Americans supports legal abortion only in certain circumstances—as has been true since 1975—according to Gallup. This year the figure is 53%.At the ends of the spectrum, the number of people who think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances has risen, to 22%, and the number who think it should be legal in any circumstances has fallen, to 23%—a virtual tie. In the previous few years, people who opposed all restrictions outnumbered advocates of a total ban by a wider margin.
There's been some slippage in support for reproductive choice, and work needs to be done, and arguments need to be made, and Americans need to be persuaded. But 78% of Americans still think that abortion should be legal in all cases or almost all cases.
1
The pro life groups I have heard from, are focusing on late term abortions, because the fetus is viable at that point. So, I'm not surprised that there has been some slippage.
3
@2
I think there is a connection between the inability of some people to even acknowledge the existence other side's point and the slippage in support for choice. If this issue doesn't matter to you at all then I could understand, but if it does, you ought to make more of an effort.
I think there is a connection between the inability of some people to even acknowledge the existence other side's point and the slippage in support for choice. If this issue doesn't matter to you at all then I could understand, but if it does, you ought to make more of an effort.
4
"But 78% of Americans still think that abortion should be legal in all cases or almost all cases."
How do we know it's not "75% of Americans still think that abortion should be illegal in all or almost cases?" The link only says that 53% of Americans support abortion in some circumstances. It doesn't say what those circumstances are, whether it's abortion without restrictions until the third trimester, or rape, incest or life of the mother.
How do we know it's not "75% of Americans still think that abortion should be illegal in all or almost cases?" The link only says that 53% of Americans support abortion in some circumstances. It doesn't say what those circumstances are, whether it's abortion without restrictions until the third trimester, or rape, incest or life of the mother.
5
@2 - AWESOME!
Ya know - I know how to induce an abortion and have always had the business plan in my head that if abortion became illegal I would create the ultimate vacation package.
2 days/3 nights of spa luxury with lots of healing.
Oh...and no extra charges for coming alone. NOT based on ppdo ! Think the government might reinstate federal funding for that?
Ya know - I know how to induce an abortion and have always had the business plan in my head that if abortion became illegal I would create the ultimate vacation package.
2 days/3 nights of spa luxury with lots of healing.
Oh...and no extra charges for coming alone. NOT based on ppdo ! Think the government might reinstate federal funding for that?
7
22% don't support it at all, 53% support it "only in certain circumstances", and 23% support it in all cases. I'm not sure it's fair/accurate to lump the 53% in with the 23% in your "78% support it in all or almost all cases" number.
I don't think that "only in certain circumstances" translates to "in almost all cases." Included in that 53% number are probably a spectrum of people, from "only to save the life of the mother" to "everything but late-term abortions" (or something similarly "almost all cases"-like).
I don't think that "only in certain circumstances" translates to "in almost all cases." Included in that 53% number are probably a spectrum of people, from "only to save the life of the mother" to "everything but late-term abortions" (or something similarly "almost all cases"-like).
8
Same-Sex Marriage is a slippery slope--just like Abortion. If we let gays marry, then goats will want to marry. If we let humans have abortions, then goats will want to have abortions too. Is this what we truly want? Do we want to send out the message to goats (and, I suppose, goatfuckers) that they can prance around and have unprotected sex--because, hey!, you can just go get that unborn baby goat aborted? I think not. We need to start a PAC that fights to keep goat promiscuity to an absolute minimum.
9
@6 It would be better if he knew what the fuck he was talking about. Dan, stick to sex.
This post further proves one of my favorite Simpsons quotes:
"Anybody can make up statistics to prove a point, Kent. Forfty percent of the people know that." - Homer Simpson
This post further proves one of my favorite Simpsons quotes:
"Anybody can make up statistics to prove a point, Kent. Forfty percent of the people know that." - Homer Simpson
10
"The Gallup survey was based on telephone interviews with 1,015 adults nationwide. Its margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points."
So the headline is based on a poll whose result (pro-life at 51-49) is WITHIN the margin of error? Wonderful.
So the headline is based on a poll whose result (pro-life at 51-49) is WITHIN the margin of error? Wonderful.
12
Good to see you last night on Real Time, Dan. I was hoping you'd make it on this season.
Abortion is a horrible alternative to a desperate situation. No one wants an abortion - if for no other reason than the expense of one. Still, abortions will be performed and why anyone would prefer a woman risking death or disease in getting one belies - it seem to me - any religious ethos predicated on the value of life. Given that a fetus is indeed a life, would they prefer two deaths to one?
No, this is all about forcing one's beliefs on the people - which the Constitution is supposed to prohibit. Unfortunately, the people wanting to do the forcing aren't very concerned about law, the Constitution, or anything beyond their myopia and religious superstitions.
Abortion is a horrible alternative to a desperate situation. No one wants an abortion - if for no other reason than the expense of one. Still, abortions will be performed and why anyone would prefer a woman risking death or disease in getting one belies - it seem to me - any religious ethos predicated on the value of life. Given that a fetus is indeed a life, would they prefer two deaths to one?
No, this is all about forcing one's beliefs on the people - which the Constitution is supposed to prohibit. Unfortunately, the people wanting to do the forcing aren't very concerned about law, the Constitution, or anything beyond their myopia and religious superstitions.
13
To me, the best compromise was reached with the Supreme Court outlawing 3rd trimester abortions. Quite frankly, anyone who waits 6 months to get an abortion needs euthanasia instead.
So, I would say most people support reasonable access to post fertilization birth control...if abortion, then so be it. But we'd rather pills or some simple process that could operate not quite like abortion.
Still, 3rd trimester...right out.
1st, 2nd...majority say, ok.
So, I would say most people support reasonable access to post fertilization birth control...if abortion, then so be it. But we'd rather pills or some simple process that could operate not quite like abortion.
Still, 3rd trimester...right out.
1st, 2nd...majority say, ok.
14
One important reason for such a pro-life increment that doesn't seem to register that well with the pro-abortion side is that pro lifers are actually reproducing while their side is aborting or not having progeny at the same rate or none at all. So under those terms of course the other side will eventually win the battle and in the future will overturn Roe v Wade. It's just a matter of time that's all.
15
Loveschild, you make the assumption that all these children will be lemmings who will blindly follow their parents, and feel exactly like them in all circumstances.
There's literally millions of ex Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, etc, who were raised to believe in their parent's form of morality, and rejected it as soon as they could. For instance, I don't know anyone who went to Catholic school, besides my sister, who still is a practicing Catholic.
You need to think things through better, dear. Otherwise, it makes you look silly. Do try to be a more serious minded person.....
There's literally millions of ex Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, etc, who were raised to believe in their parent's form of morality, and rejected it as soon as they could. For instance, I don't know anyone who went to Catholic school, besides my sister, who still is a practicing Catholic.
You need to think things through better, dear. Otherwise, it makes you look silly. Do try to be a more serious minded person.....
16
I respectfully disagree with you Catalina (beautiful handle), You're assuming that most people are like you and that's not true. People specially americans like to hold on to the customs of their forebearers, that gives them a strong self of identity that they can build upon. Even in cases were those person's have stepped outside to find themselves, most usually return to their roots unless something of great tragedy (like rape or incest) has taken place. That gives the pro life movement the better hand in the battle of ideas as this latest polls shows.
17
@16, if that were true, America would be a static culture. 2009 would be much the same as 1940. I'm relieved this is not the case.
18
Catalina, it should be obvious to all by now that Loveschild quit worrying about looking silly a long time ago.
19
I'm pro-choice, but Loveschild is correct about the anti-choicers having a higher birthrate. There have been studies about the differences between anti-choice women and pro-choice women; the anti-choice women have more children. While it's true that some people will disagree with their parents, in my observation offpsring don't tend to differ much with their parents on abortion. If your parents told you when you were three years old that "abortion kills children", you're going to be scared by that since you are a child yourself. That kind of early scare tactic is hard to overcome.
20
Regarding my point @7. If you click through to the actual Gallup survey results, you can see that they break the results down further:
-22% Under any circumstances
- 15% Under most circumstances
- 37% Only in a few circumstances
- 23% In no circumstances
So, Dan, that 78% number is way off. Only 37% of Americans support abortion in "all or most circumstances."
I think it's pretty fascinating that the reason for this change in results is that Republicans have shifted to the right in the past year -- there was no change in Democrats' views, but Republicans went from 60% Pro-Life to 70% Pro-Life in one year. There was a similar shift when they cut it by ideology -- Conservatives and moderates are more pro-life now, and Liberals are the same. I wonder why that is? Is this a reaction to Obama winning the election (Republicans/Conservatives feel like they are under attack so need to get more in line with the party positions? But, what about the Moderates?).
