Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the mother experiences pain, could you give a shit about the fetus's rights?

Is it life threatening or otherwise grave?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I think he's right. If you think it's murder, do you simply say "oh, that's over the border, sorry"?

If you truly see it as murder, it does become an uncompromisable issue.

Its more of a motivational question you are raising. Are we up in arms about the murder rate in the Mexican border area? We aren't even up in arms about the murder rates in the inner cities. I think people (way more than now) feel comfy when they've defined their own communities. As always, its a sliding scale, but I'm somewhere in the bottom 25% on this issue (none except for rape, incest, health of mom), and just about every pro-Life Catholic I know says they'd accept the national problem if the nation butted out.

Of course they'd have to fight it out state by state, but ultimately people like me move to Indiana. And I bring my poor Irish cousins with me.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's a very difficult question and one I haven't yet come to grips with yet. I said before that I believe science will give us the data necessary to answer it. Paramount to me is the experience (or lack thereof) of the fetus. Can it/he/she feel pain? Can it/he/she think? Etc. If either of these are present, I could give a shit about the mother's rights.

Response to negative stimulus is present in almost all living things. As to capacity for thought, I'll leave that for sebby and other philosophers to determine what exactly defines "thought."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it goes to how much weight you give the burdens - less if she didn't take proper precautions in the first place.

I fail to see where you are giving any weight at all to the mother's interests. It sounds like you think abortion is OK only if the fetus is entirely oblivious to whatever it experiences. It's not really "balancing" if one side of the scale has nothing on it. It is analytically, simply, I grant you, but only at the cost of ignoring half of a difficult moral equation.

Answer me this? Why do most people agree there should be a rape/incent exception? Could it be that there is a "no fault" element to their rationale?

I think most people are of more than one mind about abortion. A majority is uncomfortable with the idea of forcing a woman who has been raped to have an abortion.

Most people probably don't agree with your view of property rights. You should not lose your right to expel strangers from your apartment simply because they generally think that have a right to come and visit.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it goes to how much weight you give the burdens - less if she didn't take proper precautions in the first place.

Answer me this? Why do most people agree there should be a rape/incent exception? Could it be that there is a "no fault" element to their rationale?

Get raped, carry around the result of that rape for nine months, give birth to the child of the monster that raped you and get back with me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is it life threatening or otherwise grave?

Odd that you didn't have the same question about the fetus' pain. Or not so odd, since the interests of the woman are not really reflected in your moral calculus.

And I was talking about "pain," as you were, not about the severity of the threat to the woman's health.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is there a non-rhetorical difference between saying that a woman who engages in non-incestuous consensual sex forfeits the right to autonomy...

Speak in plain terms. In the pro-life rhetoric, this is "Its her fault."

I've heard its cousin, "She asked for it" is also popular.

Fear of women, my man. Its all about fear of women. You'll never see a man totally comfortable with women as his equal out there picketing a clinic. Is that a generalization? Yep. And I'll bet my first kid its spot on.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I fail to see where you are giving any weight at all to the mother's interests. It sounds like you think abortion is OK only if the fetus is entirely oblivious to whatever it experiences. It's not really "balancing" if one side of the scale has nothing on it. It is analytically, simply, I grant you, but only at the cost of ignoring half of a difficult moral equation.



I think most people are of more than one mind about abortion. A majority is uncomfortable with the idea of forcing a woman who has been raped to have an abortion.

Most people probably don't agree with your view of property rights. You should not lose your right to expel strangers from your apartment simply because they generally think that have a right to come and visit.

I give less weight to the woman's rights because she is not potentially being killed as a result of my decision. Seems logical, doesn't it? You seem to think there are equal items on both sides of the scale. I do not. Perhaps one day science will reveal that is not the case, but until then, I find it prudent to error on the side of life (just like I do on the death penalty).


I don't understand your comment on forcing a woman to have one.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Get raped, carry around the result of that rape for nine months, give birth to the child of the monster that raped you and get back with me.

