Right to Contraception Under Attack

[DinoDoc]

We still haven't defined that term in any meaningful way. So how do you suggest we rely upon it?

[Ramo]

Incidentally, a huge pro-choice rally just occurred in the DC mall (the area in front of the capitol). It's estimated that up to 1.1 million were protesting. Previously, the largest rally was against the Viet Nam War in '69, and it was about 600 thousand (or so I've been told).

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess I was wrong that we have a right to our own bodies, anyway.

And that's my point. Loinburger put it well:

This means that either you're calling for arbitrary restriction in somebody else's "right to autonomy," or else that there is no "right to autonomy."

And if you are calling for an arbitrary restriction, you have to explain why.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Elok
It's also PR death, genius. "The pro-choice movement knowingly abandons children, and unfairly stigmatizes them for the circumstances of their birth!" Go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot.

Not abandon , but give to an orphanage to take care of , which the Bushy administration so tries to promote as an alternative to abortion .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by loinburger
Regardless, even if there were a "right to autonomy," you would then have to make the case that this trumps the "right to life" of a fetus/embryo/zygote/etc., rather than simply spouting rhetoric about how all pro-lifers hate women and/or liberty, or whatever have you.

I'm quoting from my recent post on CFC .

Originally posted by aneeshm
Actually , the fundamental fallacy in the stances of pro and anti-choicers is that they accept the issue as all or nothing , and the pro-choicers weaken their stance by accepting a major part of their opponents' arguments . A foetus or embryo is nto life , it is life in the stages of creation . It becomes non-parasitic human life the minute it has the ability to survive independently of a host organism , in this case , the mother . The foetus or embryo cannot be classified as living or non-living . It is life in the process of being creation . That it's independence grows with thie is accepted . Thus , it is the choice of the creator of this life whether to continue the process or not .

Assume that a programmer has unlocked the secret of consciousnes and found a way to put it into a program . He creates the code to generate self-awareness , however , he knows it will take a few days to load and run on his PC , and when it has finished running , the result will be that the PC becomes a fully integrated organism capable of thought , consciousness , and expression in a variety of ways . If , now , in the middle of the loading of this huge program , he decides not to go through with it but to stop in in the middle , I doubt there is anybody loony enough here to argue that he go through with it , just because he is creating life . For this being the creation procedure of a sentient being , be it a program , it must be guven a status equal to that of a human . HE is the creator and HE is the one to decide whether or not to create and if so, then whether or not to stop the process of creation . The same , I think , applies to a human mother .

My assumption is that the developement of a human in the fetal stages is like it's installation on earth - it progresses from 0 % to 100 % . If you want to stop the install , it's your PC/body , you can do what you want with it . The belief is that the creation of human life is not a all-or-nothing process . It's a continuous process , which takes place for nine months , and you have the right to stop the process if you so wish , the said process being executed on/in your property/body .

The christian religious opposition to this is very old . Any pagan religion that advocated the life creative potential of humans was destroyed if it could be . Creation of life was reserved for the big guy at the top , and if he gives life , then you got no right to take it away . And if you did , you were bad , very bad . And if the church thinks youre bad , than youre bad . And if youre bad , then you have to be punished by the church , not the big guy .

[Elok]

DNA is not "sacred," no, but it is a pretty reliable fingerprint of identity. You're killing the same thing at an earlier stage, regardless. Again, caterpillar and butterfly, still unanswered.....

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ramo
Incidentally, a huge pro-choice rally just occurred in the DC mall (the area in front of the capitol). It's estimated that up to 1.1 million were protesting. Previously, the largest rally was against the Viet Nam War in '69, and it was about 600 thousand (or so I've been told).

Interesting thing I noticed from the pictures I've seen from it is that while the pro-choicers where predominately women, the pro-lifers that showed up where predominately men.

[Elok]

I don't think anyone argues that women don't have a much bigger stake in this than men, Ludd. But, if there were a proposed "right to fondle little boys," hundreds of creepy old guys with twitchy fingers would show up on the mall, and not a single convicted sex criminal would be on the "Pro-little-boys-not-getting-scarred-for-life" counterprotest. That's the thing about subjectivity.

[Drogue]

It becomes non-parasitic human life the minute it has the ability to survive independently of a host organism , in this case , the mother.

Exactly as I see it. Until the foetus can survive as an independant body, it has no right to life. I think right to life isn't the best way of putting it either. I rather see it as a right not to be killed. If everyone has a right to life, then anyone who is not capable of living without help has a right to be kept alive at the expense of others. I don't see that as a human right, because I don't think your natural right should force someone else to do something. No-one is forced to look after a baby, as the pro-lifers always tell us, since there is adoption. Similarly, no-one is forced to look after elderly relatives, as if they can't on their own, usually the state does.

Looking at a foetus the same, the mother should not be forced to care for it. When it's born, she can put it up for adoption, but before it's born, what can she do so that it isn't feeding of her? That is why my opinion is that she should be allowed to withdraw her services, at any time, and if the foetus can survive outside the womb, the state can look after it, and put it up for adoption. If the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, then it dies. The state can try to look after it all it wants, but forcing the mother to look after it, against her will, is wrong, IMHO.

