• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
We do; but that rarely seems to stop the pro-pregnancy-choice from hassling the pro-fetal-life over calling themselves "pro-life" even though they favor gun rights and the death penalty and whatnot. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander...
I think that the dispute over labels has some legitimacy, however. The more extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement are not pro-life at all. They are more pro-birth. They want to give a civil right to unborn and underdeveloped fetuses.
And? The more extreme elements of the pro-abortion-rights movement are not pro-choice at all either. They are more pro-pregnant-woman's-choice. Everyone else involved -- the doctors, the nurses, the employers, the insurers, the taxpayers -- they expect to take part in helping a pregnant woman carry out her choice, whether those people want to choose to opt out or not.

The term "pro-abortion" is a bit more problematic,
The term "problematic" is problematic.

because it is not about persuading women to prefer or choose an abortion. It is about providing that option for a woman who has already decided to have an abortion. So it is more about providing women with a choice rather than trying to convince them to make a choice one way or the other.
The movement to legalize gay marriage is not about persuading people to prefer or choose to marry others of the same sex. It is about providing that option for a woman or man who has already decided to have a same-sex partner. So it is more about providing gay people with a choice rather than trying to convince them to make a choice one way or the other. And yet somehow in spite of this we manage to live with calling ourselves "pro-gay-marriage". We don't need to constantly insist that we're pro-choice-about-gay-marriage but not actually pro-gay-marriage.

Some of the propaganda coming out of the anti-abortion side conveys the opposite view--that "pro-abortionists" actually advocate for the option of choosing abortion. That is what motivated the change of preferred label from "pro-abortion" to "pro-choice".
If this is just about defusing anti-abortion rhetoric, good luck with that. No matter what we call ourselves they're going to go right on claiming the real agenda is to make money for abortion factories and reduce the number of black people.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,956
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
We do; but that rarely seems to stop the pro-pregnancy-choice from hassling the pro-fetal-life over calling themselves "pro-life" even though they favor gun rights and the death penalty and whatnot. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander...
I think that the dispute over labels has some legitimacy, however. The more extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement are not pro-life at all. They are more pro-birth. They want to give a civil right to unborn and underdeveloped fetuses.
And? The more extreme elements of the pro-abortion-rights movement are not pro-choice at all either. They are more pro-pregnant-woman's-choice. Everyone else involved -- the doctors, the nurses, the employers, the insurers, the taxpayers -- they expect to take part in helping a pregnant woman carry out her choice, whether those people want to choose to opt out or not.

If you want to put it in those terms, then maybe anti-abortionists should call themselves "pro-government-choice". I have no problem with "pro-pregnant-woman's-choice", but I prefer the shorter label in order to save breath. Along with that choice goes the right to reject or accept all that helpful advice from people who don't have to face the consequences of carrying the pregnancy to term.

because it is not about persuading women to prefer or choose an abortion. It is about providing that option for a woman who has already decided to have an abortion. So it is more about providing women with a choice rather than trying to convince them to make a choice one way or the other.
The movement to legalize gay marriage is not about persuading people to prefer or choose to marry others of the same sex. It is about providing that option for a woman or man who has already decided to have a same-sex partner. So it is more about providing gay people with a choice rather than trying to convince them to make a choice one way or the other. And yet somehow in spite of this we manage to live with calling ourselves "pro-gay-marriage". We don't need to constantly insist that we're pro-choice-about-gay-marriage but not actually pro-gay-marriage.

The discussion is not about gay marriage, and there you go galloping off again with another needless analogy. Yes, I am "pro choice" when it comes to gay marriage. No, I would prefer not to call myself "pro-gay-marriage" as I believe that heterosexuals should also be able to make a choice.

Some of the propaganda coming out of the anti-abortion side conveys the opposite view--that "pro-abortionists" actually advocate for the option of choosing abortion. That is what motivated the change of preferred label from "pro-abortion" to "pro-choice".
If this is just about defusing anti-abortion rhetoric, good luck with that. No matter what we call ourselves they're going to go right on claiming the real agenda is to make money for abortion factories and reduce the number of black people.

Let's not drag racism into the discussion, if we can help it. I was hoping that my last post would totally defuse anti-abortion rhetoric and crush the opposition, but I can see that my work is cut out for me. :shock:
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I think that the dispute over labels has some legitimacy, however. The more extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement are not pro-life at all. They are more pro-birth. They want to give a civil right to unborn and underdeveloped fetuses.
And? The more extreme elements of the pro-abortion-rights movement are not pro-choice at all either. They are more pro-pregnant-woman's-choice. Everyone else involved -- the doctors, the nurses, the employers, the insurers, the taxpayers -- they expect to take part in helping a pregnant woman carry out her choice, whether those people want to choose to opt out or not.

If you want to put it in those terms, then maybe anti-abortionists should call themselves "pro-government-choice". I have no problem with "pro-pregnant-woman's-choice", but I prefer the shorter label in order to save breath. Along with that choice goes the right to reject or accept all that helpful advice from people who don't have to face the consequences of carrying the pregnancy to term.
"Helpful advice"? Is that what you're calling it when a person wants to get out of helping somebody else abort, but the government makes a choice that he or she has to help? Maybe people who favor that sort of coercion should also call themselves "pro-government-choice".

The discussion is not about gay marriage, and there you go galloping off again with another needless analogy.
It's a needed analogy. And it will continue to be needed until either you recognize that you're special-pleading, or else you eventually choose to try to come to grips with it, and offer some explanation for why "trying to convince them to make a choice one way or the other" is a distinction that matters to abortion but does not matter to gay marriage -- some explanation more substantive than a Reagan "There you go again".

Yes, I am "pro choice" when it comes to gay marriage. No, I would prefer not to call myself "pro-gay-marriage" as I believe that heterosexuals should also be able to make a choice.
Bully for you. There is no pressure among the pro-choice-on-gay-marriage community to reject the term "pro-gay-marriage". The rest of us prefer the shorter label, in order to save breath.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,704
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The fact is that there is a closed width to the niche of people who we can afford to allow to help.

The ones who refuse to do their job because it involves siding on the trolley problem with the fully fledged adult don't deserve to be standing in that place, and also standing in the way of the wellbeing of the adult human.

Early term abortions are done in offices where all the employees are there to do that job with no excuse.

Late term abortions are done to save the life of the mother.

People in a hospital who refuse to save a woman's life because she is going to, but has not yet lost the child, do not have any right to work there. Period.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,956
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Bomb, I have nothing further to add to what I've already said on the subject of "pro-choice" vs "pro-life". Thanks for the discussion.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,704
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I was not aware that a D&C would be performed on someone actively miscarrying. When I had spontaeous abortions, once as late as 12 weeks, I was not offered any care during the miscarriage. I sat in the waiting room to get my HCG, doing the cramping, the bleeding and all, then went home when they said, “yup, that there is a spontaneous abortion. Call us to schedule another HCG in a day or two.” This was in a blue state.

