Notes Around
LightGigantic said:
designating pregnancy as a disease seems ... well ... arbitrary
Well, our neighbor does not appear to be arguing on principle, but, rather, is simply looking for kitchen sinks to douse in gasoline, set alight, and throw at the discussion. That is to say, note that his comparison overlooks that there is no law preventing him from addressing his medical condition, e.g., influenza. Same with his
E. coli analogy. The whole point of the "personhood" idea is to prevent a woman, by force of law, from addressing her own medical status in a specific way. (I also find it interesting, because there really isn't any
cure for viral diseases; perhaps cancer would be a better analogy insofar as there is no law saying you cannot seek medical removal of a tumor. Say what you want about comparing a fetus to a tumor; one of the problems of analogies is that they are imprecise, but the underlying point is that his statement, "I can say my general rights are suspended if I'm sick with Influenza just as validly", is idiotically wrong. If there is some law that prevents him from treating his flu, we can start exploring whatever point he's trying to make with the influenza and
E. coli analogies.)
Just as astute as saying this guy has no need for the provision ofeducation, tertiary training and pensioner/old age welfare
Well, technically, he doesn't. Not yet. But I'm pretty sure he eats with his mouth, and not through an umbilical cord; I'm quite certain he sleeps in a crib or bed, or even on the sofa or living room floor sometimes as infants are prone to doing, and not
inside his mother's body. I think these two states of existence—inside another person's body or not—are significantly different; our neighbor Neverfly considers this an arbitrary distinction. A woman's body, apparently, is not a valid consideration.
The enforcement of that young person's rights does not require that we strip a woman of hers. Additionally, any sacrifice of rights you might suggest on the part of parents raising a child are, in principle, shared by both parents. I'm a male; I never face the suspension of my human rights required by a life at conception "personhood". But I am also a father; oh, my, I cannot necessarily spend my days behaving like I did before I was a father. Of course, I also don't consider it a violation of my rights to not be allowed to be drunk when working in the classroom at my daughter's school.
I
do find it suggestive, at least, that while I have tried to propose a set of conditions based on the logical implications of life at conception "personhood" (LACP), there are as yet no votes either for or against the proposition from anyone identifying as anti-abortion.
It's not hard to understand why LACP is aesthetically attractive to some people. What is harder to comprehend is their unwillingness to countenance the implications of LACP. While the details of the proposal might seem complicated—and, to that end, they are incomplete insofar as there are more implications I haven't yet identified in my own perspective, or figured out how to express—the underlying question is simple enough:
Okay, fine, institute LACP. Now, what are we going to do about the implications?
I can understand why an abortion access advocate might accept the compromise. And as one who cannot endorse any suspension of a woman's humanity for the fact of pregnancy, I well understand why an abortion access advocate would reject the compromise. Is it reasonable to conclude that nobody who has voted in this poll is actually anti-abortion? Based on the actual responses within the poll, it would not seem a reasonable conclusion.
Indeed, I would ask you (and some others) to consider posts by our neighbor Bowser. He and I have a long history of disagreeing on various issues, sometimes quite furiously. And we will certainly, should this run long enough, find something to disagree about if we choose to focus on it. Meanwhile, he is actually trying to work within the confines of the proposition. See
#7 and
22 for very specific examples of this. So even if he and I end up in sharp disagreement, the one thing I can't accuse him of is running from the issue. While our neighbor Bowser is wrestling with those implications, it would seem there are many who are simply trying to ward them off.
Just like a cotton plantation owner of yesteryear saying blacks have no right to the rights offered to civilized people.
Did the slaves exist
inside their owners' bodies?
Do you recognize that existing within someone else's body is different from existing in an independent physical reality? Or do you reject that difference?
The functional juristic problem that arises with LACP is that in order to enforce the equality of the "person" growing
inside a woman, that other woman must surrender governance over what occurs within the physical confines of her body. It would seem that anti-abortion activists would prefer, by and large, to simply avoid this issue.
• • •
Seagypsy said:
How does his acknowledging the physical reality of an unborn child automatically mean that he sees my physical reality as an arbitrary distinction?
I would say the bit where he asks Bells, "How, exactly, do you justify this very selfish and arbitrary line you've drawn?" makes it quite clear. But we can certainly try to resolve this point more clearly:
Again, I refer you back to the questions I asked before. I see the lack of compassion for the defenseless unborn child to be regarding all of humanity as an arbitrary distinction.
Do you recognize a difference between an organism growing inside a woman's body and one that exists outside of anyone else's body?
If that organism dies while inside a woman's body, how did it die? Is it a result of someone else's behavior? We can certainly invoke crack addicts and the like all anyone wants, but if a woman endangers the "person" inside her by returning to work, there is a case for negligent homicide. If a husband slams on the brakes to avoid a collision, and it turns out he was exceeding either the posted speed limit or a safe speed for road conditions, there is a case for negligent homicide.
Some data suggests the overwhelming majority of conceptions result in miscarriage. My former partner, the mother of my daughter, endured several miscarriages over the years. And while it's true that she smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol, and used drugs during that period of her life, the most prominent suspect is an Rh imbalance that, technically, comes from me. It is reasonable to suggest that, under LACP, couples have an obligation to ensure Rh compatibility, or a woman has an obligation to be dosed with Rhogam, before ever having heterosexual intercourse that might result in pregnancy.
