I never get why some things get politicians in trouble and other things don't. I mean sure, this time a Republican said something vile and ignorant of basic biology and got in trouble for it. But when Ryan and Akin tried to restrict the definition of rape in an "anti-abortion funding" bill, only a few liberals noticed.
Some politicians sleep with whores and no one cares. Another politician goes skinny dipping and his chastised by the national leadership.
Its like trying to predict which flapping butterfly is going to cause a hurricane.
Point taken, though it's the sheer nuttiness of the claim that makes this one stand out. (And I do remember a flap over the "forcible rape" language, though not as big as this.)
I've seen the stuff where Akin says he "misspoke" by using "legitimate rape," but has he backpedaled on magical lady parts? (Here, let someone google that for me.)
It's August of a presidential election year: it's the best season for this kind of thing. Closer to the election, the actual policy positions get discussed, vicious ads get released, and actual debates occur.
Also, Akin admitted that he "misspoke" (not specifying exactly how) and said he sympathized with all victims of rape, but I doubt very much that the conservative right is going to give up the useful idea of forcible (legitimate) rape and then those lesser forms of rape.
It sounds like he's backpedaled on magical lady parts. Text from a new television ad (according to a Slate article - I haven't watched the ad):
Rape is an evil act. I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize," he said, later adding, "The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is, rape has many victims. ... The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness.
So basically, "We still need to worry about the poor little babies as much or more than the raped women."
Akin admitted that he "misspoke" (not specifying exactly how)
It's like no one even clicks on the links.
Is believing ridiculous untruths like this evidence that Akin is aware that he holds some horrible ideas and this is an attempt to assuage his conscience, or is it just evidence that he's aware others think his ideas are horrible, and he is looking for a convenient way to deflect their arguments?
I mean sure, this time a Republican said something vile and ignorant of basic biology and got in trouble for it. But when Ryan and Akin tried to restrict the definition of rape in an "anti-abortion funding" bill, only a few liberals noticed.
The latter example involved reading, which is hard. Akin said something, which is easier.
8.---I really suspect this is a both/and situation. Not making an abortion exception for women who've been raped would be so horrendous, his conscience admits, that he would genuinely prefer to believe that it's unlikely. He is also hoping to provide his horrendous views with rhetorical cover.
I'm with helpy-chalk. I don't understand why this particular episode is getting so much attention. I especially don't understand the condemnation from Republicans. If he'd implied that magical lady parts had something to do with evolution, then sure, OK. But this seems like the kind of crap they peddle all the time; I'm sure I've heard that claim before.
12: If I am understanding correctly, it is that Akin's comment implied:
A. Many so-called "rapes" are not really rapes at all.
B. The real rapes don't result in pregnancies.
C. Even pregnancies resulting from real rapes should not be allowed to be aborted.
D. All abortion should be outlawed.
So, it's basically hitting every possible button in just a few words. Surprisingly economical.
1, 12: The reason it's such an issue now is that Republicans are calling for Akin to quit the Senate race. The reason that Republicans are calling for Akin to quit is because he's a lousy candidate who might lose an easily winable seat. Republicans lost three winnable Senate seats in 2010 and control of the Senate because idiots won primaries (Delaware, Nevada, Colorao). They don't want it to hapen again.
Akin, unlike the Republican party as a whole, has nothing to lose by staying in the race. He might still win.
I don't understand why this particular episode is getting so much attention.
Because Republicans really really really can't afford for this election to be about abortion.
Akin, unlike the Republican party as a whole, has nothing to lose by staying in the race. He might still win.
I can absolutely guarantee that my parents will vote for him (if he remains on the ballot).
The Republicans have wanted rid of this guy from the beginning, because he could lose an election that any other candidate would win handily. I'd almost think that someone put him up to saying it, so that the party would have an excuse to force him out.
14 and 17 have it right. He beat a rich businessman and a Sarah Palin-backed wacko by being even more wacko, at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred of God. (And I'd forgotten that the primary was just a couple of weeks ago.)
Meanwhile, my parents are trying to decide what to say to Claire McCaskill when they shake hands with her at a fundraiser.
"Our son supports you in comments at Unfogged."
The Republican candidate for state senate will be going door to door in my neighborhood sometime soon. I think I'm going to ask her what she is doing for people in the Cleveland area who are being improperly foreclosed on and banks that are not maintaining the blighted properties that they have foreclosed on.
at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred of God
And this belief is why my mom will vote for him, and for every other Republican candidate, for that matter. It's not like she has any idea about the issues.