So I don’t understand this post.
Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years?
If the uterus empties completely they don't do a D&C. If the uterus doesn't completely empty they need to scrape it out--the remains will otherwise risk infection.

Unfortunately, we are seeing what we saw back when there was strong enforcement of abortion being illegal--doctors afraid to intervene in an incomplete miscarriage for fear of being accused of performing an abortion.8
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,704
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,956
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.
Men have ripped off women's ideas and knowledge for millennia.
Ben Franklin--one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I was presenting it as evidence of how the people who made our Constitution viewed abortion.

But the Declaration had nothing to do with the Constitution. Franklin was a Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention--the oldest member, as a matter of fact. Nevertheless, it isn't clear whether Franklin really approved of abortion or not. See the following article, which is fairly inconclusive about Franklin's actual feelings about abortion:

Snopes: Did Ben Franklin Publish a Recipe on How to Induce Abortion in a Math Textbook?
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,835
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
So apparently, our nation's capitol is powered by incinerated fetuses.


No...seriously


“Bodies [are] thrown in medical waste bins, and in places like Washington, D.C., burned to power the lights of the cities’ homes and streets,” Americans United for Life President Catherine Glenn Foster proclaimed.

“Let that image sink in with you for a moment,” she continued. “The next time you turn on the light, think of the incinerators, think of what we’re doing to ourselves so callously and so numbly.”

This is a person who makes a shit-ton of money and is called as an "expert" witness in front of Congress.

I am at a loss...
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Why would we burn the fetuses when could hook them up into a matrix and using all the power they generate.
Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.
Men have ripped off women's ideas and knowledge for millennia.
Ben Franklin--one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I was presenting it as evidence of how the people who made our Constitution viewed abortion.
*sigh*
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
The fact is that there is a closed width to the niche of people who we can afford to allow to help.
The theory that "we can afford to allow" claims are matters of "fact" rather than matters of preference is dubious.

The theory that it's a worthwhile tradeoff for the nation's leading employer of Pakistani physicians to be Uber and for tens of thousands of Americans to die every year on account of "drug lag" (i.e., medicines already approved in Europe waiting for the FDA to get around to approving them) because we can't afford to widen the niche of people we allow to help is dubious.

What isn't dubious is that the people who favor keeping the width of the niche of people who we allow to help closed are not pro-choice.

The ones who refuse to do their job because it involves siding on the trolley problem with the fully fledged adult don't deserve to be standing in that place, and also standing in the way of the wellbeing of the adult human.

Early term abortions are done in offices where all the employees are there to do that job with no excuse.

Late term abortions are done to save the life of the mother.

People in a hospital who refuse to save a woman's life because she is going to, but has not yet lost the child, do not have any right to work there. Period.
That's a perfectly legitimate policy position to take. Likewise, when a person who joined the military because he was willing to kill and to risk his life to defend his country from invaders, and who took the pay and benefits that came with that job, decides he's opting out when the chain of command orders him overseas to take out a government that attacked his country, because he didn't sign up for a foreign war, that too is a perfectly legitimate policy position to take. But he probably should not call himself a pacifist.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,704
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The fact is that there is a closed width to the niche of people who we can afford to allow to help.
The theory that "we can afford to allow" claims are matters of "fact" rather than matters of preference is dubious.

The theory that it's a worthwhile tradeoff for the nation's leading employer of Pakistani physicians to be Uber and for tens of thousands of Americans to die every year on account of "drug lag" (i.e., medicines already approved in Europe waiting for the FDA to get around to approving them) because we can't afford to widen the niche of people we allow to help is dubious.

What isn't dubious is that the people who favor keeping the width of the niche of people who we allow to help closed are not pro-choice.

The ones who refuse to do their job because it involves siding on the trolley problem with the fully fledged adult don't deserve to be standing in that place, and also standing in the way of the wellbeing of the adult human.

Early term abortions are done in offices where all the employees are there to do that job with no excuse.

Late term abortions are done to save the life of the mother.

People in a hospital who refuse to save a woman's life because she is going to, but has not yet lost the child, do not have any right to work there. Period.
That's a perfectly legitimate policy position to take. Likewise, when a person who joined the military because he was willing to kill and to risk his life to defend his country from invaders, and who took the pay and benefits that came with that job, decides he's opting out when the chain of command orders him overseas to take out a government that attacked his country, because he didn't sign up for a foreign war, that too is a perfectly legitimate policy position to take. But he probably should not call himself a pacifist.
See, I never supported deserters so I don't get why you would try to draw that analogy. Even so, the deserter is still a pacifist, even if he is a traitorous asshole who wasted everyone's time and money.

In fact, I joined the army, deployed like everyone else, and the only orders I refused to follow were the illegal kind, and the only one I ever had to refuse was a direct order to inflict medically significant self-harm: to cut myself with a dirty sharpened rock.

It is not a "choice" as in "something someone has a right to choose upon" to be hired and be a nurse.

It is a privilege, as is the mercy that any child in the womb receives.

It may be your preference, but ultimately it is someone else's choice, sometimes the distillation of many people's choices.

But for the applicant or employee or the fetus, it is someone else's choice whether they continue doing that thing.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,016
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
A related issue.


The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism. Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual U.S. states, although 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child". The reticence of a federal law to authorize federal prosecution of a particular act committed under federal jurisdiction does not prevent states from passing their own laws against the act committed under their jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the definition of all unborn babies as "members of the species homo sapiens" in section (d) says what proposed "personhood" laws say.[3] Sponsors of such proposals say such legal language will trigger the collapse clause in Roe v. Wade, by establishing what they suggest Roe said must be established for legal abortion to end.[4] Several state supreme courts have ruled that sections (a) through (c) are not threatened by Roe,[5] but no court has addressed whether Roe can survive the suggested triggering of its collapse clause by section (d).

The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. Husband Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.


I think this is a constitutional stretch.
What was the Roe v Wade clause?


In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion.

 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,353
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I was not aware that a D&C would be performed on someone actively miscarrying. When I had spontaeous abortions, once as late as 12 weeks, I was not offered any care during the miscarriage. I sat in the waiting room to get my HCG, doing the cramping, the bleeding and all, then went home when they said, “yup, that there is a spontaneous abortion. Call us to schedule another HCG in a day or two.” This was in a blue state.

So I don’t understand this post.
Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years?
If the uterus empties completely they don't do a D&C. If the uterus doesn't completely empty they need to scrape it out--the remains will otherwise risk infection.

Dear Loren,

I know this already.

Sorry for the snark, but as you can see I was discussing “actively miscarrying,” as the article quoted someone in the waiting room doing the cramping and bleeding steps. And as you can see, I was one of those people (more than once.). And as you can see, they sent me home to return for a later, second, HGC test to make sure it was complete. I totally don’t need a childfree man ‘splaining it to me.

(Did you even process what I wrote? Or just reflexively answer?)

Unfortunately, we are seeing what we saw back when there was strong enforcement of abortion being illegal--doctors afraid to intervene in an incomplete miscarriage for fear of being accused of performing an abortion.8

And I agree that is is a real issue about danger - but it is not accurate in the article to claim that this is relevant while a woman is actively cramping and bleeding.