Also, the historical data is really interesting too. The pro-choice/pro-life split has been pretty stable at about 48% / 44% for the past 11 years, and in one year it changed to 42% / 51%. That's pretty dramatic... What is going on here? I think this topic is deserving of a more in depth post...
-22% Under any circumstances
- 15% Under most circumstances
- 37% Only in a few circumstances
- 23% In no circumstances
So, Dan, that 78% number is way off. Only 37% of Americans support abortion in "all or most circumstances."
I think it's pretty fascinating that the reason for this change in results is that Republicans have shifted to the right in the past year -- there was no change in Democrats' views, but Republicans went from 60% Pro-Life to 70% Pro-Life in one year. There was a similar shift when they cut it by ideology -- Conservatives and moderates are more pro-life now, and Liberals are the same. I wonder why that is? Is this a reaction to Obama winning the election (Republicans/Conservatives feel like they are under attack so need to get more in line with the party positions? But, what about the Moderates?).
Also, the historical data is really interesting too. The pro-choice/pro-life split has been pretty stable at about 48% / 44% for the past 11 years, and in one year it changed to 42% / 51%. That's pretty dramatic... What is going on here? I think this topic is deserving of a more in depth post...
21
@20, this is completely anecdotal-based conjecture on my part, but I wonder if the shift is at least partially related to the fact that it’s been a while since dangerous back alley abortions were somewhat common. I’ve known diehard fundamentalists who were pro-choice because they knew someone who died from a botched illegal abortion. The further we drift from seeing the consequences of criminalized abortion, the more likely we are to forget (or to simply see them as a vague abstraction).
22
@16 - I'm gonna disagree, with gay marriage as the example. The anti-gay marriage crowd tends to be older people. Their kids, even those with a religious upbringing, tend to not give a hoot if gays get married. It's a generational thing.
I think abortion is a bit of a generational thing too. There was quite a laissez-faire attitude towards abortion in the 1970's. These days, I think it is taken more seriously, even among people who are pro-choice.
I also think that abortion has about a zero chance of being made illegal again. It's a cheap way for the Republicans to pick up the religious vote at campaign time, but fiscal conservatives (i.e. the real base of the Party) probably follow the same trends as the general population on the issue. In my opinion, it's a fringe issue that has 78% support.
I think abortion is a bit of a generational thing too. There was quite a laissez-faire attitude towards abortion in the 1970's. These days, I think it is taken more seriously, even among people who are pro-choice.
I also think that abortion has about a zero chance of being made illegal again. It's a cheap way for the Republicans to pick up the religious vote at campaign time, but fiscal conservatives (i.e. the real base of the Party) probably follow the same trends as the general population on the issue. In my opinion, it's a fringe issue that has 78% support.
23
@20 - As usual, the folks over at FiveThirtyEight have done a fine job of dissecting the poll and rationally discussing this issue.
24
@14
loveschild, i sincerely hope that you understand why people in favour of legal abortion do not refers to themselves as "pro-abortion." as far as i am aware, there is no PRO-abortion side, rather pro-CHOICE. have you ever met anyone who is PRO-abortion? of all the women i've known who have had or considered an abortion, it was always as a last resort, and those who chose to abort did so at great pain - to their bodies, hearts and psyches.
in future, could you kindly refrain from attempting to discredit those who hold views contrary to your own by deliberately misrepresenting them? it is a poor tactic, and does no good to either side of an argument.
these links are to two of the better documentaries i've seen on the subject. hooray for pbs!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…
loveschild, i sincerely hope that you understand why people in favour of legal abortion do not refers to themselves as "pro-abortion." as far as i am aware, there is no PRO-abortion side, rather pro-CHOICE. have you ever met anyone who is PRO-abortion? of all the women i've known who have had or considered an abortion, it was always as a last resort, and those who chose to abort did so at great pain - to their bodies, hearts and psyches.
in future, could you kindly refrain from attempting to discredit those who hold views contrary to your own by deliberately misrepresenting them? it is a poor tactic, and does no good to either side of an argument.
these links are to two of the better documentaries i've seen on the subject. hooray for pbs!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…
25
"Pro life" has got to be the most successful "branding" or "framing" ever. Even the media uses that term now. "Choice" isn't as strong, and frankly it's incoherent and just a weak word, we're not generically or inherently for choice. I may choose to murder a 25 year old or emit lots of carbon footprint, but gee, my rights to "choice" won't allow me to do that if we have rules agin' it. Maybe "freedom of family" should be the words? The freedom to build your own family with whom you want if you want, when you want etc. If we return to banning abortion they're not taking away a vague abstraction like your "choice" they're messing with your whole life and your family relations. Forcing a family on you you don't want!
Also freedom of family ties in with freedom of conscience and freedom to marry (the same sex), etc.
And why let the right wing seize and own the whole "family" thing ? It's bad enough we let them own the whole "national security" thing.
Just an idea.
Also freedom of family ties in with freedom of conscience and freedom to marry (the same sex), etc.
And why let the right wing seize and own the whole "family" thing ? It's bad enough we let them own the whole "national security" thing.
Just an idea.
26
One point FiveThirtyEight mentions, is that these polls tried to balance Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. Given that the Republicans became a much smaller party (and much more conservative) did they oversample the 20% of the population still willing to self-identify as Republican?
28
"PRO LIFE" my ass!!! Conservatives and Christianists are moralistic hypocrites - and no more so than on this issue. The only life they are pro about is the unborn, and their fellow affluent, Bible-beating brethren. As a rule, they support the death penalty, they support war, they support torture. They would rather young gay boys and girls kill themselves than provide safe schools for "homosexuals". They refuse to provide legal, financial, and social protections for children raised by gay parents. They castigate and turn their backs on the poor, starving, and uninsured while beating their breast about how God has smiled on them because they are so moral and principled.
30
The right wing is anti-abortion only in the abstract; when it comes down to their own pregnancies, they're every bit as likely to have one....and then go out and protest the availability of abortion.
Statistics: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabo…
and Anecdotal: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-ta…
It's important to stress that HALF of all U.S. women have an abortion at some point in their lives. It's ridiculous to have a discussion on the legality of abortion, unless you're really proposing to put 75 million women in prison for murder.
Statistics: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabo…
and Anecdotal: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-ta…
It's important to stress that HALF of all U.S. women have an abortion at some point in their lives. It's ridiculous to have a discussion on the legality of abortion, unless you're really proposing to put 75 million women in prison for murder.
31
@2: If you don't agree with slavery, don't own one.
Worst. Argument. Ever.
There are people out there who honestly believe that abortion is murder. Simply telling someone not to murder if they disagree with murder is a piss-poor argument.
"I think murder is wrong but hey whatever floats your boat."
Worst. Argument. Ever.
There are people out there who honestly believe that abortion is murder. Simply telling someone not to murder if they disagree with murder is a piss-poor argument.
"I think murder is wrong but hey whatever floats your boat."
33
"Some Choices are Evil. "
Yes, like having to follow through on some bad sex because a bunch of asshole prudes decided that the ball of cells in your twat are more important than you are. Until that ball of cells is pushed out that same twat, of course - when they'll commence to bitching about how they don't want to pay anything towards its welfare or education.
The thing is, abortion will always be around, no matter what the naive psychopaths of the "pro-life" movement say. I'd stick a knitting needle up me myself before having to deal with another mouth to feed, or a bunch of judgemental assholes telling me how to raise my unwanted brat.
Yes, like having to follow through on some bad sex because a bunch of asshole prudes decided that the ball of cells in your twat are more important than you are. Until that ball of cells is pushed out that same twat, of course - when they'll commence to bitching about how they don't want to pay anything towards its welfare or education.
The thing is, abortion will always be around, no matter what the naive psychopaths of the "pro-life" movement say. I'd stick a knitting needle up me myself before having to deal with another mouth to feed, or a bunch of judgemental assholes telling me how to raise my unwanted brat.
34
Frankly, I don't care if gay individuals get hitched or not. Just don't trample on tradition, religion, or the original definition, and try calling it marriage. Call it anything else you like. It's starting to look to me as if they are emphatically trying to call it marriage ONLY to call more attention to their business.
If the rational they express of hospital visitation a REAL issue, they could more easily solve that with a living will or power of attorney.
So, to all affected parties out there. Hook-up, get hitched, become an LLC, most don't really care until you attempt to change the generational definition of marriage.
If the rational they express of hospital visitation a REAL issue, they could more easily solve that with a living will or power of attorney.
So, to all affected parties out there. Hook-up, get hitched, become an LLC, most don't really care until you attempt to change the generational definition of marriage.
