Feminism

[NorthDakota]

Are you guys me? Cause if you're not, you don't get to have an opinion on the decisions going on between me and my doctor.

Period.

And if you want to start forcing women to carry a fetus they don't want to term and force them to birth it, I will be happy to drive the baby to your doorstep and drop it off for you to care/pay for for 18+ years.

You are about to get embarrassed and I'm going to enjoy it.

 

[IrishLion]

I'm actually pro-choice, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here before pro-lifers utterly eviscerate this post...

When does that "fetus" become a person? Because a 5 month old "fetus" can survive outside the womb in many cases... making it a living, breathing person.

And then if your argument is that you should be able to murder a person because you don't want to be financially responsible for it, that's literally the dumbest possible argument you can make considering how many people sit around praying and waiting to adopt a baby. There are lots of arguments for pro-choice, the "I should be able to do whatever I want, period" argument doesn't fly with basic modern society/laws that prohibit all kinds of freedom of action, and "I don't want to pay for it" is a self-indulgent non-starter.

I think the scientific community, perhaps at the behest of the Supreme Court (?), should get together and draft a formal declaration/policy/medical law of some sort that clearly states when a fetus becomes a viable human.

There are plenty of ideas and cases that say it's ~5 months, but if an authoritative council of some sort got together and actually put up a united front, I think the pro-life/pro-choice debate might become more reasonable on both sides.

 

[wizards8507]

Are you guys me? Cause if you're not, you don't get to have an opinion on the decisions going on between me and my doctor.

Period.

Nobody gives a shit what decisions you make with your doctor. But if you want to kill your baby, damn right that's society's business.

Let's say you have a two year old. You don't get to tell your doctor to shoot your two year old in the face and then claim "women's health." If you want to be pro-choice, be honest about what that means. You want the right to slaughter unborn children. You don't get to trivialize it with words like "tissue" and "fetus." Those are euphemisms used to make people feel better about the evil they're tolerating (and, in many cases, celebrating).

And if you want to start forcing women to carry a fetus they don't want to term and force them to birth it, I will be happy to drive the baby to your doorstep and drop it off for you to care/pay for for 18+ years.

There's literally zero intellectual difference between what you just said and "you can't force women to raise a two year old they don't want." You don't get to make the decision about whether you "want" your child after the child exists. The time to make that decision has passed.

I think the scientific community, perhaps at the behest of the Supreme Court (?), should get together and draft a formal declaration/policy/medical law of some sort that clearly states when a fetus becomes a viable human.

There are plenty of ideas and cases that say it's ~5 months, but if an authoritative council of some sort got together and actually put up a united front, I think the pro-life/pro-choice debate might become more reasonable on both sides.

That's part of the problem with the Roe decision. It's based on bad / outdated science. Ultrasound technology has proven quite a lot since 1973. There's no doubt in my mind that Roe will one day be viewed alongside Dred Scott as one of the great tragedies in American history.

I'm actually pro-choice, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here before pro-lifers utterly eviscerate this post...

When does that "fetus" become a person? Because a 5 month old "fetus" can survive outside the womb in many cases... making it a living, breathing person. There isn't any nuance in your post about that, which is the biggest philosophical sticking point of the whole abortion debate.

And then if your argument is that you should be able to murder a person because you don't want to be financially responsible for it, that's literally the dumbest possible argument you can make considering how many people sit around praying and waiting to adopt a baby. There are lots of arguments for pro-choice, the "I should be able to do whatever I want, period" argument doesn't fly with basic modern society/laws that prohibit all kinds of freedom of action, and "I don't want to pay for it" is a self-indulgent non-starter. So you should really rephrase what you said if you want it to be taken seriously.

Now I'm done #Mansplaining...

I really hate the fetal viability argument. Is a three year old viable? Absolutely not. Left to its own devices, a three year old will die very quickly from dehydration, starvation, and/or exposure to the elements. Killing a 16 week fetus because it can't survive outside the womb is no different than killing a 16 week infant because it can't survive without milk or formula. The fetus is no greater burden on its mother than the infant, nor is it any less viable.

 

[GATTACA!]

 

[BleedBlueGold]

For me, this always comes down to defining "life" and "personhood." Until those two terms can be moved from the philosophical category into the category of science and law, this debate will always have shades of grey for me. I empathize with both sides.

I will always be against late-term abortions and I will happily accept any new law that encourages the Court to move up the time period for legal abortion. Technology has come a long way (ie. you can get a 6-week ultrasound and hear a baby's heartbeat. Can anyone argue that that isn't the sound of a human heart at this point? Why is the pro-choice crowd "okay" with abortions up until the 27-week mark given this info?

If I had to pick a side, I'd probably say I'm slightly more pro-choice given my values on individual liberty, but I say that with tremendous hesitation because it's not a proud position to take.