As I said.

And this is why men, even well-meaning ones, should not be making any rules about this.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,016
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
There was a statistic in te 90s that could be interpreted to say that following legal widely available birth control crime took a dip. Less numbers of unwanted and uncred for kids.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There was a statistic in te 90s that could be interpreted to say that following legal widely available birth control crime took a dip. Less numbers of unwanted and uncred for kids.
That's at least possible, but there is an additional factor: banning tetraethyl lead from gasoline, where it was used as an antiknock additive. Lead has deleterious mental effects like lower IQ and less impulse control, thus leading to more criminality, and lead from car exhaust was enough to induce significant amounts of these effects.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,353
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Well, I guess we’ll get t do the crime experiment a second time, this time whith the lead pollution controlled for.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,016
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
It was not just from gas. A bigger issue was kids eating lead paint. And lead water pipes.

Looking back if I had gotten a girl pregnant in the 70s it would have been bad for me, the girl, and the kid. I was unprepared to raise kids. I was pretty irresponsible.

Coincident with birth control there was also a spike in STDs. I read somewhere before pemcillin STDs were a strong limiter on sex outside of marriage. Al Coone famously suffered from syphilis and went mad.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,704
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I was not aware that a D&C would be performed on someone actively miscarrying. When I had spontaeous abortions, once as late as 12 weeks, I was not offered any care during the miscarriage. I sat in the waiting room to get my HCG, doing the cramping, the bleeding and all, then went home when they said, “yup, that there is a spontaneous abortion. Call us to schedule another HCG in a day or two.” This was in a blue state.

So I don’t understand this post.
Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years?
If the uterus empties completely they don't do a D&C. If the uterus doesn't completely empty they need to scrape it out--the remains will otherwise risk infection.

Dear Loren,

I know this already.

Sorry for the snark, but as you can see I was discussing “actively miscarrying,” as the article quoted someone in the waiting room doing the cramping and bleeding steps. And as you can see, I was one of those people (more than once.). And as you can see, they sent me home to return for a later, second, HGC test to make sure it was complete. I totally don’t need a childfree man ‘splaining it to me.

(Did you even process what I wrote? Or just reflexively answer?)

You asked if things had changed in the last 20 years. I was pointing out that not every miscarriage leads to a D&C.

Unfortunately, we are seeing what we saw back when there was strong enforcement of abortion being illegal--doctors afraid to intervene in an incomplete miscarriage for fear of being accused of performing an abortion.8

And I agree that is is a real issue about danger - but it is not accurate in the article to claim that this is relevant while a woman is actively cramping and bleeding.
It is relevant--they are afraid to remove fetal tissue from the uterus even after the pregnancy has failed.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,353
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I was pointing out that not every miscarriage leads to a D&C.


I know that. None of mine resulted in a D&C.

You asked if things had changed in the last 20 years.

Correct - in terms of NOT doing a D&C while the woman is in the throes of abdominal cramping and beeding stages of a spontaneous abortion.

Unless things have changed, They don’t do a D&C while the woman’s uterus is expelling the products of conception. They wait for that to finish, then see if there’s anything left behind that needs to be done.

I know that.

His article said:

was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought.

And I posted that this sounded odd and wrong and that, 20 year ago at least, they would ALL have been turned away because there is no urgent medical attention to be given during active spontaneous abortion. You wait. You let the body do what it does.

So yes, I already said everything you’re trying to tell me. I’ve already lived through everything you’re trying to explain. I already made the point that you’re trying to make to me.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I was pointing out that not every miscarriage leads to a D&C.


I know that. None of mine resulted in a D&C.

You asked if things had changed in the last 20 years.

Correct - in terms of NOT doing a D&C while the woman is in the throes of abdominal cramping and beeding stages of a spontaneous abortion.

Unless things have changed, They don’t do a D&C while the woman’s uterus is expelling the products of conception. They wait for that to finish, then see if there’s anything left behind that needs to be done.

I know that.

His article said:

was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought.

And I posted that this sounded odd and wrong and that, 20 year ago at least, they would ALL have been turned away because there is no urgent medical attention to be given during active spontaneous abortion. You wait. You let the body do what it does.

So yes, I already said everything you’re trying to tell me. I’ve already lived through everything you’re trying to explain. I already made the point that you’re trying to make to me.
FWIW, I had the same reaction as you did to the article: It seemed wrong, and at odds with my experience and those of women I know who had miscarriages at various points in their pregnancies. I am certain that some women and some circumstances do call for a D&C during or post miscarriage. I wonder if the author wasn't confused about the real issue some doctors are having: concern of treating women and prescribing anything to help with pain, excess bleeding, or to ensure complete expulsion of all the components of the pregnancy, and fear of being accused of causing the miscarriage: ie performing an abortion. Given the absolute ignorance coming out of the mouths/pens of men who feel they are expert enough to write laws governing medical procedures, I can well understand their fears.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
AOC recounts fearing she would need abortion after sex attack: ‘I at least had a choice’
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she once feared she would need to undergo an abortion after being sexually assaulted, saying it left her feeling “horrified” and “really alone” but that she “at least had a choice”.

...
“I have, you know, publically kind of talked about my experience with sexual assault in the past. After you experience something that traumatising and if you are a person that menstruates you know your cycle, and this happened to me, your cycle can be really really thrown off,” she said during an Instagram Live appearance while raising funds for abortion care.

“You may miss a cycle, you may not even be pregnant but miss a cycle because of the amount of the immense trauma and stress of experiencing that,” she continued.

“I remember when that happened the horror that I had felt and I felt really alone,” she said, adding that she had grown up in a religious household and her choices were deeply personal.

“And that is why it is a choice for every person.”

“I remember in that moment after what happened I was so horrified. What I do remember in that moment was that I had felt like no matter what’d happened... I at least had a choice in what happened to my life after a choice was taken away from me... after a choice over my body was taken away from me,” the representative added.
Abortion Rights Fundraiser on Instagram Live | Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - YouTube - her whole Instagram video on YouTube.

She also said that New York will be a sort of abortion sanctuary state for people from other states who want to come there to get abortions.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
McBath tells personal story about miscarriages before House committee hearing on abortion rights |
U.S. Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Marietta, shared her painful story of multiple miscarriages before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on abortion rights Wednesday.

...
McBath raised the specter of the criminalization of miscarriage if abortion is outlawed, saying that she would not have had access to adequate medical care during her three miscarriages if abortion had been illegal.

“After which failed pregnancy should I have been imprisoned? Would it have been after the first miscarriage, after doctors used what would be an illegal drug to abort the lost fetus?,” McBath asked.

“I ask because the same medicine used to treat my failed pregnancies is the same medicine states like Texas would make illegal. I ask because if Alabama makes abortion murder, does it make miscarriage manslaughter?”

...
“Women’s rights are human rights. Reproductive health care is health care. Medical decisions should be made by women and those that they trust, not politicians and officials,” McBath proclaimed at the end of her testimony.