36
Abortion,
The only rational option is to leave the choice to the individual effected the most; the pregnant female. A mother who intended to get pregnant, by choice, will not be the one you have to worry about aborting. The law that most would agree with is one that limits abortions to women using it as a contraceptive device with multiple abortions.
Let's face it, it's not murder unless the effected, realizes the difference. Without being exposed to the world, there would be NO REAL concept of life.
It looks to me like the most useful place to exude all this energy is by solving the biggest problems first. For example: Lets try getting all of the children already up for adoption in good loving homes FIRST.
The only rational option is to leave the choice to the individual effected the most; the pregnant female. A mother who intended to get pregnant, by choice, will not be the one you have to worry about aborting. The law that most would agree with is one that limits abortions to women using it as a contraceptive device with multiple abortions.
Let's face it, it's not murder unless the effected, realizes the difference. Without being exposed to the world, there would be NO REAL concept of life.
It looks to me like the most useful place to exude all this energy is by solving the biggest problems first. For example: Lets try getting all of the children already up for adoption in good loving homes FIRST.
37
George Carlin said it best - and please forgive me for paraphrasing ...
"Did you ever notice that the same people who are against abortion are in favor of the death penalty? Right to life? Bullshit! They aren't interested in protecting anybody's right to life - they're only interested in protecting THEIR right to decide who should live and who should die."
"Did you ever notice that the same people who are against abortion are in favor of the death penalty? Right to life? Bullshit! They aren't interested in protecting anybody's right to life - they're only interested in protecting THEIR right to decide who should live and who should die."
38
(To #30, or anyone:) Sorry, but the Guttmacher Institute is missing a citation for the "half of all women will have an abortion" statistic. Do you happen to have a citation? I'm not trying to be contentious; I ask because this statistic once made its way to the Planned Parenthood website describing abortion, but it turns out, upon reading the fine print, that they were including 'spontaneous abortion' - i.e. miscarriage - in this statistic (in other words, it is just true that half of all women either miscarry or have an abortion during their lifetime - which, needless to say, hardly frames the debate neutrally). I was wondering whether there is actual support for this claim, or whether it's just one of those popular myths that the Guttmacher Institute happened to pick up. Thanks.
39
Also, #30, the statistics you cite pretty directly contradict the claim you make.
Your claim: "The right wing is anti-abortion only in the abstract; when it comes down to their own pregnancies, they're every bit as likely to have one....and then go out and protest the availability of abortion."
The abstract of the article: "Results of a 1994-1995 national survey of 9,985 abortion patients reveal that women who live with a partner outside marriage or have no religious identification are 3.5-4.0 times as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion..Catholics are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, while Protestants are only 69% as likely and Evangelical or born-again Christians are only 39% as likely."
Your claim: "The right wing is anti-abortion only in the abstract; when it comes down to their own pregnancies, they're every bit as likely to have one....and then go out and protest the availability of abortion."
The abstract of the article: "Results of a 1994-1995 national survey of 9,985 abortion patients reveal that women who live with a partner outside marriage or have no religious identification are 3.5-4.0 times as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion..Catholics are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, while Protestants are only 69% as likely and Evangelical or born-again Christians are only 39% as likely."
40
Is there a way to round up religious right extremist whackos and banish them to a desert island, away from the rest of the world?
Oh--I KNOW!!! Take all their ill-gottem MONEY away!! Yeah!!
That'd hit 'em in the ass where they live.
Oh--I KNOW!!! Take all their ill-gottem MONEY away!! Yeah!!
That'd hit 'em in the ass where they live.
41
@25 et al: Pro-choicers have made this argument from the beginning, that anti-choice activists scored a huge point when they branded themselves "pro-life", and strung together two positive words to describe their short-sighted, meddling cause. (This is why "pro-choice" was chosen over, say, "pro-abortion.") It is very important that those who support choice should never use the term "pro-life." When I was growing up in the 70s it was common to hear "anti-abortionist activists" on the news and at rallys or whatever, and now everyone—even the media—refers to them as pro-life.
As Dan pointed out in the post, we're ALL pro-life, no one is ANTI-life! It just that some of us are pro-choice and some are anti-choice, or anti-abortion. So everyone: Use the term "anti-choice activists" or "anti-abortion activitsts" and stop calling these people "pro-life".
As Dan pointed out in the post, we're ALL pro-life, no one is ANTI-life! It just that some of us are pro-choice and some are anti-choice, or anti-abortion. So everyone: Use the term "anti-choice activists" or "anti-abortion activitsts" and stop calling these people "pro-life".
42
@30: When I was in college, there was a male classmate who had a problem with my pro-choice activism. He said that abortion enables teenage girls to go have backseat sex with different guys every weekend. A month later, he came to me terrified; his own teenage girlfriend was pregnant and they'd decided to get an abortion. He wanted information about clinics and so on. I refrained from smugly pointing out his about-face, but I sure was tempted.
43
Funny how so many people who style themselves "pro-life" tend to also be against things like contraception and comprehensive sex-ed -- you know, things that lead to lower abortion rates. One almost doubts their motives...
44
@36:
But, for all intents and purposes it IS marriage: it's a recognition of a legal contract entered into by two individuals, and it grants same-sex couples all of the same rights, privileges, responsibilities and obligations that it does to straight couples. The "alternatives" you cite all have very specific legal definitions that fall short of marriage, which is why no one is suggesting them in its stead, because they do not represent the legal state GLBT's wish to enter into to recognize their relationship. They want MARRIAGE, and all that implies, and, despite the incredibly weak arguments made by the anti-marriage equality side (such as the one cited in the OP), there's not going to be any quantifiable difference between their state of matrimony and a straight couple's.
To quote William James: "A difference that makes no difference IS no difference".
But, for all intents and purposes it IS marriage: it's a recognition of a legal contract entered into by two individuals, and it grants same-sex couples all of the same rights, privileges, responsibilities and obligations that it does to straight couples. The "alternatives" you cite all have very specific legal definitions that fall short of marriage, which is why no one is suggesting them in its stead, because they do not represent the legal state GLBT's wish to enter into to recognize their relationship. They want MARRIAGE, and all that implies, and, despite the incredibly weak arguments made by the anti-marriage equality side (such as the one cited in the OP), there's not going to be any quantifiable difference between their state of matrimony and a straight couple's.
To quote William James: "A difference that makes no difference IS no difference".
45
There are a plenty number of contraceptive options available in Europe that aren't in the US, thanks to a conservative FDA dragging its feet (like it did on Plan B).
And it wouldn't take much refinement to develop our ectogenesis tanks (that we use, sometimes, to gestate livestock feti) so that they are suitable for human gestation. After that (and a the development of a clean transfer procedure) we'd never have to perform an abortion again.
But the Right-To-Life movement is conspicuously silent in regards to any option other than criminalization drugs and medical procedures. And they seem contrary to provide relief, assistance or any other incentive to keep or raise a child once it escapes the womb.
To borrow a quote from past SLOG discussions (apologies for missing credit to the original poster) these people believe the needs of hypothetical children outweigh the needs of actual children here on Earth...After all, hypothetical children are so much better in so many ways. They are angelic Hummelware fantasies, unchanging, fragile, pure, to be sheltered in a dusty curio cabinet where they can be mooned over as consistently adorable possessions that mirror a world view of similar unchanging simplicity.
Which is the role that (somebody else's) unborn child plays in this paradigm.
And it wouldn't take much refinement to develop our ectogenesis tanks (that we use, sometimes, to gestate livestock feti) so that they are suitable for human gestation. After that (and a the development of a clean transfer procedure) we'd never have to perform an abortion again.
But the Right-To-Life movement is conspicuously silent in regards to any option other than criminalization drugs and medical procedures. And they seem contrary to provide relief, assistance or any other incentive to keep or raise a child once it escapes the womb.
To borrow a quote from past SLOG discussions (apologies for missing credit to the original poster) these people believe the needs of hypothetical children outweigh the needs of actual children here on Earth...After all, hypothetical children are so much better in so many ways. They are angelic Hummelware fantasies, unchanging, fragile, pure, to be sheltered in a dusty curio cabinet where they can be mooned over as consistently adorable possessions that mirror a world view of similar unchanging simplicity.
Which is the role that (somebody else's) unborn child plays in this paradigm.
46
41 "As Dan pointed out in the post, we're ALL pro-life, no one is ANTI-life!"
BS
Abortion supporters are only "pro-life" if it is their life at stake;
if we are talking about a baby (their own or anyone else's) they are PRO-DEATH.
BS
Abortion supporters are only "pro-life" if it is their life at stake;
if we are talking about a baby (their own or anyone else's) they are PRO-DEATH.