We know, relatively, the limits of human medicine. Therefore, we know that a foetus will not survive outside the womb if it's born at 10, or 15 weeks. Therefore, the effects are the same if it is born, and dies, or if it is aborted. Exactly the same effect - in one, you leave it to die, in the other, you kill it. After 24 weeks, as is the legal limit in the UK, it is possible, in some cases, for the foetus to survive outside the womb. That is why I don't agree with abortion after this date. If the women wishes to remove the foetus after 24 weeks, then it should be done by inducing birth of a C-section, and looked after by the state, should the state decide to.

I don't see why foetus that cannot survive outside the womb has a right to life. If that has a right to life, then the women is forced to care for it, against her will. The foetus, being an organism invading her body, using her resources against her will, it is a parasite, and parasites do not have a right to life, because they are living at the expense and detriment of a person. That foetus has no right to the women's resources, even if it does have a right to it's own body and life. Banning abortion means saying that foetus has a right to the resources and body of the women, and that that women does not have the full rights to her own body, which, IMHO, is a travesty. Your body belongs to you, whether you're a man, women or child. Nothing has a right to use it against your will.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Elok
I don't think anyone argues that women don't have a much bigger stake in this than men, Ludd. But, if there were a proposed "right to fondle little boys," hundreds of creepy old guys with twitchy fingers would show up on the mall, and not a single convicted sex criminal would be on the "Pro-little-boys-not-getting-scarred-for-life" counterprotest. That's the thing about subjectivity.

Your example is like saying:
"no-one who had had an abortion was on the pro-life march, and many people who had had abortions were on the pro-choice march". That's a lot more subjective than amoutns of women and men on each side.

His argument is like saying:
"If there were a proposed "right to fondle little boys", there would be more women marching pro-right and more men being anti-right."

No-ones saying women aren't more involved, but it's not the level of difference of involvement as sex criminals in a sex criminal bill. To get that involed, Ludd would have had to have made a statement about women who have had abortions in an abortion bill, when he was only amking a statement about women and men.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Elok
I don't think anyone argues that women don't have a much bigger stake in this than men, Ludd. But, if there were a proposed "right to fondle little boys," hundreds of creepy old guys with twitchy fingers would show up on the mall, and not a single convicted sex criminal would be on the "Pro-little-boys-not-getting-scarred-for-life" counterprotest. That's the thing about subjectivity.

...


What?

[Drogue]

He was trying to say that the fact more women are pro-choice and more men pro-life is because of their relative subjectivity, and didn't matter. I would tend to think that men have less say in it, since it isn't their bodies. But then I think other women shouldn't have a say in what a women does.

An argument given on a program I watched the other day was that if pictures of aborted foetuses are so offensive that they can't be shown in public or on TV (someone was arrested for public offense by holding a big picture of it) then it shouldn't be legal to do it. However the same argument would go for oral sex, or indeed much hardcore porn. It's not legal to show on UK TV, but most would agree the government should have little say on what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults. The fact that someone thinks abortions are offensive and horrific acts, that they're appauled by pictures of it, shouldn't affect other people who aren't appauled by it. If you're offended by abortions, don't have one.

I understand that's just one side argument for a pro-life stance, and not the main one (right to life) but I wanted to address it. Using huge posters to shock and offend people into not having abortions is one thing, and can be classed as education. Using them to shock and offend them into baning others doing it is quite another.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Drogue
He was trying to say that the fact more women are pro-choice and more men pro-life is because of their relative subjectivity, and didn't matter.

My 'what?' was more directed at his comparison to child molesters. But yeah, that was kinda my point. Seeing a few men and priests standing next to a million women and telling them that they can't do something is akin to the women's right movement.

I can't say that seeing some fat guy leaning against the wall holding up a pro-life placard as thousands of women march by in opposition really helps his cause.

[Elok]

I seriously hope that our country has not sunk so low as to decide whether something should be legal based on the appearance of the people presenting it...anyway, I wasn't "comparing" abortion to pederasty, it was analogous. We all agree that feeling up kids is wrong, and nobody says, "How DARE you sit there, never having felt the immense urge to grope minors yourself, and say what these people are doing is wrong?" If abortion is okay, it isn't so because a bunch of people with a potential reason to want to do it approve. When people insult me I feel the urge to kick them in the nuts. If I give into that urge, I can't get all self-righteous when you yell at me, "because he never insulted you and you don't know how it feels."

I assume that's what you were getting at. Or were you reviving the Conspiracy to Oppress Women?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Elok
I seriously hope that our country has not sunk so low as to decide whether something should be legal based on the appearance of the people presenting it...anyway, I wasn't "comparing" abortion to pederasty, it was analogous. We all agree that feeling up kids is wrong, and nobody says, "How DARE you sit there, never having felt the immense urge to grope minors yourself, and say what these people are doing is wrong?" If abortion is okay, it isn't so because a bunch of people with a potential reason to want to do it approve. When people insult me I feel the urge to kick them in the nuts. If I give into that urge, I can't get all self-righteous when you yell at me, "because he never insulted you and you don't know how it feels."

I assume that's what you were getting at.

Another stellar comparison - assault!

What I was geting at is that it's a woman's issue and, not suprisingly, there where mostly women there to support it. But what I did find surprising was that it seemed to be mostly men who where there to oppose it.

Or were you reviving the Conspiracy to Oppress Women?

I'm not.