“Freedom is our right to choose.”
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Abortion: El Salvador’s jailed women offer US glimpse of post-Roe future | Abortion | The Guardian
‘Don’t let our reality become your reality,’ campaigners warn after woman is freed after decade behind bars for medical emergency ruled attempted murder

A 33-year-old woman in El Salvador who suffered a medical emergency while pregnant has been freed after serving a decade in jail for attempted murder, the victim of a draconian abortion ban being replicated in the US.

The woman, named only as Jacqueline, sought medical help for an obstetric complication in 2011, and even though the baby survived, she was arrested on suspicion of attempted abortion. She was separated from her newborn daughter and eight-year-old son, and sentenced to 15 years for attempted murder.

Jacqueline, who was released on Wednesday, is the 65th woman to be freed after having been wrongly jailed on murder charges following a miscarriage or other obstetric emergency since the total ban on abortion came into force in 1998.

The Salvadorian anti-abortion law, which was subsequently written into the constitution, has led to at least 182 women who suffered an obstetric emergency being prosecuted for abortion or aggravated homicide.

Poor, young women from rural areas with limited access to healthcare have been disproportionately persecuted, with most reported to the police by hospital workers. In many cases, prosecutors and judges have argued that the woman’s failure to save the pregnancy amounted to murder.

Salvadorian lawyers and activists have worked to free the convicted women, pursuing pardons, sentence reduction and access to education and work programs that can lead to an early release. Ten women have been freed since last December, leaving three still in prison.
If anti-abortion activists get what they want, then this is a very likely future, with women who miscarry being charged with attempted abortion or negligent homicide or something similar.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Nicaragua abortion ban 'cruel and inhuman disgrace' - CNN.com
noting Amnesty International's report
The Impact of the Complete Ban of Abortion in Nicaragua: A briefing to the UN Committee against Torture by Amnesty International - INT_CAT_NGO_NIC_42_9738_E.pdf

From CNN:
Nicaragua hands out prison sentences for girls and women who seek an abortion and for doctors and nurses who provide services linked with abortion.

Amnesty reports that doctors and nurses are frightened to treat a pregnant woman or girl for illnesses such as cancer, malaria, HIV/AIDS or cardiac emergencies where treatment could cause injury or death to the fetus.

One health worker told Amnesty researchers that one woman who was admitted to hospital following a miscarriage was so terrified of being prosecuted for abortion that she asked doctors not to treat her in case any treatment was seen as an intentional termination of pregnancy.

"She told the health worker that she was concerned that her neighbor, who knew she was pregnant, might report her for having an abortion," the report said.

"There's only one way to describe what we have seen in Nicaragua: sheer horror. Children are being compelled to bear children. Pregnant women are being denied essential - including life-saving - medical care," said Gilmore.

According to official figures cited in the Amnesty report, in the first five months of 2009, 33 girls and women died from pregnancy and birth-related complications, compared to 20 in the same period last year.

Before the law was changed therapeutic abortion had been recognized as a necessary procedure in Nicaragua for more than 100 years, Amnesty said.

However, President Daniel Ortega of the left-wing Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) backed the law banning abortion to win crucial conservative Roman Catholic support in the January 2007 elections, Amnesty said.
How did he get into power?

The story starts in 1972, when there was a major earthquake in Nicaragua's capital city, Managua. Some 90% of the city was destroyed, 500,000 people were made homeless, and over 10,000 people were killed by it. A large amount of aid poured in, but leader Anastasio Somoza and his friends stole much of it.

This provoked a rebellion, a rebellion that soon took the name of an earlier rebel, Augusto César Sandino, becoming known as the Sandinistas. They took over in 1979, with Daniel Ortega being their leader. He was elected President in 1984.

The Sandinist government was sympathetic to the Soviet Union and Cuba, and the Reagan administration decided to try to overthrow them by supporting some counterrevolutionary rebels or "Contras". Financing the Contras involved selling arms to Iran and sending some of the proceeds to them, and when that was revealed, it became the Iran-Contra scandal.

The Sandinists were defeated in a 1990 election and were out of power until 2006, when Daniel Ortega came back as President.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Marking 10 years of Nicaragua’s abortion ban, Ipas releases study on resulting epidemic of ‘child mothers’ - Ipas
In Nicaragua’s capital, Managua, Ipas presented a study titled “Forced pregnancy after rape: Child mothers younger than 14 years old” and an accompanying collection of testimonials from girls interviewed for the study (both available only in Spanish). The event had a diverse audience: national organizations that work with children; government institutions, which attended these events for the first time in 10 years; and organizations from the wider women’s movement.

The study shows that every year approximately 6,750 girls between ages 10-14 are victims of sexual violence, and 1,300 become pregnant, according to Nicaragua’s 2011-12 National Demography and Health Survey. But Ipas’s report asserts that in reality the number of young girls who become pregnant from rape is much higher, as the same survey found 70 percent of girls who experience rape under the age of 15 never seek help or report the crime.

Latin American feminists vow to protect abortion rights at home after shock US ruling | Global development | The Guardian - "Women’s movements have fought hard to reverse anti-abortion laws in their countries and say it’s not the end for the US"
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
San Francisco archbishop bars Pelosi from communion over abortion stance | Nancy Pelosi | The Guardian
In a letter addressed to the US House speaker and posted on his Twitter account, ultra conservative Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone argued that Pelosi’s “position on abortion has become only more extreme over the years, especially in the last few months,” and he had decided to block her from communion after she had ignored his requests to explain her stance to him.

Cordileone – San Francisco’s archbishop since 2012 – accused Pelosi of failing to “understand the grave evil she is perpetrating, the scandal she is causing, and the danger to her own soul she is risking”. He said he would need to stop her from receiving communion until she “publicly repudiates her support for abortion”.

“Please know that I find no pleasure whatsoever in fulfilling my pastoral duty here,” Cordileone added in his letter, which he said served as a public notice of his decision to Bay Area Catholics.

The missive hailed Pelosi for “her advocacy for the care of the poor and vulnerable”, said the move was apolitical, and called the longtime Democratic congresswoman a “sister in Christ”, but it also called for the House speaker to confess and repent.
noting
Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone on Twitter: "The Archdiocesan website is having troubles so I am retweeting this. Full text of Archbishop Cordileone letter to Nancy Pelosi banning her from Communion - https://t.co/ds134LClbi" / Twitter
noting
Full text of Archbishop Cordileone letter to Nancy Pelosi banning her from Communion – Catholic World Report
... I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publicly repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.

From 2015, In Pelosi, Strong Catholic Faith and Abortion Rights Coexist - The New York Times

But,
Vatican Warns U.S. Bishops: Don’t Deny Biden Communion Over Abortion - The New York Times - "Conservative American Catholic bishops are pressing for a debate over whether Catholics who support the right to an abortion should be allowed to take Communion."
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
The ones who refuse to do their job because it involves siding on the trolley problem with the fully fledged adult don't deserve to be standing in that place, and also standing in the way of the wellbeing of the adult human.