47
@46, like many people, I'm pro-choice without being at risk for accidental pregnancy. Whether abortion is legal or not doesn't directly affect me in any way. However, I do have the capacity for empathy and I don't view the world in over-simplistic abstractions.
48
47 Do you have the capacity for empathy for a tiny human who is helpless and innocent? Or are you "pro-death" there?
49
Through his proabortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that it is driving others in the opposite direction. The more aggressively pro-abortion the "pro-choice" side is, the more the public--even those who do not necessarily endorse an extreme antiabortion position--will understand "choice" as a synonym for abortion and thus reject the label.
50
@48, I generally empathize with those who share the capacity to feel. Consequently, I'm not certain I can empathize with you, but I'm doing my best.
And, yes, that was an oversimplified abstraction on your part: thanks for double-checking.
And, yes, that was an oversimplified abstraction on your part: thanks for double-checking.
52
47
50
Empathize with this:
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/wo…
Oh, and don't forget to multiply it by 800,000 every year...
50
Empathize with this:
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/wo…
Oh, and don't forget to multiply it by 800,000 every year...
53
Oh dear.... the anti-abortion people with their graphic pictures and dependence on props. Whatever would they do without them?
Actually, I think it's their overwrought hysteria and tendency towards this sort of cheap sensationalism that finally convinced me to be pro-choice. That, and the fact that 90% of the anti-abortion people out there only care about the fetus: Once the actual baby is born, they immediately start bitching about how they don't want to pay for the child's healthcare or education.
Actually, I think it's their overwrought hysteria and tendency towards this sort of cheap sensationalism that finally convinced me to be pro-choice. That, and the fact that 90% of the anti-abortion people out there only care about the fetus: Once the actual baby is born, they immediately start bitching about how they don't want to pay for the child's healthcare or education.
54
53
would you like to see Obama release the abuse pictures?
or would that sort of overwrought hysteria and cheap sensationalism convince you to be pro-torture?
would you like to see Obama release the abuse pictures?
or would that sort of overwrought hysteria and cheap sensationalism convince you to be pro-torture?
55
@53
I'm with you.
I used to be pro-life.
But most of those people dress really tacky.
And are way too ernest, no wry ironic detatchment at all.
So now I'm OK with the slaughter of a million babies a year.
Style is very important to me.
I'm with you.
I used to be pro-life.
But most of those people dress really tacky.
And are way too ernest, no wry ironic detatchment at all.
So now I'm OK with the slaughter of a million babies a year.
Style is very important to me.
56
Oh yes, A million babies are slaughtered each year, blah blah blah.....
Answer me this, oh my dear little neurotic attention whore: Would you be willing to feed, educate and otherwise provide for these children? Would you be willing to provide room, board and adequate pre-natal care for the women carrying these pregnancies?
I didn't think so. After all, all your disposable income goes to self-righteous signage, baby dolls and ketchup. Oh, and to donations for GOP candidates who play you for the saps you are (They'll never outlaw abortion, you know, because it's too good a vote getter. Why kill the goose who lays the golden egg?)
But even if you did have the kind of money that serious-minded people are capable of making, it still wouldn't be your call because it's not your life.
But it's hard for a person to grasp that concept when they don't have a life themselves, isn't it?
Answer me this, oh my dear little neurotic attention whore: Would you be willing to feed, educate and otherwise provide for these children? Would you be willing to provide room, board and adequate pre-natal care for the women carrying these pregnancies?
I didn't think so. After all, all your disposable income goes to self-righteous signage, baby dolls and ketchup. Oh, and to donations for GOP candidates who play you for the saps you are (They'll never outlaw abortion, you know, because it's too good a vote getter. Why kill the goose who lays the golden egg?)
But even if you did have the kind of money that serious-minded people are capable of making, it still wouldn't be your call because it's not your life.
But it's hard for a person to grasp that concept when they don't have a life themselves, isn't it?
57
@ 53, 56
I agree, I’d have a great deal of respect for the anti-abortion movement if its emphasis was on children rather than cheap shock tactics and blustery self-righteousness. I also imagine I wouldn’t be the only one to become sympathetic to their cause if they behaved constructively. Although there are a certain number of people drawn to the current movement for its drama and the free license to ride a high horse (windmill not included), a more concrete, compassionate approach would attract a much broader base of support. Very few would argue that the foster care system doesn’t need improvement, and if the movement diverted its passion and persistence in that direction, imagine what they could accomplish.
I agree, I’d have a great deal of respect for the anti-abortion movement if its emphasis was on children rather than cheap shock tactics and blustery self-righteousness. I also imagine I wouldn’t be the only one to become sympathetic to their cause if they behaved constructively. Although there are a certain number of people drawn to the current movement for its drama and the free license to ride a high horse (windmill not included), a more concrete, compassionate approach would attract a much broader base of support. Very few would argue that the foster care system doesn’t need improvement, and if the movement diverted its passion and persistence in that direction, imagine what they could accomplish.
58
56
You don't dispute that a million babies are slaughtered each year, blah blah blah...
You just don't care.
That I do find hard to grasp.
You don't dispute that a million babies are slaughtered each year, blah blah blah...
You just don't care.
That I do find hard to grasp.
59
57
I suspect few in the pro-life movement lose much sleep wondering how to earn the respect and sympathy of the coldhearted killer slice of the political demographic.
Sorry if the prospect of saving a million innocent lives a year is not concrete and compassionate enough for you.
I suspect few in the pro-life movement lose much sleep wondering how to earn the respect and sympathy of the coldhearted killer slice of the political demographic.
Sorry if the prospect of saving a million innocent lives a year is not concrete and compassionate enough for you.
60
Ok, I've read through as many as I can take. But the pro-lifers really live in a black and white world. It drives me to tearns when Obama defends the right to choice, because Americans have proven to be horrible at empathy and horrible at accepting other peoples social view.
And right to lifers do incredibly shitty research.
For starters, the BABY DOESN'T EXIST YET. Developing a child is not like a fucking light switch. Read a book! Developmental biology is a very fascinating and complicated subject (full of graphic and horrible pictures) but incredibly beautiful nonetheless in how they develop. What I found really interesting is what parts of the embryo eventually become the baby and much of it (surprisingly more than you think) is destined to become afterbirth. Uhm, should we save that too? Funny, don't animals normally eat the afterbirth, I would like to see a right to lifer try that one.
The whole point of being prochoice (and funny, most core fiscal conservatives I find are pro-choice, and fundamentalists bight on to it). Is that overpopulation and poverty are real issues. And purists are really missing the point ... you can go on and on. It really becomes a gray and personal issue, but as such gray and personal issues are really hard to understand for many people.
And right to lifers do incredibly shitty research.
For starters, the BABY DOESN'T EXIST YET. Developing a child is not like a fucking light switch. Read a book! Developmental biology is a very fascinating and complicated subject (full of graphic and horrible pictures) but incredibly beautiful nonetheless in how they develop. What I found really interesting is what parts of the embryo eventually become the baby and much of it (surprisingly more than you think) is destined to become afterbirth. Uhm, should we save that too? Funny, don't animals normally eat the afterbirth, I would like to see a right to lifer try that one.
The whole point of being prochoice (and funny, most core fiscal conservatives I find are pro-choice, and fundamentalists bight on to it). Is that overpopulation and poverty are real issues. And purists are really missing the point ... you can go on and on. It really becomes a gray and personal issue, but as such gray and personal issues are really hard to understand for many people.
62
The fact that so many people in this country obsesses over the quantity of life rather than quality of it really makes me not to want to have children at all!
63
"You just don't care.
That I do find hard to grasp"
You're right. I don't care. What's so hard to grasp about it?
That I do find hard to grasp"
You're right. I don't care. What's so hard to grasp about it?
64
@ 63 - I think it's interesting that none of the anti-choicers you were arguing with would respond to your questions about raising all the kids that are aborted. They just kept circling back to calling you a killer and a bad person. That's really all they have. It's always easier to demonize someone than to speak to them like an adult, I guess...
68
Having seen the rare blacksite torture footage and the occasional war carnage photos that seep back through the underground internet channels, photos of abortions do nothing but piss me off nowadays. The argument is "this is gross, thus you shouldn't support it." And yet, anti-abortion and pro-war seem to run in tightly intersecting circles.
Regarding empathy (or lack thereof) for the tiny human who is helpless and innocent, as former tri-state points out, these are potential humans, statistically nonviable until eighteen weeks (i.e. seventy percent of them will fail to implant or will detach on their own) and unthinking and unfeeling until 22 weeks (i.e. no neurological activity), so the rights of these little bundles of tissue are hardly comparable to those of the full human beings that harbor them
If a million babies are slaughtered each year was really your concern, you'd have more awareness of the sanctions our country regularly places on nations of whose regimes we disapprove, knowing full well the multi-zeroed death tolls in innocent civilian lives they manifest. But hey, those are the lives of real people who speak in strange tongues, and worship strange, alien gods, not our ideal children we can imagine will be perfect in any way.