But the fact of these miscarriages does not mean that the complexity of ensuring the Equal Protection of the "person" growing inside a woman excuses society from Equal Protection of the unborn.
You know, last night I indulged in fast food because it was quick, easy, and available, and I was hungry. Perhaps I should have sought out a woman and drawn nutrients from her blood, instead? It would have saved me eight dollars, after all. Do you not see a difference between eating a cheeseburger and taking my sustenance from a woman's blood? Is that really an
arbitrary distinction?
You are a sick individual for implying that he thinks that way. You should be ashamed of yourself. This is a gross attack on his character and completely inappropriate. He has said nothing that implies that a woman is not human and you should stop claiming it or provide proof that he did. Give quotes!
Again:
"How, exactly, do you justify this very selfish and arbitrary line you've drawn?"
Some people on the abortion access side of this argument think the fact of existing inside a woman's body and feeding on her blood is a different physical reality than existing on their own two feet and eating a cheeseburger, or strained peas, or Enfamil. But the difference of dependent and independent physical reality is, by Neverfly's argument, an arbitrary distinction. His argument erases a woman's humanity by reducing her independent physical reality to an arbitrary distinction. And if her independent physical reality is an arbitrary distinction without any rational foundation, then no, one is not doing anything wrong by beating or raping their wife; after all, she is a woman, and thus has no legitimate independent physical reality.
I would suggest the more relevant problem with his argument is that he's not thinking it through. Something might sound like a nifty zinger, but that does not mean it has no implications outside its immediate application. Just like LACP. It's not hard to figure why some people find the notion attractive. But, as we've seen in this thread, reconciling the implications is much more complicated.
You make pro choice supporters look like psychotic killers you know that? Except in cases of rape, incest, or some other non-voluntary action on the part of the woman, I believe a woman exercises her rights and waives such rights when she takes part in activities that she KNOWS will put her at high risk for pregnancy. That being said, I am also supportive of her right to change her mind up until a certain point. I am pro choice with abortion laws as they are, but I do not support the right to late term abortion. Neverfly has expressed the same position in this and other threads.
The thread is intended to consider the juristic implications of LACP. I find it telling that both of you seem to be running from those implications.
He has NEVER said or implied that a woman is not human or has no rights to her body. STOP LYING!
Stand by your man, indeed.
Doesn't change the implications of his argument.
Like I said, the problem is more likely that he just needs to think it through.
Don't use your sexist remarks against me, I don't like it. (don't worry your pretty little head) is a sexist demeaning remark. And I will be reporting this post.
Hey, you're the one trying to defend his denigration of a woman's human status to an arbitrary distinction.
It makes me feel like you are a sexist who lies in order to try to make a man look like the sexist.
Yep. I'm the sexist because I believe a woman's humanity is not an arbitrary distinction.
You are the one making derogatory sexist remarks, lying, claiming that he says a woman is not human. You need to stop. You and Bells both. You are both an embarrassment to the feminist movement.
Wail a little louder. It still won't change the implications of his argument.
By the way, my 3rd child is a product of rape so don't you dare try to say my opinion is not valid.
And who forced you to carry that child to term?
You are indeed a sexist aren't you. You make me sick.
Shall I make an exception, then, and excuse you from humanity simply because you're a woman? Sorry, I can't do that. You're a human being, period.
I know, I'm such a sexist for that belief.
• • •
Bells said:
Unless of course you prefer I not be polite, Madam?
Perhaps it is of no specific comfort, but I do find the spectacle they're putting on in trying to lob flaming kitchen sinks all over the place very nearly amusing. Ballista? Trebuchet? Catapult? Does it really matter?
The discussion has largely strayed from its intended purpose, and mostly because some people would prefer to pretend the implications of LACP don't exist, or are arbitrary, or some such.
I'm not certain how Equal Protection works in Her Majesty's realm in general, or Australia in particular, but in the United States, it really does throw a monkey at the wrench when it comes to LACP.
I think the answers I'm most interested in will be, when we finally get one, from those who identify as anti-abortion but also reject the proposition. I'll want to know why. Certes, you and I need not wonder why the other might reject the proposition, but if the argument grants the anti-abortion advocates what
they want, why would
they reject it?
It's clear to me our tag-team neighbors are just looking to blow the discussion up into a flame war. Of course, perhaps marital privilege these days means empowerment to suspend logic. I wouldn't call that a win for humanity, and it's not exactly
funny, but yes, it gives me one of those absurd grins that comes when I must pause to legitimately wonder, "Am I really seeing this? Is this
really happening?"
I mean, hell, I'm sexist for arguing that a woman is a human being. I don't know, am I supposed to elevate women to the status of deity, then? To stack divine obligation on their superiority? Normally, when I argue that a woman is a human being, it is in response to an argument that either declares or implies her
inferiority.
Neverfly will let his own words speak for themselves. Very well. I think his words speak quite clearly.
(And I love it when misogynists
pat their wives on the head: "
You make me proud". Those moments make the point about womanhood and human respect more clearly than I ever could.)