 

[irishroo]

For me, this always comes down to defining "life" and "personhood."

This is why the pro-life refrain of "nobody has any input into my personal health decisions but me" is so maddening. The argument isn't that society should have a right to control your health decisions, the argument is that society has the right to prevent murder. Arguing over the definition of personhood is a valid argument, but arguing that "it's my decision and my decision a lone" is a straw-man.

 

[IrishLion]

For me, this always comes down to defining "life" and "personhood." Until those two terms can be moved from the philosophical category into the category of science and law, this debate will always have shades of grey for me. I empathize with both sides.

I will always be against late-term abortions and I will happily accept any new law that encourages the Court to move up the time period for legal abortion. Technology has come a long way (ie. you can get a 6-week ultrasound and hear a baby's heartbeat. Can anyone argue that that isn't the sound of a human heart at this point? Why is the pro-choice crowd "okay" with abortions up until the 27-week mark given this info?

If I had to pick a side, I'd probably say I'm slightly more pro-choice given my values on individual liberty, but I say that with tremendous hesitation because it's not a proud position to take.

This is exactly where I'm at on the issue.

I would probably identify as Pro-Choice given my personal beliefs on the applications of certain information within differing situations, but they are not beliefs that I feel good about, and I would MUCH rather a woman carry out her pregnancy and give birth if there is no danger in doing so.

 

[Irish#1]

Are you guys me? Cause if you're not, you don't get to have an opinion on the decisions going on between me and my doctor.

Period.

And if you want to start forcing women to carry a fetus they don't want to term and force them to birth it, I will be happy to drive the baby to your doorstep and drop it off for you to care/pay for for 18+ years.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And if you want to start forcing women to carry a fetus they don't want to term and force them to birth it, I will be happy to drive the baby to your doorstep and drop it off for you to care/pay for for 18+ years.

You realize that "foetus" is just Latin for "baby", right? FWIW, the vast majority of American pro-lifers favor dramatically expanding pre- and post-natal government support for mothers. If we could defund Planned Parenthood, I'd happily sign on for committing all $500m saved to orphanages and pre-natal services for distressed women.

I'm actually pro-choice, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here before pro-lifers utterly eviscerate this post...

Quinn has made her cartoonishly left liberal opinions quite clear already, but I'm much more curious why you identify as pro-choice, Lax.

I think the scientific community, perhaps at the behest of the Supreme Court (?), should get together and draft a formal declaration/policy/medical law of some sort that clearly states when a fetus becomes a viable human.

Not possible. Might as well ask them to scientifically "prove" that African-Americans and Jews have the same inherent human dignity as WASPs and Germans. It involves an essentially theological point.

I really hate the fetal viability argument. Is a three year old viable? Absolutely not. Left to its own devices, a three year old will die very quickly from dehydration, starvation, and/or exposure to the elements. Killing a 16 week fetus because it can't survive outside the womb is no different than killing a 16 week infant because it can't survive without milk or formula. The fetus is no greater burden on its mother than the infant, nor is it any less viable.

Attempting to define certain vulnerable groups as sub-human simply based on autonomy is self-defeating anyway. If you took virtually any modern adult human and dropped them naked into the middle of the Amazon rain forest, he or she would also likely die in short order. And for those very few who could manage to survive under those conditions, such an existence could hardly be called living well. Humans are political animals, and we're reliant on others in some capacity from the moment of conception through natural death. As with so much of liberalism, focusing on individual autonomy without any care for the Common Good just provides the strong with a convenient excuse to shirk their duties to the weak.

If I had to pick a side, I'd probably say I'm slightly more pro-choice given my values on individual liberty, but I say that with tremendous hesitation because it's not a proud position to take.

I know you have a pretty dim view of capitalism, BBG. Which economic class do you think benefits most from pressuring poor women to kill their own children in utero? Pregnancy is a major disruption for employers...

 

[tussin]

I always find it interesting how the popular conception is that pro-lifers are making faith-based decisions and pro-choicers are using impartial science to guide their views. It couldn't be more opposite.

Science tells us that human life begins at conception. Pro-lifers logically argue that because of that scientific fact, abortion should be outlawed. Conversely, pro-choicers resort to a nuanced judgement on "personhood" or "viability," which any reasonable individual would agree is a much less clear (and more spiritual) way to define life.

 

[Irish#1]

If you took virtually any modern adult human and dropped them naked into the middle of the Amazon rain forest, he or she would also likely die in short order.

I take it you haven't watched Naked and Afraid? Most of those people become quite resourceful.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I take it you haven't watched Naked and Afraid? Most of those people become quite resourceful.

I have seen it. It's no more "real" than any other reality TV show.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I know you have a pretty dim view of capitalism, BBG. Which economic class do you think benefits most from pressuring poor women to kill their own children in utero? Pregnancy is a major disruption for employers...