You want to walk the walk, adopt an infant crack-addict, or two or three of the countless in foster care that no family seems to want. You want to do something about it, improve our birth-control options, and discontinue the attitude that sex is strictly for making babies, or that childcare responsibilities are punishment for unauthorized sex.
Regarding empathy (or lack thereof) for the tiny human who is helpless and innocent, as former tri-state points out, these are potential humans, statistically nonviable until eighteen weeks (i.e. seventy percent of them will fail to implant or will detach on their own) and unthinking and unfeeling until 22 weeks (i.e. no neurological activity), so the rights of these little bundles of tissue are hardly comparable to those of the full human beings that harbor them
If a million babies are slaughtered each year was really your concern, you'd have more awareness of the sanctions our country regularly places on nations of whose regimes we disapprove, knowing full well the multi-zeroed death tolls in innocent civilian lives they manifest. But hey, those are the lives of real people who speak in strange tongues, and worship strange, alien gods, not our ideal children we can imagine will be perfect in any way.
You want to walk the walk, adopt an infant crack-addict, or two or three of the countless in foster care that no family seems to want. You want to do something about it, improve our birth-control options, and discontinue the attitude that sex is strictly for making babies, or that childcare responsibilities are punishment for unauthorized sex.
69
68
what species are these potential humans?
the argument is NOT "this is gross, thus you shouldn't support it."
the argument is "these are humans, thus you shouldn't kill them."
perhaps too much rare blacksite torture footage and war carnage photo seepage has dulled your senses.
what species are these potential humans?
the argument is NOT "this is gross, thus you shouldn't support it."
the argument is "these are humans, thus you shouldn't kill them."
perhaps too much rare blacksite torture footage and war carnage photo seepage has dulled your senses.
71
@69
Look up blastogenesis. I remember staring at this thing for hours, what is termed the blastocycst and trying to figure out what is what.
And then as the course went on, how little of it actually became a human being and how disappointed I was.
I would acuse you of not being appreciative of life, and what a glorious machine it is. My professor coined the term, the perfect parasite. It kind of was ...
I mean, there are so many indescribable studies based on the phenomina that is observed in development. Many of the genes and biological phenomina used in development turn themselves back on to sustain cancer cells!
Life is for the living. And Seriously, the this is ugly so it's obviously evil argument ... has no bearing in reality.
Look up blastogenesis. I remember staring at this thing for hours, what is termed the blastocycst and trying to figure out what is what.
And then as the course went on, how little of it actually became a human being and how disappointed I was.
I would acuse you of not being appreciative of life, and what a glorious machine it is. My professor coined the term, the perfect parasite. It kind of was ...
I mean, there are so many indescribable studies based on the phenomina that is observed in development. Many of the genes and biological phenomina used in development turn themselves back on to sustain cancer cells!
Life is for the living. And Seriously, the this is ugly so it's obviously evil argument ... has no bearing in reality.
72
hmmm ...
Here some other fundamnentalisty inconvenient natural oddities.
Hamster mother eats her young.
Gay penguins.
Afterbirth
Cancer/tumors
trisomy
natural genetic "engineering" of plants
Anyone else got some?
Here some other fundamnentalisty inconvenient natural oddities.
Hamster mother eats her young.
Gay penguins.
Afterbirth
Cancer/tumors
trisomy
natural genetic "engineering" of plants
Anyone else got some?
74
A million babies aborted a year? I, for one, am going to go home relieved and drink a tall cold one to the one million skid-marks who will never get the chance to sully the underpants of society.
76
uhm ... I don't what to tell you?
I can lay out several mammalian fetuses in front of you and I bet you wouldn't be able to tell a human from zebra at certain stages of development.
You accuse me of not appreciating life, and I say you aren't giving life enough credit.
As for what the species is? I suppose you just have to wait and see ... Or let's ask that crack baby who just jacked your car stereo. I mean, his mother had so many oportunities to raise a child right.
Loook, Nobody LIKES abortions. And that's what is wrong with this debate, and where simpletons just go about and say. Well if they suck so much, let's just make them illegal. (That makes the problem worse ... then lets see what happens when your 16 year old daughter gets knocked up. Then we realize how gray the human experience truely is) There is nothing that makes you feel more failed as a human being than being faced with an unwanted family. Unfortunately, I firmly believe it costs society and our planet so much more to have these children under statistically unfavorable circumstances. They don't all grow up to become Obama, and parents should be left with the option of having children that are loved and well provided for.
Another aside. Catholics in the middle ages used to beleive that the soul did not inhabit the developing child until after the third embryo. The beleif of when life begins is always changing, and depends on what is medically possible and politically convenient.
I can lay out several mammalian fetuses in front of you and I bet you wouldn't be able to tell a human from zebra at certain stages of development.
You accuse me of not appreciating life, and I say you aren't giving life enough credit.
As for what the species is? I suppose you just have to wait and see ... Or let's ask that crack baby who just jacked your car stereo. I mean, his mother had so many oportunities to raise a child right.
Loook, Nobody LIKES abortions. And that's what is wrong with this debate, and where simpletons just go about and say. Well if they suck so much, let's just make them illegal. (That makes the problem worse ... then lets see what happens when your 16 year old daughter gets knocked up. Then we realize how gray the human experience truely is) There is nothing that makes you feel more failed as a human being than being faced with an unwanted family. Unfortunately, I firmly believe it costs society and our planet so much more to have these children under statistically unfavorable circumstances. They don't all grow up to become Obama, and parents should be left with the option of having children that are loved and well provided for.
Another aside. Catholics in the middle ages used to beleive that the soul did not inhabit the developing child until after the third embryo. The beleif of when life begins is always changing, and depends on what is medically possible and politically convenient.
77
sorry, third trimester ... because the first two embryos were soulless .... allergies are getting the better of me
79
@71 Of what species is the cancer in your brain? Of what species is your failed kidney? Of what species are your nocturnally emitted spermatozoa or your monthly sloughed-off ova?
The question you're begging (whether or not you're trying) is that of when personhood should begin, of which I inferred two options which are neither conception (the typical anti-abortion-access opinion) or birth (the radical pro-abortion-access opinion). Interestingly, the Torah suggests personhood begins thirty days after childbirth, which is outside this window completely. (Contemporary Judaism defines personhood at birth, halfway out of the birth canal.)
My opinion is the latter of the two I mentioned before, namely the beginning of higher-function neurological activity, since we rely on beating-heart cadavers (people whose organs are working but are brain dead) for organ transplants, it makes sense to define the beginning of life the same way that we define the end of it, by higher-brain neurological activity. That's 26 weeks into pregnancy. (Thanks to religioustolerance.org for the info. See the link below.)
But a lot of abortion-access opponents like to speak freely of humanity and life as if these buzzwords (or anything that could be remotely defined by them) were sacred, seldom acknowledging what they mean in scientifically precise terms.
So, unless you worship your fingernail trimmings as much as human life as someone else's fetus, I suggest you dispense with the rhetoric, and start regarding women as lives worthy of preservation, even at the expense of their not-quite-yet children.
In fact, unless you are willing to define unlawful combatants as a greater notion of human life, as someone else's fetus, I suggest you shut up. The argument these are humans, thus you shouldn't kill them applies far more strongly to other arenas in this wide world, largely ignored by the conservative anti-abortion-access right, and Abrahamic tradition (as do most) dictates the humans that are presently alive are a greater priority over those that aren't, and that those of majority prove a greater concern than those that are still children. You want to save lives, stop dropping bombs.
For those who care to get educated: http://www.religioustolerance.org/aborti…
More...
The question you're begging (whether or not you're trying) is that of when personhood should begin, of which I inferred two options which are neither conception (the typical anti-abortion-access opinion) or birth (the radical pro-abortion-access opinion). Interestingly, the Torah suggests personhood begins thirty days after childbirth, which is outside this window completely. (Contemporary Judaism defines personhood at birth, halfway out of the birth canal.)
My opinion is the latter of the two I mentioned before, namely the beginning of higher-function neurological activity, since we rely on beating-heart cadavers (people whose organs are working but are brain dead) for organ transplants, it makes sense to define the beginning of life the same way that we define the end of it, by higher-brain neurological activity. That's 26 weeks into pregnancy. (Thanks to religioustolerance.org for the info. See the link below.)
But a lot of abortion-access opponents like to speak freely of humanity and life as if these buzzwords (or anything that could be remotely defined by them) were sacred, seldom acknowledging what they mean in scientifically precise terms.