Maybe if you hated God a little less, Blume, the Dems could get 2 more votes in Missouri.
Something to warm Akin's heart
Women banned from seventy seven majors in Iranian universities. The aim is apparently to combat unemployment and low birth rates, plus to protect women from things that go against their essential natures. Most hard and applied sciences, accounting, management, and lit are among the fields deemed unsuitable.
This is an interesting showdown between a properly nominated Senate candidate and the entire national Republican establishment. Akin really really doesn't want to quit because he's pretty sure that he can win, with the national attention span being what it is. And it's not an unreasonable belief given the moderate and consistent lead he had in the polls pre-scandal. The R establishment has some funding levers to pull and they can twist his arm behind hte scenes but they can't actually boot him.
I am rooting for him to stay in and Claire McCaskill to eat his lunch. McCaskill is one of those Democrats who would have been a decent, solid Eisenhower Republican back in the 50s.
Akin will win because God hates liberals right back.
McCaskill is one of those Democrats who would have been a decent, solid Eisenhower Republican back in the 50s.
Like Obama!
Presumably if Akin does withdraw just before the deadline, it's going to be too late for any other Republican to stand, or am I missing something?
No, the Missouri Republican Central Committee can just put in whoever they decide.
No, the Missouri Republican Central Committee can just put in whoever they decide.
I wonder if that's a rule change dating to after Mel Carnahan died.
So basically, "We still need to worry about the poor little babies as much or more than the raped women."
I was thinking that the good thing about pushing the forcible/legitimate rape arguments, or abortion bans w/out exceptions for rape, is that it highlights the core value judgment in the pro-life/pro-choice debate. If you are pro-life with no exceptions, then you are taking the position that the rights* of the zygote/embryo/fetus are always more important than the rights of the women. As soon as you start accepting exceptions, you concede that the rights of the women sometimes are more important than the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus and effectively assert that you are better suited than the pregnant woman to decide when that balance shifts. Claiming that abortion should be available in cases of legitimate rape, but not fakey wannabe rape, is based on the same philosophy of any other pro-life with exceptions policy: we will decide for you if your reasons for wanting to terminate are good enough.
Oh, the * was going to be an acknowledgment that the premise of fetal/embryonic/zygotic rights is hardly a universally accepted truth.
14
The reason it's such an issue now is that Republicans are calling for Akin to quit the Senate race. The reason that Republicans are calling for Akin to quit is because he's a lousy candidate who might lose an easily winable seat. ...
It's not just that, they are worried he will hurt them in other races even if he wins. The Republican party as a whole would obviously be better off with a different candidate. Of course it would have been smarter to worry about this before the primary which McCaskill was doing everything in her power to help Akin win. At this point they don't have good options if Akin refuses to quit.
Another politician goes skinny dipping and his chastised by the national leadership
Yeah, what the hell? Is there any reason you shouldn't go swimming in the Sea of Galilee? Like, it's holy and off limits? I support my elected representatives cavorting in the buff.
I support my elected representatives cavorting in the buff on other continents.
TMZ just released pictures of a certain ginger and British non-elected representative cavorting in the buff in Vegas.
Maybe if you hated God a little less, Blume, the Dems could get 2 more votes in Missouri.
I wish I were that confident in Elizabeth Warren's victory...
I did keep my voter registration in Missouri for years, and finally changed it when I wanted to vote on rent control in Cambridge.
which McCaskill was doing everything in her power to help Akin win
Ooh, those tricksy Democrats! I am actually a bit curious as to exactly which of McCaskill's "powers" had any chance of even remotely influencing the Republican primary.
I am in a swing state for the first time while voting, and a woman just came by to get me registered for absentee early ballot. This is OK and good, yes?
Ooh, those tricksy Democrats! I am actually a bit curious as to exactly which of McCaskill's "powers" had any chance of even remotely influencing the Republican primary.
Running ads against his opponents. This is a standard thing that politicians do. Just because JBS says it doesn't make it ridiculous.
42: Depends. Did she clearly identify what group she was with? Did she leave the form with you to mail, or did she take it and promise to mail it? (The latter doesn't make it illegitimate; it's also a common tactic of groups that want to be able to follow up with you later.)
Perhaps most importantly, are you living/were you walking in a primarily-minority neighborhood at the time?
I am actually a bit curious as to exactly which of McCaskill's "powers" had any chance of even remotely influencing the Republican primary.
I read somewhere that her campaign spent quite a bit of money running ads touting him as the "the real conservative" or "the only real conservative" in the race.