I favor capitalism, just not an oligarchic kleptocracy. Lobbying and government involvement siding with the already mega wealthy just to make them richer at the expense of everyone else doesn't come across to me as a fair and free market. With that said, I'm aware of my occasional drifts into socialism based purely on my inability to separate my personal utopian desires from what is actually pragmatic. See 'paid maternity leave' in this scenario. Love the idea, but understand the complications that comes along with 1) expense 2) big government dictating what employers provide as benefits (always a drain on the smaller businesses barely keeping their heads above water).

 

[wizards8507]

For me, this always comes down to defining "life" and "personhood." Until those two terms can be moved from the philosophical category into the category of science and law, this debate will always have shades of grey for me. I empathize with both sides.

Do you even high school biology bro? The following criteria are necessary and sufficient for something to be considered a living organism, i.e. "life."

1. Made of cells
2. Use energy
3. Grow and develop
4. Reproduce
5. Response to stimuli

A zygote is categorically a living thing at the moment of conception.

Premise 1: All living things are either non-human or human.
Premise 2: A zygote consisting of one human sperm cell and one human ovum is not non-human.
Premise 3: A zygote is a living thing (per the above).
Conclusion: Therefore, a zygote consisting of one human sperm cell and one human ovum is human.

The science and logic are clear. A human zygote is a living human from the moment of conception.

With "life" and "human" settled, the only thing you could quibble about would be that "human" and "person" are somehow different things. That would require an insane amount of mental gymnastics that would reveal that your intent in the thought exercise was not to find truth but to reach a predetermined conclusion at whatever intellectual cost.

 

[IrishLax]

Quinn has made her cartoonishly left liberal opinions quite clear already, but I'm much more curious why you identify as pro-choice, Lax.

Pretty busy at work right now and this would take a whale of a post so I'll respond in detail tomorrow.

The extremely condensed version is that morality and ethics are inherently subjective... there are no objective moral truths, only those which are defined through the lens of a personal code of ethics, a collective societal agreement of ethics typically codified in law, or through a religious teaching on good/bad/acceptable human behavior. Society has determined that the termination of human life is acceptable in some instances, so it follows that it can at least be debated whether it's permissible for pre-born human life to be terminated and under which parameters it's acceptable. While I personally find abortion varying degrees of morally repugnant in most cases, there is some evidence that abortion and population control can provide certain utilitarian benefits to society at large. Accordingly, I don't think my personal ethical opinions should prevent someone from having the choice to do something I might disagree with if there is evidence that the action has a long term net-positive impact on the society.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Do you even high school biology bro? The following criteria are necessary and sufficient for something to be considered a living organism, i.e. "life."

1. Made of cells
2. Use energy
3. Grow and develop
4. Reproduce
5. Response to stimuli

A zygote is categorically a living thing at the moment of conception.

Premise 1: All living things are either non-human or human.
Premise 2: A zygote consisting of one human sperm cell and one human ovum is not non-human.
Premise 3: A zygote is a living thing (per the above).
Conclusion: Therefore, a zygote consisting of one human sperm cell and one human ovum is human.

The science and logic are clear. A human zygote is a living human from the moment of conception.

With "life" and "human" settled, the only thing you could quibble about would be that "human" and "person" are somehow different things. That would require an insane amount of mental gymnastics that would reveal that your intent in the thought exercise was not to find truth but to reach a predetermined conclusion at whatever intellectual cost.

Death is entirely centered around oxygen, be it clinical death or biological death. With that said, is it too illogical to associate life with oxygen circulation as well (which happens in the embryonic stage)? Just asking your opinion.

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise. I'm just not 100% sold on it either.

 

[wizards8507]

...population control can provide certain utilitarian benefits to society at large...

Death is entirely centered around oxygen, be it clinical death or biological death. With that said, is it too illogical to associate life with oxygen circulation as well (which happens in the embryonic stage)? Just asking your opinion.

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise. I'm just not 100% sold on it either.

It's not my area of expertise but the zygote uses energy stored in the ovum for early cell division. Those molecules are glycogen (someone correct me), which contains oxygen.

 

[NorthDakota]

That excerpt was dark....

 

[Irish#1]

Quinn is conspicuous by her absence.

 

[wizards8507]

Quinn is conspicuous by her absence.

It's like she was ab...

Nevermind.

 

[fightingirish26]

A woman caller to a radio show made this observation about the protest.

Don't you find it ironic that the woman who made a living grabbing her crotch on stage is protesting a man because he said he wanted to grab a woman's crotch.