Early term abortions are done in offices where all the employees are there to do that job with no excuse.

Late term abortions are done to save the life of the mother.

People in a hospital who refuse to save a woman's life because she is going to, but has not yet lost the child, do not have any right to work there. Period.
That's a perfectly legitimate policy position to take. Likewise, when a person who joined the military because he was willing to kill and to risk his life to defend his country from invaders, and who took the pay and benefits that came with that job, decides he's opting out when the chain of command orders him overseas to take out a government that attacked his country, because he didn't sign up for a foreign war, that too is a perfectly legitimate policy position to take. But he probably should not call himself a pacifist.
See, I never supported deserters so I don't get why you would try to draw that analogy. Even so, the deserter is still a pacifist, even if he is a traitorous asshole who wasted everyone's time and money.
That is fractally wrong. I get to draw an analogy because it's a good analogy irrespective of whom you support. People willing to fight in wars to drive invaders out of their countries are not pacifists and being unwilling to invade other people's countries does not make them pacifists. And desertion is not treason -- I get that you're ticked off at such people and rightly so, but the constitution has a specific definition of treason because the British government was in the habit of calling anybody it was ticked off at a traitor.

In fact, I joined the army, deployed like everyone else, and the only orders I refused to follow were the illegal kind, and the only one I ever had to refuse was a direct order to inflict medically significant self-harm: to cut myself with a dirty sharpened rock.
Weird. I'm not clear on what distinguishes the illegal order you had to refuse from the illegal orders you refused even though you didn't have to refuse them. And ordering you to cut yourself with a dirty sharpened rock does not strike me as necessarily illegal -- I can easily imagine scenarios where that would be a smart tactic, and I've never even been in the military. E.g. your platoon leader wants to leave a blood stain for the enemy to find, as a ruse. I take it nothing like that was going on in your case.

It is not a "choice" as in "something someone has a right to choose upon" to be hired and be a nurse.

It is a privilege, as is the mercy that any child in the womb receives.

It may be your preference, but ultimately it is someone else's choice, sometimes the distillation of many people's choices.

But for the applicant or employee or the fetus, it is someone else's choice whether they continue doing that thing.
By that standard, you could favor abortion prohibition unless the father consents and favor forced abortions if the father wants to abort but the mother refuses, and still claim to be "pro choice about abortion".

Earlier you wrote "Early term abortions are done in offices where all the employees are there to do that job with no excuse. Late term abortions are done to save the life of the mother." That's nonsense. Do you really imagine that elective abortions only happen at Planned Parenthood and dedicated abortion clinics? Lots of ordinary hospitals perform early term abortions as one of a myriad medical services they provide. People take jobs at them expecting to do all those other services; they aren't automatically there to do non-emergency abortions just because some outside party thinks the definition of their jobs is up to him. For instance, there was a recent lawsuit against U. of Vermont Medical Center because they allegedly illegally ordered a Catholic nurse to help perform an abortion. Congress passed a law right after Roe v Wade guaranteeing a nurse's right to tell the hospital to assign a different nurse to that job.

Now, you can certainly argue that that's a bad law and nurses shouldn't get to opt out and anybody who isn't up for every procedure should have thought of that when she decided to become a nurse, and maybe you can even make a solid case for that position. But if that's you're attitude, then you are no more pro-choice than the murderer of an abortion doctor is pro-life. You're just pro-the-choices-you-care-about the same way the murderer is pro-the-lives-he-cares-about. Whoop-de-do. Everyone is pro-the-choices-he-cares-about.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,704
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
People willing to fight in wars
But he wasn't actually willing to fight in the war was he, then?

Everything else just kind of shakes off of your detail into further nonsense and No-True-Scotsman Pacifist
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,956
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Given the propensity of some people here to spout a lot of analogies, it is worth reviewing the informal fallacy known as False Analogy:

A false analogy is an informal fallacy. It applies to inductive arguments. It is an informal fallacy because the error concerns what the argument is about, and not the argument itself.

An analogy proposes that two concepts which are similar (A and B) have a common relationship to some property. A has property X, therefore B must also have property X. In a false analogy, the objects may have some similarities, but they do not both have property X. That way, both objects may have the same color, but this does not mean that they have the same size.[1] Even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size. One who makes an invalid analogy or comparison is often said to be "comparing apples and oranges".

Analogies are not always bad, but they always break down when used to make a point in an argument. Their primary use is to teach novel or complicated concepts, not to serve as proof that a conclusion in an argument is correct or true.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Bomb, I have nothing further to add to what I've already said on the subject of "pro-choice" vs "pro-life". Thanks for the discussion.
Well, perhaps you do have something further to add...

Given the propensity of some people here to spout a lot of analogies, it is worth reviewing the informal fallacy known as False Analogy:

A false analogy is an informal fallacy. It applies to inductive arguments. It is an informal fallacy because the error concerns what the argument is about, and not the argument itself.

An analogy proposes that two concepts which are similar (A and B) have a common relationship to some property. A has property X, therefore B must also have property X. In a false analogy, ...

Analogies are not always bad, but they always break down when used to make a point in an argument. Their primary use is to teach novel or complicated concepts, not to serve as proof that a conclusion in an argument is correct or true.
I take it if I made a valid and sound deductive argument from true premises you'd reply with a link to a page explaining that there exist unsound arguments with false premises and/or invalid reasoning steps. ;)

The term "pro-abortion" is a bit more problematic, because it is not about persuading women to prefer or choose an abortion.
That's an argument. It draws a conclusion from a premise, via some opaque inference procedure. Normally I would point out that the argument is unsound because the inference procedure is invalid; and I would back up that contention by exhibiting a counterexample in which the same inference procedure is applied to a different true premise and it leads to a manifestly false conclusion. But in this case I appear to be up against a disputant who simply labels counterexamples "analogies" and refuses point-blank to address the exhibited defect in his argument on the grounds that some analogies are false, even though he hasn't offered any case that the exhibited counterexample is a false analogy. This amounts to wholesale rejection of the principle of proof by reductio ad absurdum. Are you perhaps one of those so-called "Intuitionists" who deny that ((Not (Not (P))) implies (P))?

If reductio ad absurdum is off the table, what is there to say to an arguer who claims A is P because B is not Q, other than "Show your work."?

The term "pro-abortion" is a bit more problematic, because it is not about persuading women to prefer or choose an abortion.
That appears to be a formal fallacy: "Non Sequitur". By what inference procedure do you get from 'it is not about persuading women to prefer or choose an abortion' to 'the term "pro-abortion" is a bit more problematic'? Show your work.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Looking back 5 years:
Pelosi: Democratic candidates should not be forced to toe party line on abortion - The Washington Post
The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.

“This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she added, referring to the fact that she is the daughter and sister of former mayors of that city. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”
Nancy Pelosi says abortion is ‘fading’ as an issue for Democrats. The opposite is true for conservatives. - The Washington Post
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) thinks Democratic voters just don't care about abortion anymore, at least not to the degree they used to.