44: She identified herself as Democrat (and cheered when I said I was committed to voting for Obama), and took the form to mail it. I expressed my extreme reservation about mail-in ballots and asked her several times why she felt safe recommending this as a strategy, and she said this is what they're being told to recommend this year. I repeated my reservations, and she said they are going to count them early, so it's good for returns.
Lastly, not at all. I'm now living in a tiny rural town in a rural state. The town gets less white closer to campus where I am, but that is still saying very little. She identified herself as a colleague of mine in a different department, so at least I feel like it's not some random telling me what to do.
42 -- This is how field operations use absentee ballots to try to lock in known supporters. Was the person from the Obama campaign? Then it's absolutely OK and good; team on the right side just wants to lock in as many early votes as it can. If not, it's a sign that team Republican thinks that you are a 100% committed Republican.
Just do the absentee ballot --you can then respond to calls with "I voted already" which may be useful.
Oh, well, if she works at your same university I wouldn't worry at all.
42 before seeing 46. Absentee ballots are amazing for field operations. This is why campaigns do it: they then have an "in the bag" vote and can focus on persuading other folks to get out and vote, conserving resources. By voting early, you are helping out the Obama campaign and doing a good thing.
expressed my extreme reservation about mail-in ballots
Don't know what those are, but campaigns love them for the reasons stated above.
you can then respond to calls with "I voted already" which may be useful.
If "useful" means "stops people from calling you every other day," I doubt it.
43, 45: Ah yes. Found a couple of articles on that. OK, forgot about the power of money for ads. My bad on that one, James.
And she's still stirring the shit.
"It's not my place to decide," said McCaskill. "I really think that for the national party to try to come in here and dictate to the Republican primary voters that they're going to invalidate their decision, that would be pretty radical. I think there could be a backlash for the Republicans if they did that."
50 -- it gets you on the Obama field operation "voted already" list which means you don't get quite so many calls, especially right before the election. You'll still get calls asking you to volunteer for the Obama field operation.
51
She'd better hope for some backlash. Heard her on the radio today, sounding brilliant, but also too nice. She absolutely has a point with the whole "national party interfering in legitimate local politics" thing, but she comes of, IMO, as sounding too much in favor of Akin even existing. Bad way to get (re)elected.
Hope she does, by the way. I'm over in Kansas. Whatever works in MO will just be imported over here for the two point oh upgrade to bonafide batshit.
Guys, let's try to keep in mind who the real rape victim is here.
Let's not be too hasty. How sure are we that he isn't pregnant?
22:I couldn't believe someone could write that article and not even mention in passing Titian's Venus of Urbino
I can't link to it while at work, but I read Alyssa Rosenberg talking about how Limbaugh was being more reasonable than Huckabee about this. Funny how he's one of the more nice conservatives.
how Limbaugh was being more reasonable than Huckabee about this.
Only because Limbaugh has calculated that Akin leaving the race supports the greater evil.
My mother's facebook comments lead me to believe that she thinks when I was raped (the time she knows about) it was not as serious as "real" rape because stranger rape is worse than rape by a known perpetrator. This is really fucking with me, but reinforces that it was good idea not to tell her about the marital rape that happened too, especially since she's already told me I can't call my ex abusive because if it had been abusive I would have told someone at the time rather than labeling it that way later, or some shit like that. Ugh. And now I have to apologize to Lee for lashing out at her last night when I was really upset about this kind of thing.
Limbaugh has calculated that Akin leaving the race supports the greater evil.
True. Limbaugh is mission-oriented, Huckabee is process-oriented. Normally mission-orientation is a good thing but not if the mission is evil.
Ugh, indeed. Thorn, that really sucks. People are really amazingly ignorant about abuse, abusers, the effect on the abused. Yes, it's true, that guy who was so charming at Thanksgiving dinner really can be that much of an asshole behind closed doors. And, go figure, it's really pretty hard to share that with people who you are reasonably confident will just tell you that you are overreacting. Sorry you are having to deal with that crap, Thorn.
about the marital rape
Wasn't this, by definition, impossible under the traditional definition of rape? Obviously, non-consensual sex even without the "by force or fear" requirement ought to be considered rapr, but I don't think that it was legally for a long time.
Wasn't this, by definition, impossible under the traditional definition of rape?
It was certainly impossible under the traditional definition of marriage, which is one more reason that all the "you can't redefine marriage!!1!" people deserve swift kicks in the yams.