So, unless you worship your fingernail trimmings as much as human life as someone else's fetus, I suggest you dispense with the rhetoric, and start regarding women as lives worthy of preservation, even at the expense of their not-quite-yet children.
In fact, unless you are willing to define unlawful combatants as a greater notion of human life, as someone else's fetus, I suggest you shut up. The argument these are humans, thus you shouldn't kill them applies far more strongly to other arenas in this wide world, largely ignored by the conservative anti-abortion-access right, and Abrahamic tradition (as do most) dictates the humans that are presently alive are a greater priority over those that aren't, and that those of majority prove a greater concern than those that are still children. You want to save lives, stop dropping bombs.
For those who care to get educated: http://www.religioustolerance.org/aborti…
80
Uriel-238 .... I think we are on the same page. I guess in my opinion, I just think that prior to research, the beginning of life was left up to surprisingly unstagnant dogma and whatever was necessary for society. Enter science, and now we have more and more questions of how life develops than we have answers (at least in my opinion). I thought it was cool!
So perhaps some of us looked toward developmental biology as a means to answer it for us, and now we are back to square one, dogma and what is necessary for society.
So perhaps some of us looked toward developmental biology as a means to answer it for us, and now we are back to square one, dogma and what is necessary for society.
81
79
no
I'm not asking when 'personhood' begins.
And I don't care what the Torah or Bible say.
It is a biology question.
When does Human Life begin.
When is a new member of the species created.
Personhood is a subjective moving target.
Biological Life is an objective stationary target.
Human Life begins at conception.
What to do about that is a question for legislators and judges and doctors and clergy.
But whatever they decide has to be judged against the cold unblinking eye of Science.
Abortion kills a human life.
You may not care, or you may care deeply.
That is your choice.
But you do not have the choice to make up the Science;
to roll your eyes heavenward and sigh; "we just don't know when 'Life' begins".
Science calls BullShit.
Abortion kills a human life.
no
I'm not asking when 'personhood' begins.
And I don't care what the Torah or Bible say.
It is a biology question.
When does Human Life begin.
When is a new member of the species created.
Personhood is a subjective moving target.
Biological Life is an objective stationary target.
Human Life begins at conception.
What to do about that is a question for legislators and judges and doctors and clergy.
But whatever they decide has to be judged against the cold unblinking eye of Science.
Abortion kills a human life.
You may not care, or you may care deeply.
That is your choice.
But you do not have the choice to make up the Science;
to roll your eyes heavenward and sigh; "we just don't know when 'Life' begins".
Science calls BullShit.
Abortion kills a human life.
82
@ 80, Trying to swap out the term human life for personhood doesn't change the nature of the question. This sounds like some sort of semantics shell game.
Saying biological Life is an objective stationary target is rather silly since it's all biological life, before conception, during and after. The concept of Personhood defines which particular wad of biological human life has rights and when. And as subjective as it may be, personhood is the concept batted about by academic legal scholars, whether or not you deign to approve of it.
So perhaps you can tell me why human life starts at a zygote's conception, not before, yet still during the threshold when the zygote has a 70% chance of failing to implant, or of detaching and miscarrying on its own. Why is eighteen weeks, when the probability of viability vastly improves, not a better point? I'd love to hear a rational, science-based argument, if you have one, that favors conception as the point when personhood begins, or that abortion universally kills a human life (in a way that, say, abstinence, or the surgical removal of a tumor, does not). I don't believe one exists, but I'd be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.
So far, the cold unblinking eye of science doesn't have much to say about the rights of one wad of tissue over another, or where the mother stops and the fetal child begins (and how this relationship contrasts to, say, a host and her teratoma). So some answers are not easily answered by science, nor very well by legislators and judges and doctors and clergy. I've already offered a logical option based on how we define death in this society, one suggested by a genuine medical doctor, by the way.
Whatever you do please don't keep repeating abortion kills a human life as if doing so will make it true, or at least believed. It won't, and in fact will cheapen your position. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of an anti-abortion-access position has heard ABORTION IS MURDER! screamed in their faces one too many times, at least.
And really, there are plenty of more realistic approaches to reducing the number of abortions in our nation than simply trying to criminalize it. I've already mentioned a couple.
former tri-state, you and I've been on the same page, pretty much, this whole debate. I think the reason we've not implemented higher brain function as a standard is because the second trimester rule defined by Roe v. Wade hits the target closely enough, and it's never had need to be challenged in court. You're right in that regard, that laws do not change or improve except when the necessity of society warrants such a change.
More...
Saying biological Life is an objective stationary target is rather silly since it's all biological life, before conception, during and after. The concept of Personhood defines which particular wad of biological human life has rights and when. And as subjective as it may be, personhood is the concept batted about by academic legal scholars, whether or not you deign to approve of it.
So perhaps you can tell me why human life starts at a zygote's conception, not before, yet still during the threshold when the zygote has a 70% chance of failing to implant, or of detaching and miscarrying on its own. Why is eighteen weeks, when the probability of viability vastly improves, not a better point? I'd love to hear a rational, science-based argument, if you have one, that favors conception as the point when personhood begins, or that abortion universally kills a human life (in a way that, say, abstinence, or the surgical removal of a tumor, does not). I don't believe one exists, but I'd be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.
So far, the cold unblinking eye of science doesn't have much to say about the rights of one wad of tissue over another, or where the mother stops and the fetal child begins (and how this relationship contrasts to, say, a host and her teratoma). So some answers are not easily answered by science, nor very well by legislators and judges and doctors and clergy. I've already offered a logical option based on how we define death in this society, one suggested by a genuine medical doctor, by the way.
Whatever you do please don't keep repeating abortion kills a human life as if doing so will make it true, or at least believed. It won't, and in fact will cheapen your position. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of an anti-abortion-access position has heard ABORTION IS MURDER! screamed in their faces one too many times, at least.
And really, there are plenty of more realistic approaches to reducing the number of abortions in our nation than simply trying to criminalize it. I've already mentioned a couple.
former tri-state, you and I've been on the same page, pretty much, this whole debate. I think the reason we've not implemented higher brain function as a standard is because the second trimester rule defined by Roe v. Wade hits the target closely enough, and it's never had need to be challenged in court. You're right in that regard, that laws do not change or improve except when the necessity of society warrants such a change.
83
Conception creates a new human life.
The egg that forms half a zygote is a piece of the mother, genetically identical to her, a part of her.
The sperm, likewise, is a piece of the father with his genetic identity.
When they join a new entity is created, genetically different from either parent.
It is alive;
it is human (homo sapiens);
it is a new unique member of the race.
Sure, it is tiny and has a lot of maturing to do but it is human and alive;
Human Life.
If you advance any other time you must answer the question; what is it between conception and your 'Life Begins!' point.
Genetically it is homo sapiens.
It is alive.
If it is not Human Life what is it?
The egg that forms half a zygote is a piece of the mother, genetically identical to her, a part of her.
The sperm, likewise, is a piece of the father with his genetic identity.
When they join a new entity is created, genetically different from either parent.
It is alive;
it is human (homo sapiens);
it is a new unique member of the race.
Sure, it is tiny and has a lot of maturing to do but it is human and alive;
Human Life.
If you advance any other time you must answer the question; what is it between conception and your 'Life Begins!' point.
Genetically it is homo sapiens.
It is alive.
If it is not Human Life what is it?
84
If you advance [personhood to] any other time you must answer the question; what is it between conception and your Life Begins! point.
a) statistically unlikely to fully gestate.
b) lacking in actual cerebral activity (i.e. legal life)
c) unsustainable with life support (a point that is going backwards with new technology)
d) not self-sustaining.
...four qualities that also have strong practical validity when it comes to defining access to personal rights. The genome-parings of two separate people is a sentimental point to define personhood, but not a practical one. As I said, most such pairings die off on their own.
a) statistically unlikely to fully gestate.
b) lacking in actual cerebral activity (i.e. legal life)
c) unsustainable with life support (a point that is going backwards with new technology)
d) not self-sustaining.
...four qualities that also have strong practical validity when it comes to defining access to personal rights. The genome-parings of two separate people is a sentimental point to define personhood, but not a practical one. As I said, most such pairings die off on their own.
85
You are still talking about legal personhood and not biological life.
What requisite characteristic of 'life' is missing?
What species, if not homo sapiens, is it?
What requisite characteristic of 'life' is missing?
What species, if not homo sapiens, is it?
86
I sometimes wish I was anti-choice, since it seems like such a simple position to take -- very uncomplicated and cut-and-dry. I envy that. Conception = Life; Abortion = Murder. Sigh. The luxuries of the simple-minded.
