Coming 'Round to the Obvious Question
GeoffP said:
I mention this above: what exactly do you conceive of as aesthetics? For example: are animal welfare laws mere aesthetics? After all, the animal belongs to me. Only I am its holder and provider. What business is it of the state what I do with it and when?
Such political aesthetics are the things people prefer not because they are logically or rationally appropriate, but because it feels nice.
For instance, try to follow the anti-abortion logic in the bizarre tale of
fetus dolls and candy.
(Sciforums / blog) Note, to the one, the appeal to sentiment:
A customer service representative told Jezebel that the models are most often given to pregnant women at "pregnancy centers" and kids at school presentations. The customer reviews on the site (it's like Yelp for fetus-lovers instead of foodies) further imply that the doll-like figures are great for kids. "Children especially like to hold them," one satisfied customer wrote. "No other item that we hand out has the amazing effect that these fetal models have—instant attachment to the unborn!" said another. "So many times, we hear, 'Awwwww! That's adorable!' Or we just see a girl's tears begin to form and fall."
And then contrast it with the attempted rational argument:
Devyn Nelson, Executive Director of North Dakota Right to Life, said he hadn't been contacted by organizers and claimed that the booth ran out of "Precious Ones" because there was such a high demand for the mini fetuses. "Kids like them, but adults like them too," he said. "They have nothing to do with abortion. You don't have to bring abortion up at all."
As to laws being about aesthetics?
What does a law do,
how does it do it, and
why does it do it?
Aesthetics are not wholly the reason it is okay to step on an ant or eat a cow, but not okay to shoot your dog. There are practical reasons to not tolerate ants in immediate proximity, such as within our homes. And there are practical reasons to not abuse our dogs. I mean, it really
is a weird thing to be in a major metropolitan area and have someone tell you, over a beer, "Yeah, crime ain't too bad, but you gotta watch out for the wild dogs." Packs of neglected, abused, and eventually abandoned dogs running feral in a major city? Or even a small town? I mean, we can get all mopy with Sarah MacLachlan about animal abuse, and, having had multiple admirable relationships with canine family and friends over the years, yeah, I do object to abusing these creatures. It is possible to establish consistent, communicative, and emotional relationships with dogs that
can be observed and validated. This isn't just an aesthetic tug people are experiencing. There's a reason we call dogs "man's best friend", even though we don't deserve that fidelity.
Additionally, certain forms of animal cruelty engaged in certain contexts that can generally only be determined after the fact are also significant of antisocial behavior that is dangerous to other human beings. The only really puzzling thing about it isn't really puzzling if considered a dialectic of neurosis, but your dog, your horse, even your cat, rat, or pet bat, has the right to not suffer gravely. Humans are still working to secure that right for themselves. Aesthetics do play a big role on both sides, but there are also practical and rational considerations.
In the abortion question, aesthetics are tremendously influential. And you need to remember that there is not a state in the union that did not use its prerogative under
Roe to limit abortion rights. Dry-foot as a practical reality isn't happening. For the last forty-one years, abortion access advocates have been fighting to preserve what they can against further encroachment. Some states have pushed for a six-week cutoff based on fetal heartbeat, which would nearly end abortion and send the stocks for morning-after pharma through the roof. That is to say, Rush Limbaugh's fantasy of women popping more pills the more sex they have would finally come true as more and more women start doubling up with Plan B on top of their other birth control methods. And you can certainly bet there will be an arms race among big pharma to provide regular "emergency" contraception.
Which, of course, still horrifies those who are looking to terminate as much abortion access as
Roe will allow. Hence, personhood.
The idea that "life begins at conception" (defined as fertilization) is the core of the modern anti-abortion ideology. For decades, the tacit meaning has been that
personhood begins at conception. Now those propositions are
explicit. There's a midterm this year. Watch early next, after the new session is convened. Although Rep. Broun of Georgia won't be in the House of Representatives to introduce the bill as he does in each session, we
will see a resubmission of the Sanctity of Human Life Act.
Meanwhile, there's South Carolina and Colorado to watch. And Oklahoma, after losing a ballot initiative in court before the 2012 election, is attempting to pass a similar bill through the legislature.
This is a
real issue.
Once that personhood is declared, the zygote is entitled to equal protection under the law. I have tried discussing the implications, and even proposed the basic outline of a compromise to begin negotiating personhood. This is what that
other thread I refer to—the one you've inserted yourself into
post hoc—was about. And reviewing that thread isn't nearly the task it seems; by the time you get to Billvon's argument (
#32) that the only conflicts of rights would come from people who are so irrational as to observe the U.S. Constitution, well, yeah. That one pretty much makes the point. Equal rights for zygotes, but not really. Just enough to stop women from having abortions. Very,
very rational. Maybe they should have tried that with blacks; you know, just enough equality to stop them from being slaves. Oh, right, we did. And the one guy on the Supreme Court who saw through that ruse happened to be a former slave owner.
And that's the problem with fertilization-assigned personhood.
Dry-foot is implicit in the assertion of
a woman's body, a woman's choice. But it's not a principle of any real effect.
By assigning legal personhood
in utero, one invokes the actual question of the conflict of rights. In this context, dry-foot is a bright line
because the question ceases effect. That is to say,
if the baby exists outside the woman,
then there can be no question of the conflict of two people asserting rights over one body. This is not a mystical or philosophical outcome, it is
observable fact. Whatever line one chooses to assert earlier, at the point the baby exists outside the mother's body, there is simply no question of its personhood. That is why dry-foot stands out as a bright line.
At some point, with this viability argument of yours, and especially according to
Billvon's reminder, it does occur to me to ask, since it will take some digging on my part, if you or anyone else happens to have, you know, just lying around, a copy of the current protocols regarding nonmedically indicated premature Caesarian section?
It doesn't matter, in a certain context,
when we assert personhood
in utero. The conflict presents itself. Go review the
proposition in the old thread.
If society deems it appropriate to declare PIU or FAP,
then just how does that work? That's what the advocates won't explain. And in the conflict that results, of one person asserting equal protection rights requiring the use of another person's body, dry-foot marks the end of any assertion of the conflict.
Those who fantasize about how fucked up that can be because she wants an abortion while in labor to get revenge on the father, or reattaching the umbilical cord and stuffing it back in, or whatever the hell lets one suggest a foot might still be a little too wet?
They're missing the fucking point.
And after nineteen or so months of people wanting to talk about anything
but just how this is supposed to work, and what it means for women, we might wonder why people are so dedicated, even accidentally, to forestalling this discussion. One or another of these bills is going to pass, and when the case lands in federal court, how many people are going to pretend to be surprised by the complexity of the issue? How many will insist it shouldn't be so complex?
Remember, PIU is not required for what's already going on:
At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced foetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.
South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.
(Pilkington)
So what do you really think is about to happen if one of these laws gets enacted? Look ahead to the inevitable court battles. What do you think they're going to argue about?
____________________
Notes:
Pilkington, Ed. "Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges". The Guardian. June 24, 2011. TheGuardian.com. May 21, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