63: You're right, but the law had certainly changed by 2002. It's still something I'll never talk to her about and this is one of the first times I've mentioned it openly, but it felt like it was worth saying or something. I know I shouldn't let this stuff get to me, but argh.
63
... Obviously, non-consensual sex even without the "by force or fear" requirement ought to be considered rapr, but I don't think that it was legally for a long time.
Getting married was considered to constitute consent. Also wives had a legal obligation to provide their husbands with sex (IANAL but technically I think they still do but the requirement is more or less unenforceable).
Relevant to 67, the legal editor of the Kenya Standard writes, in answer to an aggrieved lady correspondent:
"It is not possible to go to court to seek orders to compel your husband to perform his conjugal responsibilities. It would be better to consider seeking professional assistance from a qualified marriage counsellor and discuss issues out.
"The law treats denial of sexual intercourse among spouses as cruelty, according to precedence set by the English case of Sheldon vs Sheldon in 1966. According to the case, the court granted a wife orders to divorce her husband for denying her conjugal rights, which amounted to cruelty -- a ground for divorce.
"According to Lord Denning, the Judge, the persistent refusal of sexual intercourse by the husband for long without excuse caused grave injury to the health of his wife."
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000062351&story_title=My-husband-denies-me-my-conjugal-rights
It is, unfortunately, unclear whether the woman who wrote to the Standard was the same woman who sought an extralegal solution a few weeks later:
http://www.the-star.co.ke/national/national/87545-woman-stabs-husband-over-conjugal-rights
But I think it's clear that marriage counselling is sorely needed in Kenya.
I seem to recall Santorum mentioning that pregnancies from rape were still "blessings from God" during the primaries, and it making a small kerfuffle but pretty run of the mill for Santorum. Akins reminds me of some Italian judge in the 90s who ruled that a woman couldn't be raped because she was wearing jeans, and lord knows you can barely get those off when you want them off.
But anyways, like Di said, the only morally consistent position on abortion is no exceptions for rape or incest (obviously life of the mother is a little trickier, because there you're weighing two lives against each other). If you believe genuinely the embryo to be a person, and its death to be murder, you should hardly sanction the murder of an innocent life for the sins of its parent(s). With incest, if you support abortion, then you're basically a hardcore eugenicist. Again, once you make exceptions, especially based on the perceived sexual purity of the mother, you're basically acknowledging that an unwanted pregnancy is a form of punishment for sluts. In that sense, I respect Huckabee more for being honest about his consistent stance than Republicans who claim otherwise because it gets more votes.
I think one motivating factor of the anti-abortion group which is almost never mentioned in the national media, and which explains the pro-forced birth but anti-poor children policies is that lots of Republicans, especially Evangelicals, mourn the loss of healthy white infants available for adoption. I've heard this said more or less privately, but I think the idea isn't that Republicans want young, unmarried, or poor women raising children, but rather they want them to have babies they don't want and can't support and therefore must give away. Making it so poor women can't raise their own kids is actually kind of the point, and I think this gets missed in lots of national conversations.
Britta, I think you're totally right about the pro-adoption lobby's power and intentions. It's not a coincidence that the state with the most pro-adoption policies (except in not allowing people in cohabiting non-marital relationships to adopt, which is a different thing) is Utah and that LDS single mothers are disproportionately likely to place their babies for adoption.
My mother is one of the no-abortion-ever crew, which does at least have a consistency to it. She was initially upset that Mara was being placed with us rather than a straight couple since Mara was young enough to still be desirable (except in our state legally not; "hard to place" because she was black and not a baby) but she adores Mara and now Nia and doesn't hold our sins against them, I guess.
69
But anyways, like Di said, the only morally consistent position on abortion is no exceptions for rape or incest ...
This is nonsense.
69: I don't understand what's morally inconsistent about thinking that a fetus is a partial person, entitled to some consideration, but not as much as a whole person. So that it might be just to kill it to prevent a large harm to someone else, but not to prevent a small harm.
I also don't understand what's morally incoherent about supposing that an unwanted pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex is a small harm, but that an unwanted pregnancy that resulted from nonconsensual sex is a large harm. Alternately, one could argue that if a woman considers pregnancy a large harm, she has the power to prevent it in cases of consensual sex, but not in cases of nonconsensual sex.
It's easy for me to understand how these things might be untrue; but that they're incoherent? Perhaps you can explain.
73
... Perhaps you can explain.
I expect it is the same sort of "reasoning" which leads anti-abortion people to sometimes claim that if you are pro-abortion you should also be pro-infanticide.