87
There are several theories as to why embryos fail to empregnate. The most common is a MAJOR FUCK UP in the development of the embryo. Imporperly set axis, or failed blastogenesis, something to that effect. There are many things that can cause these developmental problems, some of which are believed to be teretogens in the environment. It's kind of weird thing, because prior to chorionic villa, we weren't even sure if a someone was pregnant or not at the very early stages. Yet we aren't exactly sure if performing such a test effects the viability of the embryo, or toxic environment.
I mean, we just don't know, but the fact that most fertilizations terminate before the mother even realizes she may have been pregnant ...
Another fun thing about mammals ... The genomes don't combine at fertilizations. They divide as two separate nuclei and THEN combine genomes at four cells. They divide once, then once out of plane. Only mammals do this ... no other animal does.
I mean, we just don't know, but the fact that most fertilizations terminate before the mother even realizes she may have been pregnant ...
Another fun thing about mammals ... The genomes don't combine at fertilizations. They divide as two separate nuclei and THEN combine genomes at four cells. They divide once, then once out of plane. Only mammals do this ... no other animal does.
91
@90, That's so cute. It must be very relaxing to have this perspective. If it's difficult, it's wrong. Again, I envy you.
92
@89
Actually, abortion is not that complicated. It's only the religious components that make it so. A goldfish who worships Christ has more of an argument for life than does a fetus.
Thanks, Uriel, for your clear-mindedness. Refreshing.
Actually, abortion is not that complicated. It's only the religious components that make it so. A goldfish who worships Christ has more of an argument for life than does a fetus.
Thanks, Uriel, for your clear-mindedness. Refreshing.
93
@ 92 You're most welcome. And I'm glad to hear someone thinks my blathering is clear.
@ 85 You seem to be unable to grasp that biologically, it's all life. It's all human. It's also all merely a process inside the (presumably female) host subject.
At what point would you decide that a biological process going on within a woman's own body overrides her own right to medically alter herself? Biologically, there's no case, ever, in which a process would override the rights of a host subject. Only when a process became separate and sustained itself (i.e. a born infant breathes on its own) would it develop a biological identity separate from the mother.
This is why we need the legal definition of personhood. It is necessary to contrast a mere process within a living human being and a separate entity with legal rights. Without the concept of personhood there is no question that what goes on inside a being is part of that being, and nothing more.
Do you get it yet?
@ 85 You seem to be unable to grasp that biologically, it's all life. It's all human. It's also all merely a process inside the (presumably female) host subject.
At what point would you decide that a biological process going on within a woman's own body overrides her own right to medically alter herself? Biologically, there's no case, ever, in which a process would override the rights of a host subject. Only when a process became separate and sustained itself (i.e. a born infant breathes on its own) would it develop a biological identity separate from the mother.
This is why we need the legal definition of personhood. It is necessary to contrast a mere process within a living human being and a separate entity with legal rights. Without the concept of personhood there is no question that what goes on inside a being is part of that being, and nothing more.
Do you get it yet?
94
@93 - "At what point would you decide that a biological process going on within a woman's own body overrides her own right to medically alter herself?"
36 of the 50 states have determined that late-term is that point. Late-term is open for debate but the Journal of the American Medical Association puts it from 20 weeks to 27 weeks.
"Biologically, there's no case, ever, in which a process would override the rights of a host subject."
Biologically? perhaps not....but legally there absolutly is. Furthermore biology doesn't recognize host's rights. You don't have any biological right to be parasite free. Biology gives a parasite as much of a right to live off of you until your death as it gives to you to remove said parasite.
"Only when a process became separate and sustained itself (i.e. a born infant breathes on its own) would it develop a biological identity separate from the mother."
Infants are not self-sustaining.
36 of the 50 states have determined that late-term is that point. Late-term is open for debate but the Journal of the American Medical Association puts it from 20 weeks to 27 weeks.
"Biologically, there's no case, ever, in which a process would override the rights of a host subject."
Biologically? perhaps not....but legally there absolutly is. Furthermore biology doesn't recognize host's rights. You don't have any biological right to be parasite free. Biology gives a parasite as much of a right to live off of you until your death as it gives to you to remove said parasite.
"Only when a process became separate and sustained itself (i.e. a born infant breathes on its own) would it develop a biological identity separate from the mother."
Infants are not self-sustaining.
95
The point I was making was in response to @85 who was trying to make a case for a biologically appointed differentiation between a fetus and its mother. I agree with you, that a legal (or at very least ethical) step must be taken to define rights for the unborn.
I've already mentioned in previous posts my opinion as to where legal personhood would properly rest in the gestation timeline, and am satisfied that Roe provides a point that is near enough.
Infants are not truly self-sustaining, but they only require intermittent and socially attainable life support to continue to live. Contrast to some premature births that may require assistance breathing or intravenous nutrients until their systems are fully developed.
I've already mentioned in previous posts my opinion as to where legal personhood would properly rest in the gestation timeline, and am satisfied that Roe provides a point that is near enough.
Infants are not truly self-sustaining, but they only require intermittent and socially attainable life support to continue to live. Contrast to some premature births that may require assistance breathing or intravenous nutrients until their systems are fully developed.
96
And i was a bit late to the party and didn't fully read all the prior posts, but i do enjoy playing devil's advocate and on SLOG that usually means trying to help defend the right leaning position.
I get your argument that a good starting point for life would be after the point of majority failure of pairings, but the other side could argue that since most people with pancreatic cancer are going to die anyway they don't deserve life rights. Bleak prospects aren't necesarily a determining factor of life and life rights.
I get your argument that a good starting point for life would be after the point of majority failure of pairings, but the other side could argue that since most people with pancreatic cancer are going to die anyway they don't deserve life rights. Bleak prospects aren't necesarily a determining factor of life and life rights.
97
No, but neurological activity is, hence my preference for the latter of the two options. The articles in the link I offered present a vast array of moments in the gestation process, each with a unique argument why it is a suitable moment to identify with personhood.
The question is also not one of the poles, but where the sum of the unborn's rights outweigh those of the host. In the case of the pancreatic cancer patient, his fate isn't attached (literally at the hip) to someone else. An unborn infant is. There's a thought experiment The Famous Violinist that examines this issue, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(…)
But again, we do have a tradition, albeit, a grim one, of favoring healthy adults over children, ill and elderly, maritime ethics being a notable exception. Terminally ill patients can usually argue for themselves to preserve their own lives, and those that cannot often get their plugs pulled for them.
But if we're going to invoke arguments by, or in the spirit of Old Scratch, I'd wonder if the prognosis-challenged would be good candidates for organ harvesting. Even if we sentenced them all to euthanasia, we'd be saving a fortune in medical costs, and passing the savings to next of kin, or in many cases, back to the people. Utilitarianism can be a harsh, harsh mistress.
Should we implement cheap ectogenesis, then every conception can be spared, and possibly insured perfect implantation. I wonder, then, if the resulting population boom will cause people to rethink their positions, or at least hearken to the good old days when we could squabble about the academic ethics of terminated pregnancies.
I, for one, am keen on policies that slow population growth at least until we get climate change under control, or open up new frontiers to colonization. Maybe the dearth in elbow room will light the fire we need to start settling in the oceans, or in space.
More...
The question is also not one of the poles, but where the sum of the unborn's rights outweigh those of the host. In the case of the pancreatic cancer patient, his fate isn't attached (literally at the hip) to someone else. An unborn infant is. There's a thought experiment The Famous Violinist that examines this issue, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(…)
But again, we do have a tradition, albeit, a grim one, of favoring healthy adults over children, ill and elderly, maritime ethics being a notable exception. Terminally ill patients can usually argue for themselves to preserve their own lives, and those that cannot often get their plugs pulled for them.
But if we're going to invoke arguments by, or in the spirit of Old Scratch, I'd wonder if the prognosis-challenged would be good candidates for organ harvesting. Even if we sentenced them all to euthanasia, we'd be saving a fortune in medical costs, and passing the savings to next of kin, or in many cases, back to the people. Utilitarianism can be a harsh, harsh mistress.
Should we implement cheap ectogenesis, then every conception can be spared, and possibly insured perfect implantation. I wonder, then, if the resulting population boom will cause people to rethink their positions, or at least hearken to the good old days when we could squabble about the academic ethics of terminated pregnancies.
I, for one, am keen on policies that slow population growth at least until we get climate change under control, or open up new frontiers to colonization. Maybe the dearth in elbow room will light the fire we need to start settling in the oceans, or in space.