“It’s kind of fading as an issue,” she told Washington Post reporters on Tuesday. “It really is.”

But conservative lawmakers certainly still care a lot. In fact, antiabortion advocates are on a roll right now, successfully making it harder for women to get abortions in dozens of states.
This is the same Nancy Pelosi who talks about wanting a strong Republican Party.

But that has not been a very successful strategy.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Susan Collins Called Police Over Abortion Rights Chalk Message
Republican Sen. Susan Collins called the police on Saturday after a chalk message — which asked her to support legislation aimed at protecting abortion access — was found on a sidewalk outside her home in Bangor, Maine.

"Susie, please, Mainers want [the Women's Health Protection Act]," the message said, according to a police report obtained by BuzzFeed News. "Vote yes, clean up your mess."

The message was "intricately drawn" in "multiple different colors," the police report stated.
She voted against it, as did every other Senate Republican, including Lisa Murkowski AK, another pro-choice Republican.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,698
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Looking back 5 years:
Pelosi: Democratic candidates should not be forced to toe party line on abortion - The Washington Post
The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.

“This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she added, referring to the fact that she is the daughter and sister of former mayors of that city. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”
Nancy Pelosi says abortion is ‘fading’ as an issue for Democrats. The opposite is true for conservatives. - The Washington Post
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) thinks Democratic voters just don't care about abortion anymore, at least not to the degree they used to.

“It’s kind of fading as an issue,” she told Washington Post reporters on Tuesday. “It really is.”

But conservative lawmakers certainly still care a lot. In fact, antiabortion advocates are on a roll right now, successfully making it harder for women to get abortions in dozens of states.
This is the same Nancy Pelosi who talks about wanting a strong Republican Party.

But that has not been a very successful strategy.
And we're supposed to believe the DNC leadership gives a shit about us? It's fine to "build bridges", but not if they're only building on the other side.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,956
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Bomb, I have nothing further to add to what I've already said on the subject of "pro-choice" vs "pro-life". Thanks for the discussion.
Well, perhaps you do have something further to add...

But not on the subject of "pro-choice" vs "pro-life". My comment was about using analogy, an informal fallacy, to prove a point.

...Analogies are not always bad, but they always break down when used to make a point in an argument. Their primary use is to teach novel or complicated concepts, not to serve as proof that a conclusion in an argument is correct or true.
I take it if I made a valid and sound deductive argument from true premises you'd reply with a link to a page explaining that there exist unsound arguments with false premises and/or invalid reasoning steps. ;)

No, I would congratulate you on finally making a sound argument. Time to break out the champagne! :thumbup::happydrinking::applause2:
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
And we're supposed to believe the DNC leadership gives a shit about us? It's fine to "build bridges", but not if they're only building on the other side.
I agree that being conciliatory won't work if the other side refuses to also do so. I remember from some decades back some pro-choicers tried to reach out to anti-abortionists, but that side objected to working with "baby killers".

The Real Dividing Line On Abortion | FiveThirtyEight
... Even though abortion is often presented as a women’s issue, it’s not a topic with a stark division of opinion between men and women. If you dig into the polling and research, it becomes clear that the divide is less about people’s individual genders than the way they think about gender. People who believe in traditional gender roles — and perceive that those roles are increasingly being blurred to men’s disadvantage — are much likelier to oppose abortion than people who don’t hold those beliefs.
The two sexes are much alike about abortion, though men tend to be slightly more opposed than women. There are also plenty of anti-abortion women.

"People with different views on what's needed for gender equality, it turns out, also tend to think pretty differently about abortion"

What to Know about Public Opinion on Abortion in 2022
Gender Equality, the Status of Women and the 2020 Elections.
Pro, anti, poll option
  • + - "I want there to be equal numbers of men and women in positions of power in our society"
  • - + "These days, society seems to punish men just for acting like men"
  • - + "Agree women are too easily offended"
  • - + "Agree most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist"
  • - + "Agree men generally make better political leaders than women"
  • + - "Agree I want there to be equal numbers of men and women in positions of power in our society
  • + - "Think the way women are treated in society is an important 2020 issue"
  • + - "Agree the country would be better off if we had more women in political office"
  • + - "Think access to birth control affects women's equality"
  • + - "Think lack of women in political office affects women's equality"
  • + - "Favorable toward #MeToo movement
  • + - "Believe systems in society were set up to give men more opportunities than women"
So differences about abortion reflect broader differences.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Continuing with 538,
These findings line up with decades of research suggesting that views of abortion are intimately linked to how people think about motherhood, sex and women’s social roles. In the 1980s, the sociologist Kristin Luker argued that abortion is such an intractable issue because the people on either side of the debate have fundamentally different ideas about women’s autonomy. According to her, abortion-rights supporters saw women’s ability to make decisions about their bodies as fundamental to women’s equality, while anti-abortion advocates believed this focus on autonomy undermines the importance of women’s roles as mothers.

That analysis can feel a little stuck in the Reagan era, particularly since support for women working outside the home has grown significantly since the 1980s.
noting
PROFILING ACTIVISTS FOR AND AGAINST ABORTION - The New York Times - July 21, 1984
Though for years they have been in legislative and judicial combat over the right of women to have abortions, the differences between the ''prochoice'' and ''prolife'' movements, as they call themselves, form a chasm that is broader and deeper than the abortion issue itself.

This is the premise of a report titled ''The War Between the Women'' by Kristin Luker in the current issue of Family Planning Perspectives, the bimonthly journal of the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The article was adapted from sections of Dr. Luker's recent book, ''Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood,'' published by the University of California Press.

''Even if the abortion issue had not mobilized them on opposite sides of the barricades, they would have been opponents on a wide variety of issues,'' wrote Dr. Luker, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, San Diego. Not only are the two groups of women different from one another, but women themselves are also relative newcomers to the debate. As Dr. Luker pointed out, it is only in recent years that abortion has become a women's issue. Historically, it was the province of male professionals - physicians, lawyers and theologians.
It's a testament to how far we have come as a society where those with a direct stake in abortion are now having their say about the issue.

KL had a curious difficulty. ''I could not find any prochoice activists who put in more than 5 hours, while some of the prolife people spent as much as 40 hours a week on the issue.'' Why the discrepancy? ''The prochoice side won a victory with the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1973.'' Of her 200 interviews, 125 were on the anti side and 75 on the pro side.

She composed a composite portrait of activists on each side.
In her report, Dr. Luker drew a profile of each type of woman. The typical antiabortion activist, she said, is a 44-year-old who was married at age 17 and has three or more children. Her father graduated from high school only, although there is a better than even chance that she went to college (60 percent of the antiabortion sample had bachelors' degrees). She does not work outside the home (only three did, and they held jobs traditional for women: social worker, nurse and teacher). Her husband is a small-business man or lower-income white-collar employee, and the family income is less than $30,000 a year. She attends church at least once a week, and is most likely a Catholic.