74: Perhaps, though there is a difference between saying that argument X that favors Y also favors Z, and saying that it is therefore incoherent to believe Y but not Z.
Because the argument that "life begins at conception" is based on the zygote being a child, and the point is to look after the best interests of the child. (Much like the state doesn't allow father's who didn't want the kid, even fathers who were coerced into have the kid, not to pay child support, because at that point it's about the child, not about 'who's responsible for making the kid in the first place.') If you believe that human life begins at conception, and that all people are ends, then there's no way to consider some lives as inherently "less than" than other lives without opening up a very ugly moral can of worms, which includes infanticide and euthanasia and so forth. This is NOT a position I agree with, but it's what lots of people believe, and misunderstanding the argument doesn't help. There may be some people who draw bright lines, between, say, fetal viability, and I am sure most Americans feel somewhat differently between an abortion at 8 months and one at 8 weeks. HOWEVER, if your opposition to abortion is that life is life, and we don't distinguish between consciousness and sentience, or sentience and some base level of 'being alive,' then we can't decide that "murdering" a zygote is less harmful than "murdering" a person.
If you're pro, say, restricting 3rd term abortion except in cases of health of the mother/viability of the fetus, you're relying on very different logic than if you're banning ALL abortion with exceptions based on how the mother got pregnant. With Benquo's reasoning, we've already got into women blaming: "if it were consensual, the woman could have prevented it, and therefore she has to carry the child." Birth control fails, even very highly reliant forms. Human nature fails, and sometimes people are irresponsible. The only way to "really make sure" is to not have sex in the first place. The idea that it's "less harmful" to force women who willingly have sex to have a child they don't want to than a woman who presumably is chaste is an act of judgment of that is, at its heart, misogynist and anti-sex, and still frames pregnancy as a punishment for sex. Also, with the logic Benquo puts out, you're making decisions for what constitutes psychological 'harm' for the woman with no knowledge of her individual circumstances or base psychological fragility. As is, 30% of pregnant rape victims choose to continue the pregnancy, which is (I think) around the same number of pregnant college students who continue the pregnancy, so clearly women doing their own personal harm calculus are not necessarily making wildly different choices based on how the pregnancy began.
I agree that there are a few sorts of fetal viability arguments that aren't inherently misogynist (though no one is aborting a fetus at 7 months except in cases of nonviability, so it's a straw argument), but again, once you start parsing how 'responsible' the woman is in conception, we're basically getting into anti-sex, anti-woman territory. Otherwise, can we allow abortions if the condom fails, but not if you didn't wear a condom in the first place? How about if you were drunk? The guy lied about being sterile?
76
... very ugly moral can of worms, ...
This confuses morally consistent with morally attractive.
... HOWEVER, if your opposition to abortion is that life is life, and we don't distinguish between consciousness and sentience, or sentience and some base level of 'being alive,' then we can't decide that "murdering" a zygote is less harmful than "murdering" a person.
You can decide that killing a fetus under some circumstances should not be unlawful just as killing adults is legal sometimes (for example when they are trespassing in some states).
... though no one is aborting a fetus at 7 months except in cases of nonviability, so it's a straw argument ...
It is convenient for pro-abortion people to believe this just as it is convenient for people like Akin to believe that pregnancy doesn't result from rape. But it isn't true.
77,
Well, sure. The same logic also produces Peter Singer. However, the people arguing "life iz life" are morally consistent in the other direction.
oh, and I would need to see statistics for the final point to take it seriously.
76:
I think I agree with your first paragraph, mostly. If that's mainly what you're referring to, then I do agree that those particular arguments are incoherent.
With Benquo's reasoning, we've already got into women blaming: "if it were consensual, the woman could have prevented it, and therefore she has to carry the child." [...] The idea that it's "less harmful" to force women who willingly have sex to have a child they don't want to than a woman who presumably is chaste is an act of judgment of that is, at its heart, misogynist and anti-sex, and still frames pregnancy as a punishment for sex.
once you start parsing how 'responsible' the woman is in conception, we're basically getting into anti-sex, anti-woman territory
You seem to be assuming that the only reason someone would care about what a woman did before the pregnancy is to decide how bad a person the woman is. But I don't see how that matters, because bad, irresponsible people have rights too!
I was suggesting something very different; that a woman's actions say something about her revealed preferences, and the more effort she puts into avoiding an outcome, the more reasonable it is to think of that outcome as harmful enough to justify killing to avoid it.