98
'tupid Wikipedia bad link. You may have to search for it. The Wikipedia disambiguation page for Violinist has a link to the thought experiment.
flounder, you may be able to answer a question I posed to your predecessor, but have often asked in earnest in order to understand the position. What is the appeal of defining personhood at conception? It's not biblical, (the scriptures of which I've heard referenced imply children are conceived by God before physical conception, hence one could argue one should never refuse a sexual offer). Many ministries hypothesize that the soul is attached at implantation, but there's no biblical evidence for that either.
So what gives?
flounder, you may be able to answer a question I posed to your predecessor, but have often asked in earnest in order to understand the position. What is the appeal of defining personhood at conception? It's not biblical, (the scriptures of which I've heard referenced imply children are conceived by God before physical conception, hence one could argue one should never refuse a sexual offer). Many ministries hypothesize that the soul is attached at implantation, but there's no biblical evidence for that either.
So what gives?
99
I think it's important to remember that "is it wrong?" and "should there be legislation prohibiting it?" are very different questions. Related, but different. We spend too much time arguing about its alleged wrongness and not enough time arguing about when shit needs to be written into law.
100
It's the god damn church! I remember reading that the church was pissed off when people started "pulling out" at the start of the industrial revolution to attempt to at least stunt the size of their families!
The fundamentalist agenda is to create every available potential soul to save. Whereas sometimes I think bringing them into this strange world is at least some form of pergatory at minum.
The fundamentalist agenda is to create every available potential soul to save. Whereas sometimes I think bringing them into this strange world is at least some form of pergatory at minum.
101
Uriel - I honestly don't know that i can answer the question of why conception is an appealing starting point, but i will try.
First let me say that i am an atheist and therefore do not believe in souls, so that may hamper my ability to conceptualize what it is like for religious folks that do believe in souls. Also being an atheist i don’t spend a lot of time memorizing scripture so i cannot quote the bible in any relevant way.
Ok now that i am done with my disclaimers...I think the reason that people like to use conception as a beginning point is because the human brain loves order...our brains have been conditioned to want things to have a beginning and an end. That is why an infinite and expanding universe is so hard for most people to wrap their heads around (what is it expanding into? where did it come from? what caused the big bang? etc).
By attributing the beginning of life to conception places it very neatly at the beginning of the gestational period. I think this is also the reason that a lot of people like to place the beginning of life at birth, which is the end of the gestational period. In a way the beginning of life is a lot like the “where did all this stuff come from?” question, and not just that both are controversial, but also in that if you ask 100 people I would guess 90 of them will happily give you a beginning point whether it be conception, birth, the big bang or divine creation, but people tend to struggle with questions like "what caused the big bang?" because there isn't a neat and orderly answer. And again all of that is just observational theory and i cannot prove or probably even defend any of it.
First let me say that i am an atheist and therefore do not believe in souls, so that may hamper my ability to conceptualize what it is like for religious folks that do believe in souls. Also being an atheist i don’t spend a lot of time memorizing scripture so i cannot quote the bible in any relevant way.
Ok now that i am done with my disclaimers...I think the reason that people like to use conception as a beginning point is because the human brain loves order...our brains have been conditioned to want things to have a beginning and an end. That is why an infinite and expanding universe is so hard for most people to wrap their heads around (what is it expanding into? where did it come from? what caused the big bang? etc).
By attributing the beginning of life to conception places it very neatly at the beginning of the gestational period. I think this is also the reason that a lot of people like to place the beginning of life at birth, which is the end of the gestational period. In a way the beginning of life is a lot like the “where did all this stuff come from?” question, and not just that both are controversial, but also in that if you ask 100 people I would guess 90 of them will happily give you a beginning point whether it be conception, birth, the big bang or divine creation, but people tend to struggle with questions like "what caused the big bang?" because there isn't a neat and orderly answer. And again all of that is just observational theory and i cannot prove or probably even defend any of it.
102
uriel - Your neurological argument is good, but not perfect. There have been several cases where the brain stem is irreparably damaged but higher brain function continues...in those cases there is still neurological activity even though the person is legally (brain)dead.
I'm sure that won't be a surprise to you since anybody with the desire and an internet connection can find enough information to poke small holes through most any theory, but there you have it, holes. It sure would tidy everything up if there were a puncture proof point of personhood (yeah i know), but it doesn't seem like there is, so the debate will continue.
The idea of harvesting from the terminaly ill is interesting, but i think it would also be interesting to know what the prognosis is for say a kidney taken from a person with terminal cancer. Not that your scenario will ever happen, but surly some of the people that opt for assisted suicide would want to donate their organs.
We probably wont ever get to harvest the terminally ill? But what about death row? Death row prisoners are terminal in some sense of the word and people love vengeance and poetic justice. Instead of frying or poisoning those lovely organs why don't we have death by organ harvest? Just put somebody under and harvest all that is useful. Then the prisoner can complete their repayment of societal debt in a beneficial fashion. Doctors probably wouldn't go for it since they have that whole "first do no harm" thing but i'm sure there are plenty of intelligent steady-handed people that wouldn't mind a high salary and the satisfaction of "more lives saved than lost" day of work.
I'm sure that won't be a surprise to you since anybody with the desire and an internet connection can find enough information to poke small holes through most any theory, but there you have it, holes. It sure would tidy everything up if there were a puncture proof point of personhood (yeah i know), but it doesn't seem like there is, so the debate will continue.
The idea of harvesting from the terminaly ill is interesting, but i think it would also be interesting to know what the prognosis is for say a kidney taken from a person with terminal cancer. Not that your scenario will ever happen, but surly some of the people that opt for assisted suicide would want to donate their organs.
We probably wont ever get to harvest the terminally ill? But what about death row? Death row prisoners are terminal in some sense of the word and people love vengeance and poetic justice. Instead of frying or poisoning those lovely organs why don't we have death by organ harvest? Just put somebody under and harvest all that is useful. Then the prisoner can complete their repayment of societal debt in a beneficial fashion. Doctors probably wouldn't go for it since they have that whole "first do no harm" thing but i'm sure there are plenty of intelligent steady-handed people that wouldn't mind a high salary and the satisfaction of "more lives saved than lost" day of work.
103
As a naturalist and a humanist, myself, I qualify at least according to Richard Dawkins, to be an atheist myself, though I would call myself agnostic at least in contrast to those absolutists who have ruled out for themselves all possibilities of divinity.
But I think your explanation is as plausible as any other. We were portending doom and apocalypse around the dawn of the new millennium, for no other reason than the nice round numbers (according to the Gregorian calendar, at that).
My own awareness of scripture is due to its usage by others in debate, not unlike the Allied use of astrology to predict Axis movements in WWII, given Hitler was allegedly fond of astrological correspondences. (I wonder if the KGB hired astrologers during the Reagan era.) The bible is the most common source from which divine command doctrine is drawn in the US, these days, usually in conflict with contemporary sources of morality, such as the Geneva convention. I will, however, concede the grace and elegance with which liberal Christians frequently reinterpret scripture to fit it into the information-age era.
As for the big bang, cosmology and quantum theory are current studies of mine, so this is a topic I encounter a lot. Brane theory blasts the beginning of time to somewhere beyond of the scope of conception, let alone perception. I even am open to the conjecture that time is a construct that only has substance within the scope of the multiverse, hence existence is simultaneously instantaneous and eternal.
@ 100, when I was in sex ed, we learned that coitus interruptus didn't work due to semen in pre-ejaculate. Nowadays, with a 96% effectiveness rate (done properly), it is one of the more effective methods of birth control out there. (Though I have the sex-positive duty of noting it's 0% effectiveness in preventing STD communication).
More...
But I think your explanation is as plausible as any other. We were portending doom and apocalypse around the dawn of the new millennium, for no other reason than the nice round numbers (according to the Gregorian calendar, at that).
My own awareness of scripture is due to its usage by others in debate, not unlike the Allied use of astrology to predict Axis movements in WWII, given Hitler was allegedly fond of astrological correspondences. (I wonder if the KGB hired astrologers during the Reagan era.) The bible is the most common source from which divine command doctrine is drawn in the US, these days, usually in conflict with contemporary sources of morality, such as the Geneva convention. I will, however, concede the grace and elegance with which liberal Christians frequently reinterpret scripture to fit it into the information-age era.
As for the big bang, cosmology and quantum theory are current studies of mine, so this is a topic I encounter a lot. Brane theory blasts the beginning of time to somewhere beyond of the scope of conception, let alone perception. I even am open to the conjecture that time is a construct that only has substance within the scope of the multiverse, hence existence is simultaneously instantaneous and eternal.
@ 100, when I was in sex ed, we learned that coitus interruptus didn't work due to semen in pre-ejaculate. Nowadays, with a 96% effectiveness rate (done properly), it is one of the more effective methods of birth control out there. (Though I have the sex-positive duty of noting it's 0% effectiveness in preventing STD communication).
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (104) RSS