Her counterpart on the prochoice side is also married and 44. She was married at 22 or older and has one or two children. Her father is a college graduate, and she is likely to be one too. She is employed and is married to a professional man. Their combined income is $50,000 or more. She rarely attends church.
She also notes how they view the sexes in society.
''Prolife activists see the world divided into two spheres - public and private life - and each sex has an appropriate, natural and satisfying place in his or her own sphere,'' Dr. Luker wrote. For a woman, that sphere is the home, where she is to have and rear as many children as are born to her. Married couples, Dr. Luker found, are expected to accept happily whatever children are born.

Prochoice women believe, Dr. Luker wrote, that men and women are fundamentally equal, by which they mean substantially similar, at least in their rights and responsibilities. ''They and their husbands share many social resources - status outside of the home, a paycheck and peers and friends located in the work world rather than in the family world.'' In addition, they resist values that suggest that motherhood is a natural, primary or inevitable role for a woman. Though they value children enormously, sex is valuable in itself and ought not be confined to procreation. However, prochoice advocates were troubled by the use of abortion as fertility control.
KL does not expect either side to be able to accommodate the other, because it would be too much of a sacrifice to do so. ''Their feelings on abortion are embedded in a larger world view,'so for them to question their beliefs about abortion would be to challenge an interrelated set of values about the roles of motherhood, the sexes, of morality, of religion and of human rights.''
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Now, you can certainly argue that that's a bad law and nurses shouldn't get to opt out and anybody who isn't up for every procedure should have thought of that when she decided to become a nurse, and maybe you can even make a solid case for that position. But if that's you're attitude, then you are no more pro-choice than the murderer of an abortion doctor is pro-life.
Today on Abuse of Juxtaposition, we discuss the juxtaposition of murderers with people that believe in a woman's right to self-autonomy. We will discuss why some have this need to make such drastic comparisons in order to try to "make a point", but in the end, are just handwaved away as overly simplistic hyperbole which is both invalid philosophically and impotent in the power of persuasion.

And later, we discuss "That is what Nazis would do".
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,354
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Seen elsewhere:
Republican governor: "Ooops, we went to far".

from: CNN
Arkansas' near-total abortion ban should be "revisited" to provide exceptions for instances of rape or incest should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the state's Republican governor (Asa Hutchinson) said...Signed in March 2021 by Hutchinson, Arkansas' abortion ban would go into effect if Roe is reversed. The law would ban providers from performing abortions "except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency" and makes no exceptions for instances of rape, incest or fetal anomalies.

This is a sad reminder about just how much republicans are scumbags. I had a tiny bit of sympathy for Hutchinson because he seen as an anti-Trumper. But here is proof that even when a republican disavows Trump, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

I have absolutely no respect of sympathy for Hutchinson here. I suspect his sympathy for rape/incest victims is false, and he is really only interested in trying to appear less extreme for political purposes. Hutchinson was under no real pressure to sign the bill as presented... he could have vetoed it and challenged the legislature to come back with a bill that contains the exceptions he claims to favor. And there was no rush to get the law passed.... it was a trigger law (i.e. wouldn't have come into effect immediately anyways) so they had time to get it "right". But he signed it, and now fears political backlash.

I hope he is reminded ever time he campaigns about how he signed a law that forces rape victims to carry the fetus to term.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Back to 538.
... people who oppose abortion aren’t “necessarily [coming] from a place where women belong in only one sphere, which is motherhood.” But views about power and control are still crucially important, she said. In contrast with a focus on women’s ability to make decisions about their own bodies, anti-abortion advocates see that choice within a broader context where other people have views that matter too. “We hear about women and their spouses, what’s the father’s role,” she said. “The idea is that this is not a decision that women should make in isolation.

The divide between people who support traditional gender roles — especially those who think modern society is upsetting the balance of those roles by giving women too much power — and people who disagree with that position is spawning other culture wars. It’s partly why former President Donald Trump’s hypermasculine persona worked so well for him politically, and why Republican politicians continue to focus on the idea that men face discrimination, fueled by a backlash to the #MeToo movement and by declining rates of higher education and rising rates of loneliness among men.

These arguments don’t appeal to all men, of course, and they do appeal to some women.

...
This also helps explain why there are usually bigger political divides among men and women than between them. For example, studies find that men who adhere to more stringent notions of masculine identity, which is used as a proxy for supporting traditional gender roles, look very different on political issues than men who identify as less masculine, as we wrote in 2020.
There is a big split between the two main political parties. D = Dem, R = Rep, M = men, W = women
  • Agree with “American society today has become too soft and feminine”: DM 25%, DW 20%, RM 78%, RW 65%
  • Agree with “White men are too often blamed for problems in American society”: DM 26%, DW 20%, RM 75%, RW 60%
Politics, Sex, and Sexuality: The Growing Gender Divide in American Life - The Survey Center on American Life
Why So Many Men Stuck With Trump In 2020 | FiveThirtyEight

The article ended with
“Abortion is becoming personal for people who see it as a proxy for men, largely white men, taking away power from women,” Undem told us. “It’s not about a procedure. It’s about women’s place in the world.”
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,102
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
Seen elsewhere:
Republican governor: "Ooops, we went to far".

from: CNN
Arkansas' near-total abortion ban should be "revisited" to provide exceptions for instances of rape or incest should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the state's Republican governor (Asa Hutchinson) said...Signed in March 2021 by Hutchinson, Arkansas' abortion ban would go into effect if Roe is reversed. The law would ban providers from performing abortions "except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency" and makes no exceptions for instances of rape, incest or fetal anomalies.

This is a sad reminder about just how much republicans are scumbags. I had a tiny bit of sympathy for Hutchinson because he seen as an anti-Trumper. But here is proof that even when a republican disavows Trump, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

I have absolutely no respect of sympathy for Hutchinson here. I suspect his sympathy for rape/incest victims is false, and he is really only interested in trying to appear less extreme for political purposes. Hutchinson was under no real pressure to sign the bill as presented... he could have vetoed it and challenged the legislature to come back with a bill that contains the exceptions he claims to favor. And there was no rush to get the law passed.... it was a trigger law (i.e. wouldn't have come into effect immediately anyways) so they had time to get it "right". But he signed it, and now fears political backlash.

I hope he is reminded ever time he campaigns about how he signed a law that forces rape victims to carry the fetus to term.
sad, seeing these people chicken-shit out of their convictions for political expediency.
every time i see a hubub about 'exceptions for rape/incest' i can't help but be saddened over how shallow and stupid discourse has become in this country.

if you genuinely believe that innocent human life begins at conception and that it must be protected, it's absurd to suggest that the father being an asshole mitigates that belief to the point where child murder becomes acceptable.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,704
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Seen elsewhere:
Republican governor: "Ooops, we went to far".

from: CNN
Arkansas' near-total abortion ban should be "revisited" to provide exceptions for instances of rape or incest should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the state's Republican governor (Asa Hutchinson) said...Signed in March 2021 by Hutchinson, Arkansas' abortion ban would go into effect if Roe is reversed. The law would ban providers from performing abortions "except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency" and makes no exceptions for instances of rape, incest or fetal anomalies.