BTW, I think that sex is great, women are great, and intentional pregnancy is awesome. It's inconvenient that pregnancy isn't always chosen, but there's another life (though not a whole other person) involved, and until we figure out an artificial womb into which we can transfer the unwanted fetus, whatever choices society and the individuals involved make will result in an imperfect outcome.
I don't understand how there can be an easy answer, and I don't really understand how the actually existing arguments I see used on either side make sense. (Which I consider to be a good argument for keeping the government out of it, because our actually existing lawmakers are unlikely to make a reliably better and more humane choice than the people involved, even after accounting for moral hazard.)
As is, 30% of pregnant rape victims choose to continue the pregnancy, which is (I think) around the same number of pregnant college students who continue the pregnancy
That does suggest that the argument I brought up might be mistaken. (Though not decisively, since the numbers might have been different if abortion were mostly illegal, but birth control as available as it is now.) But not that it's incoherent.
There are lots of ways an argument can go wrong. It can assume facts that are not true, or not known to be true. It can be fallacious and draw inferences that are not implied by the facts. It can confuse the possibility of an outcome with the high probability of an outcome. Incoherence is a strong claim, and it's the one that I thought you made. And not just that some reasons to believe this are incoherent, but that to believe it is inherently incoherent.
If that's not actually your claim, then we might not have an argument.
79: If you really meant "no one," then an anecdote should suffice.
Otherwise it would be reasonable to suggest that "no one" innocent is executed by the state in the US, because the total number of people executed is very small.
79
oh, and I would need to see statistics for the final point to take it seriously.
I can't (immediately at least) find stats for very late abortions (which are rare in the US 1/1000 or so of all abortions). This article has stats about the reasons (multiple reasons are allowed) for moderately late (> 16 weeks) abortions. Fetal problems are low on the list (2%). Compare to difficulty in making arrangements (48%) and indecision (24%). I doubt the proportions for very late abortions are vastly different (which is consistent with accounts I have read about providers of very late abortions). Note also if the fetus is actually dead having it removed does not constitute an abortion.
71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other
for example when they are trespassing in some states
And an unwanted pregnancy *is* kind of like trespassing in a woman's uterus...
that a woman's actions say something about her revealed preferences
I would think her decision to abort or maintain a pregnancy would be sufficient indication of her preferences without having to resort to inferences from pre-pregnancy circumstances.
I actually agree that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a life with some degree of moral value. I also agree that the issue isn't one with easy moral answers. My point in 33 above wasn't that it's necessarily incoherent to think there are some situations where the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus outweigh the rights of the woman. Rather, my point was that once you start splitting those hairs (it's ok in case of rape but not consensual sex, it's okay in case of legitimate rape but not fakey wannabe rape), you are acknowledging that the burden of carrying a pregnancy to term is sometimes too much to impose on a woman and supposing you are in a better position than she is to decide under what circumstances that burden is too much.
||
These "Communist Daughter" cats are actually quite good. I should probably go see more live music, I'm turning into an old fuddy-duddy.
||>
Fetal problemsdiscovered late in pregnancy are low on the list (2%).
FTFY*.
*A construction I generally loathe, but more to happy to use it in this instance.
There's a difference between sixteen weeks pregnant and seven months, so finding stats about sixteen weeks doesn't show anything about thirty.
87: He assumes it's not very different based on accounts he has read.
83, 81
Ok, then an anecdote will suffice, but I don't see anyone offering one. You can't lump abortions at 15+ weeks with abortions at 25+ weeks, because abortions are illegal after 20-24 weeks in 41 states except in case of the life/health of the mother. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf
I would believe that women are getting abortions at 15-20 weeks for non-health reasons, but not in the third trimester. I'm trying to access an article from the J. AMA which discusses this, however I'm having problems accessing my university's ejournals remotely. Here's the front page of the article: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187891
86
Fetal problems discovered early aren't on the list at all. Which makes sense if one is looking at the reasons for late abortions.
84: And an unwanted pregnancy *is* kind of like trespassing in a woman's uterus...
Meaning that the NRA ought to be in favor of letting her shoot the fetus.
But it's illegal in the vast majority of states, as Britta notes, after 24 weeks, which suggests the reasonable inference isn't 75% abortion on demand at seven months.
89
Ok, then an anecdote will suffice, but I don't see anyone offering one. ...
This grand jury report about a late term abortion provider who got into legal difficulties provides numerous such anecdotes.