Huh? Where is this coming from? I do not believe a woman should have to carry a child resulting from rape.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Odd that you didn't have the same question about the fetus' pain. Or not so odd, since the interests of the woman are not really reflected in your moral calculus.

And I was talking about "pain," as you were, not about the severity of the threat to the woman's health.

Again, you want to equate the to, but I don't think you can. A woman suffers a burden if she is forced to have a child. A fetus loses its right to live. They are not equal.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Speak in plain terms. In the pro-life rhetoric, this is "Its her fault."

I've heard its cousin, "She asked for it" is also popular.

Fear of women, my man. Its all about fear of women. You'll never see a man totally comfortable with women as his equal out there picketing a clinic. Is that a generalization? Yep. And I'll bet my first kid its spot on.

You're a riot.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Response to negative stimulus is present in almost all living things. As to capacity for thought, I'll leave that for sebby and other philosophers to determine what exactly defines "thought."

Call me callous, but I see a pharmaceutical solution to the "what about the pain the fetus might feel?" argument. That comports with my "necessary evil" stance on the matter. The process is ugly, but the alternative is far uglier. For all you "hey, she had sex, its her problem" folks, this is the other side of your "tough love" sword. If its tough love for the women, its tough love for the fetuses. Everyone's gotta be responsible, right? Life isn't fair, right? That she happened to be a woman is her tough luck. Well, that it happened to be a fetus in the wrong woman at the wrong time is the fetus' tough luck.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it goes to how much weight you give the burdens - less if she didn't take proper precautions in the first place.

Answer me this? Why do most people agree there should be a rape/incent exception? Could it be that there is a "no fault" element to their rationale?

I think it is more of a wish to spare someone subjected to a traumatizing experience a constant (for 9 months), growing, physical reminder of the experience. A reminder, moreover, that massively fucks up your body (not how the body looks -- it will suck nutrients out of you and expand some organs and squish others, can cause you to have to stay in bed (pretty much immobile) for extended periods of time, can cause you to have diabetes, can suddenly turn out to be life-threatening when it starts to be born).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think it is more of a wish to spare someone subjected to a traumatizing experience a constant (for 9 months), growing, physical reminder of the experience. A reminder, moreover, that massively fucks up your body (not how the body looks -- it will suck nutrients out of you and expand some organs and squish others, can cause you to have to stay in bed (pretty much immobile) for extended periods of time, can cause you to have diabetes, can suddenly turn out to be life-threatening when it starts to be born).

This is just a matter of degrees. Many woman are emotionally traumatized if their husband/boyfriend leaves during pregnancy and don't want to have a reminder of the relationship around for 18+ years, but you'll find far less agreement in this situation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I give less weight to the woman's rights because she is not potentially being killed as a result of my decision. Seems logical, doesn't it? You seem to think there are equal items on both sides of the scale. I do not. Perhaps one day science will reveal that is not the case, but until then, I find it prudent to error on the side of life (just like I do on the death penalty).


I don't understand your comment on forcing a woman to have one.

Maybe what you mean is not what you're saying -- that you don't consider the woman's interests -- but that the fetus' demise outweighs almost any possible interest the woman could have. If so, you'd get more sympathy if you acknowledged the woman's interests instead of suggesting that she gets whatever she's got coming if she chooses to have sex. Although I still don't understand how any of this changes if the fetus is the product of rape, which is where we started. As someone else said, the harm to it is no less in those circumstances.

I don't think I said there are equal items on each side. You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not sure how I would resolve the problem if I were faced with it, though I think I know. But I reject the simplistic thinking that ignores the differences between, e.g., a week-old fetus and a baby. At a week after conception, you're talking about a speck, something we wouldn't have been able to identify as human until the last few decades. When people invest that speck with rights, I have to think that they are motivated more by nostalgia, or sentimentality, or other bigger ideas in which abortion plays some supporting role.