This is a sad reminder about just how much republicans are scumbags. I had a tiny bit of sympathy for Hutchinson because he seen as an anti-Trumper. But here is proof that even when a republican disavows Trump, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

I have absolutely no respect of sympathy for Hutchinson here. I suspect his sympathy for rape/incest victims is false, and he is really only interested in trying to appear less extreme for political purposes. Hutchinson was under no real pressure to sign the bill as presented... he could have vetoed it and challenged the legislature to come back with a bill that contains the exceptions he claims to favor. And there was no rush to get the law passed.... it was a trigger law (i.e. wouldn't have come into effect immediately anyways) so they had time to get it "right". But he signed it, and now fears political backlash.

I hope he is reminded ever time he campaigns about how he signed a law that forces rape victims to carry the fetus to term.
sad, seeing these people chicken-shit out of their convictions for political expediency.
every time i see a hubub about 'exceptions for rape/incest' i can't help but be saddened over how shallow and stupid discourse has become in this country.

if you genuinely believe that innocent human life begins at conception and that it must be protected, it's absurd to suggest that the father being an asshole mitigates that belief to the point where child murder becomes acceptable.
Back that up.

If you genuinely believe that someone in the womb has all the qualities that obligate consideration of it as a moral entity, it is still not murder to let it die on account of being disconnected from the creature it is parasitizing.

It FIRST has an obligation to not be a parasite to get any right at all to continue existing.

If some psychotic asshole with god powers snapped their fingers and suddenly I was connected to you umbilically, if I cut the cord you would die and I wouldn't and I am the only being in the universe who can do this for you because the psychotic god power dude snapped his fingers again and fucked off...

It is the psychotic god dude who murdered you and put your existence on my mercy.

It is not murder for me to disconnect you, a whole person. It is simply letting you die as I deny you parasitic use of my body.

I could have mercy on you, but it is not murder to deny this.

Abortion is the same situation but with an arguably less ethically important agent in place of you.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,102
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
Back that up.

If you genuinely believe that someone in the womb has all the qualities that obligate consideration of it as a moral entity, it is still not murder to let it die on account of being disconnected from the creature it is parasitizing.

It FIRST has an obligation to not be a parasite to get any right at all to continue existing.
that argument doesn't track with forced-birthers, because by their logic it isn't a parasite, and the act of getting pregnant *does* obligate one to be an incubator.

Abortion is the same situation but with an arguably less ethically important agent in place of you.
except, again, by their logic that doesn't track since their belief is that the accumulation of sin over a lifetime by definition makes one less important the older one gets.

mind you, i don't believe any of this horseshit, i'm just saying that by the argument they are presenting the logical extension is to determine that the circumstances of conception is irrelevant to whether or not the thing is sacrosanct.
allowing exceptions because of X or Y are morally inconsistent with the argument that life is inherently valuable.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Oklahoma governor signs the nation's strictest abortion ban : NPR
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt on Wednesday signed into law the nation's strictest abortion ban, making the state the first in the nation to effectively end availability of the procedure.

State lawmakers approved the ban enforced by civil lawsuits rather than criminal prosecution, similar to a Texas law that was passed last year. The law takes effect immediately upon Stitt's signature and prohibits all abortions with few exceptions. Abortion providers have said they will stop performing the procedure as soon as the bill is signed.

"I promised Oklahomans that as governor I would sign every piece of pro-life legislation that came across my desk and I am proud to keep that promise today," the first-term Republican said in a statement. "From the moment life begins at conception is when we have a responsibility as human beings to do everything we can to protect that baby's life and the life of the mother. That is what I believe and that is what the majority of Oklahomans believe."

...
The only exceptions in the Oklahoma law are to save the life of a pregnant woman or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest that has been reported to law enforcement.

The bill specifically authorizes doctors to remove a "dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion," or miscarriage, or to remove an ectopic pregnancy, a potentially life-threatening emergency that occurs when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, often in a fallopian tube and early in pregnancy.

The law also does not apply to the use of morning-after pills such as Plan B or any type of contraception.

...
Idaho's governor signed the first copycat measure in March, although it has been temporarily blocked by the state's Supreme Court

The third Oklahoma bill is to take effect this summer and would make it a felony to perform an abortion, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. That bill contains no exceptions for rape or incest.
Which states are next?
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,513
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Poland's Abortion Ban Offers Glimpse Of Future Without Roe : Consider This from NPR : NPR

"NPR's Ari Shapiro reports on an underground network of reproductive rights activists who risk prison time to help abortion patients."

The Looming End to Abortion Rights Gives Liberal Democrats a Spark - The New York Times
Around the country — from South Texas to Chicago, Pittsburgh to New York — the looming loss of abortion rights has re-energized the Democratic Party’s left flank, which had absorbed a series of legislative and political blows and appeared to be divided and flagging. It has also dramatized the generational and ideological divide in the Democratic Party, between a nearly extinct older wing that opposes abortion rights and younger progressives who support them.

...
The growing intensity behind the issue has put some conservative-leaning Democrats on the defensive. Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas, the only House Democrat to vote against legislation to ensure abortion rights nationwide, insisted in an ad before his May 24 runoff with Jessica Cisneros, a progressive candidate, that he “opposes a ban on abortion.”

Candidates on the left say the potential demise of Roe shows that it’s time for Democrats to fight back.

...
But the youthful candidates of the left will have a challenge exciting voters who feel as demoralized by the Democrats’ failure to protect abortion rights as they are angry at Republicans who engineered the gutting of Roe v. Wade.

...
And while Republican consultants in Washington are telling their candidates to lay low on the issue, some of the candidates have different ideas. Three contenders for attorney general in Michigan suggested at a forum that the right to contraception established by the Supreme Court in 1965 should be decided on a state-by-state basis, assertions that Dana Nessel, Michigan’s Democratic attorney general, latched onto in her re-election bid.

Yadira Caraveo, a pediatrician and Democratic state lawmaker in Colorado running for an open House seat, is already being attacked by a would-be Republican challenger, Lori Saine, who is proclaiming herself as “strongly pro-life” and seeking to “confront and expose these radical pro-abortion Democrats.”

“They’ve already shown they can’t keep away from these issues,” Ms. Caraveo said, adding, “I want to focus on the issues that matter to people, like access to medical care and costs that are rising for families every day.”

How Democrats Want to Put Republicans on the Defensive on Abortion - The New York Times - "While conservatives control the courts and key states, the public tends to lean in favor of abortion rights. Democratic leaders are trying to translate that sentiment into victories for the party."
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,102
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
How Democrats Want to Put Republicans on the Defensive on Abortion - The New York Times - "While conservatives control the courts and key states, the public tends to lean in favor of abortion rights. Democratic leaders are trying to translate that sentiment into victories for the party."
well hey they've been saying that for 40 years and then utterly failing to do that for 40 years so maybe this time they'll totally do it.

yeah i'm sure that'll happen, and charlie will kick the footballs, and the coyote will get that bird.
 
Top Bottom