We learned of another illegal, third-trimester abortion only because the mother changed her mind. In 2004, a 27-year-old woman went to Gosnell, pregnant with her first child. She testified that she was surprised when Gosnell told her she was 21 weeks pregnant. On the first day of what was to be a two-day procedure, Gosnell inserted dilators in the woman's cervix. After Gosnell had finished inserting the laminaria, the woman asked him what happened to the babies after they were aborted. She testified that Gosnell told her they were burned.
At home, thinking over how Gosnell disposed of the fetuses, the woman had a change of heart. She called her cousin and the cousin called Gosnell to tell him that they wanted him to take the laminaria out. Gosnell said that he could not do that once the procedure was started. And he did not want to return the $1,300 that the patient had already paid. The pregnant woman ended up going to the Hospital at the University of Pennsylvania to have the laminaria removed. It was determined at the hospital that she was 29 weeks pregnant. A few days later, the 27-year-old delivered a premature baby girl. She was treated at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and is today a healthy kindergartener.
90: Right. But fetal problems discovered easily could easily have been contributors to:
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
But that is a side point,
84
... you are acknowledging that the burden of carrying a pregnancy to term is sometimes too much to impose on a woman and supposing you are in a better position than she is to decide under what circumstances that burden is too much.
This is generally the rule when it comes to killing. A woman doesn't get to decide for herself that the burden of an abusive husband is too much and that she is entitled to kill him.
You're going to ride that Gosnell case until the end, aren't you James?
||
Also like bad weather, the summer of shooting sprees continues apace.
|>
You're going to ride that Gosnell case until the end, aren't you James?
You'd think things like what Gosnell did would be illegal! What kind of a world do we live in!
Yeah, can we go back to sharks and runaway brides?
96
You're going to ride that Gosnell case until the end, aren't you James?
I would expect his patients were fairly typical of people who seek late term abortions. Which is to say not totally on the ball.
89
I would believe that women are getting abortions at 15-20 weeks for non-health reasons, but not in the third trimester. ...
I expect this amounts to saying that none of the women you know would do such a thing.
There are occasional reports of women who kill healthy infants soon after birth. Why doubt that they would kill them before birth if they could?
Why would anyone assume that evidence collected from the most sensational infanticide/malpractice case in the past 200 years is somehow 'typical' of anything, especially when all other data point to the contrary (e.g. JAMA article)? Perhaps we could also extrapolate from this that US medical services are on par with the worst treatment in Victorian poor houses, but that probably wouldn't be the best conclusion to draw.
One might also quibble that delivering live babies and murdering them with scissors isn't abortion but murder.
98: Britta's claim was that nobody does it, not that it is illegal.
Perhaps we could also extrapolate from this that US medical services are on par with the worst treatment in Victorian poor houses
No, if you were in the poorhouse you got free medical care.
Britta, in 89 you said "an anecdote will suffice." It doesn't seem quite fair now to object to James's anecdotes, on the grounds that they are atypical. Either an anecdote will suffice, or it won't.
I had a friend who used to support everything with an anecdote and he was always right.
101
Because it's impossible to get an on-demand third trimester abortion in the US, but it's inevitable that if pregnant you will eventually give birth? Because it's easier to kill a baby outside of you than to murder a fetus inside you without also harming yourself? Because it's much less psychologically scarring to put a baby in a dumpster and walk away than to hack it to pieces with scissors? Because, without proper equipment and techniques not available outside of legal clinics, it's very hard to abort a viable fetus and not have it be born alive? (see the Gosnell case)
http://www.esquire.com/features/abortion-doctor-warren-hern-0909
84: I think I agree with what you said.
Would you agree that there is at least some conflict of interest or moral hazard in a pregnant woman deciding how to balance her own interests with those of the fetus? I don't think that this is sufficient to justify taking away the choice, but it's definitely not optimal.
It's not a good example because the woman was misled into thinking she was having the procedure at 21 weeks (which would presumably have been legal?) - in fact the doctor was lying to her, and it was 29 weeks in, which wasn't.
Benquo etc,
Ok, it is an anecdote, I concede that one was provided, and people can draw from that the conclusions they want, including that I am wrong.
However, Shearer claimed that one could assume this case to be typical of women getting third trimester abortions, and I (and the evidence) disagree.
I would also quibble that delivering babies alive and killing them with scissors doesn't meet any definition of 'abortion' that I know of, and if someone can provide an anecdote a legally provided on-demand third trimester abortion instead of illegal infanticide I would be more willing to concede, but ok.
109.2: Sure, just that every other alternative is a zillion times worth.
This is generally the rule when it comes to killing. A woman doesn't get to decide for herself that the burden of an abusive husband is too much and that she is entitled to kill him.