I LOL'd after she said that.

grabbing your own crotch and someone else grabbing your crotch without permission are not the same thing

 

[wizards8507]

grabbing your own crotch and someone else grabbing your crotch without permission are not the same thing

You don't think Donald Trump actually grabbed women by the crotch, do you? He was bragging about how fame get hims laid. That's it. It doesn't even make sense anatomically.

 

[irishroo]

Pretty busy at work right now and this would take a whale of a post so I'll respond in detail tomorrow.

The extremely condensed version is that morality and ethics are inherently subjective... there are no objective moral truths, only those which are defined through the lens of a personal code of ethics, a collective societal agreement of ethics typically codified in law, or through a religious teaching on good/bad/acceptable human behavior. Society has determined that the termination of human life is acceptable in some instances, so it follows that it can at least be debated whether it's permissible for pre-born human life to be terminated and under which parameters it's acceptable. While I personally find abortion varying degrees of morally repugnant in most cases, there is some evidence that abortion and population control can provide certain utilitarian benefits to society at large. Accordingly, I don't think my personal ethical opinions should prevent someone from having the choice to do something I might disagree with if there is evidence that the action has a long term net-positive impact on the society.

Surprised you feel this way. I have a really hard time with absolute moral relativism simply because it implies that progress is impossbile.

 

[fightingirish26]

You don't think Donald Trump actually grabbed women by the crotch, do you? He was bragging about how fame get hims laid. That's it. It doesn't even make sense anatomically.

don't see how any of this has anything to do with whether or not she can protest

 

[wizards8507]

don't see how any of this has anything to do with whether or not she can protest

Of course she's allowed to protest. yankeehater was just chuckling at an irony.

 

[IrishLax]

Surprised you feel this way. I have a really hard time with absolute moral relativism simply because it implies that progress is impossbile.

IMO, from a philosophical standpoint it's impossible to come to any other conclusion without the implied premise that one person/entity "knows better"... and that premise has inherent and serious flaws.

From a theological perspective, it's much easier to support the idea of moral truths.

 

[irishroo]

IMO, from a philosophical standpoint it's impossible to come to any other conclusion without the implied premise that one person/entity "knows better"... and that premise has inherent and serious flaws.

From a theological perspective, it's much easier to support the idea of moral truths.

But doesn't the assertion that no one knows better have equally, if not more so, serious flaws? Extreme example but nonetheless consistent with the argument: I'm pretty confident in the moral superiority of an American society that does not condone ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism versus a Korowai society that does (or at least did until very recently).

 

[Bishop2b5]

grabbing your own crotch and someone else grabbing your crotch without permission are not the same thing

Nobody would argue that. The point, at least on a more meaningful level, is that someone who has made a career out of being exceedingly crude and vulgar is complaining about someone else's crudeness and vulgarity.

 

[Grahambo]

Pretty busy at work right now and this would take a whale of a post so I'll respond in detail tomorrow.

The extremely condensed version is that morality and ethics are inherently subjective... there are no objective moral truths, only those which are defined through the lens of a personal code of ethics, a collective societal agreement of ethics typically codified in law, or through a religious teaching on good/bad/acceptable human behavior. Society has determined that the termination of human life is acceptable in some instances, so it follows that it can at least be debated whether it's permissible for pre-born human life to be terminated and under which parameters it's acceptable. While I personally find abortion varying degrees of morally repugnant in most cases, there is some evidence that abortion and population control can provide certain utilitarian benefits to society at large. Accordingly, I don't think my personal ethical opinions should prevent someone from having the choice to do something I might disagree with if there is evidence that the action has a long term net-positive impact on the society.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on it as well.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

IMO, from a philosophical standpoint it's impossible to come to any other conclusion without the implied premise that one person/entity "knows better"... and that premise has inherent and serious flaws.

That's one of the first principles of liberalism, but it's not true. God, or something very much like Him, is logically necessary for the world we find ourselves. And while reason alone is admittedly insufficient to prove the personal God of Christianity, there is still plenty of compelling evidence in its favor, like the witness of the saints over the last 2,000 years.

Which brings me back to my old argument that liberalism is itself a religion, with doctrinaire first principles that the vast majority of Americans accept reflexively, and which is utterly at odds with Christianity (long read, but well worth your time).

What confuses me is that even in liberal societies, everyone agrees that chattel slavery and the Holocaust are the two great moral calamities of recent history. The way those two events still press on us to this day only makes sense if objective moral truth exists, and those events violated that law on a staggering scale.

Orthodox Christianity sees slavery, genocide and abortion as the same thing-- the large-scale dehumanization, commoditization and brutalization of a vulnerable minority-- and condemns all of it. While Liberalism tries to justify the third with an utterly incoherent argument about "personhood" and "individual autonomy" which completely contradicts its condemnation of the former two.

Lots of things that liberals take for granted are unsustainable without Christian moral norms. We're going to have to pick one or the other soon.