The law, of course, doesn't compel her to stay with the abusive husband.
Yes, of course, the law is all about drawing lines all over the place. The law makes value judgments about things you can and cannot do. And we weigh things like weighing the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus against the rights of the woman, the rights of the abused woman against the rights of the husband. My point is that shallow reasoning like "we have all kinds of laws about killing" is, well, shallow. Yes, we do. We adopt or don't adopt them by weighing stuff. Acknowledging that a pregnancy is a very real burden to impose on a woman, and recognizing that there are circumstances when we will not impose that burden, is an important part of weighing exactly when it is or is not appropriate to impose that burden.
Maybe it's a lack of imagination, but I can't think of many laws that compel rather than prohibit conduct, or especially that compel people to sacrifice autonomous decision-making over their own bodies. Compulsory vaccination comes to mind -- we force kids to have stuff put into their body to protect the health of the public more broadly. That's obviously much less invasive and with a far broader public benefit than compelling a woman to maintain a pregnancy.
I don't know about zillion, but I agree with 112 and 113 that the currently available alternatives are worse.
I endorse 112, as modified by 113.
I endorse 113 by itself as I've shorted the entire Dow.
111: OK, saying that it's not a true example makes more sense to me.
Do you think that some people killing their babies immediately after birth would be likely to have gotten late-term abortions instead if they were available?
It took me shockingly long to get the joke in 106. I was like, whoa, Moby has a friend who was just always right.
Benquo,
I don't know. I watched some public television program on a few of these women once, and a lot of them are in denial to the point of being delusional. They've sometimes convinced themselves they're not pregnant, and even in cases that their baby is not a baby, or at least not a live baby and so they don't see themselves as having killed a baby. I sincerely doubt the women on the show would have gotten an abortion, since it requires a certain level of reality and pro-activeness to deal with it. I don't know how representative these women were though.
In terms of moral difference, I do tend to draw a bright line at birth, but on some gut level I agree that there's not really much of a difference between a 9 month fetus and a baby, so there's not a huge difference between killing your baby immediately before or after birth. To the extent I do feel there's a difference though, I wonder if part of it is that labor is always risky and a healthy fetus is no guarantee of a live baby at the other end, so even a fetus about to be born isn't 'alive' in the same sense as a baby? I was just thinking about birth choices and child abuse laws. There are a few anecdotes floating around the web, mainly on the "hurt by home birth" website, about babies who've died in labor due to botched home births but who would have survived with a hospital birth. The parents are often portrayed as naive or misguided, but never criminally negligent or abusive, and the loss of a wanted baby is assumed to be more than punishment enough. If we really considered a fetus a baby though, wouldn't we prosecute people who's labor choices go wrong and the baby dies when otherwise it might have survived? I'm thinking about cases when well-meaning parents inadvertently kill their babies through neglect or stupidity (I think there was this French vegan couple awhile ago whose baby starved to death), and we don't seem to feel like the guilt of knowing they killed their child is enough punishment, but rather, the baby's life demanded more. This doesn't seem wrong to me, and I don't think we should prosecute women who make birthing choices which later turn out to be stupid or wrong, but it would be hard to reconcile if I saw even an about-to-be-born fetus as exactly the same as a live infant.
Late-term abortions are overwhelming women who wanted to have babies. They are devastated about having to have an abortion.
Then, they have to deal with assholes giving them shit.
Assholes.
Healthy people with healthy fetuses do not have late-term abortions.
That is a myth.
You cannot discuss later-term abortions the same way you discuss early ones.
120: I agree that "exactly the same" is a gross exaggeration of the similarity.
Is your argument basically that if a woman has it together enough to get one at all, she almost certainly has it together enough to get one before the third trimester?
Benquo,
Well, the argument, which applies to most women who kill their infants in the US, is that women who won't admit they're pregnant won't get abortions. Because, if you're not pregnant, why would you get an abortion? According to this PBS documentary, most women who kill their children are delusional and psychotic, so normal decision making processes are suspended.
But yes, a bit of the second point as well. Even if third-trimester on-demand abortions were legal and as available as first trimester abortions (as opposed to requiring a plane flight, hotel room, thousands of dollars, and extensive prenatal care and multiple doctors' prognoses, which they require now), getting an abortion isn't easy or all that cheap. IME, the minimum cost is about $400 for a low risk first trimester abortion WITH insurance at PP, and the sort of person who is desperate enough to have a baby and then kill it probably isn't in a position to arrange an abortion. For a pregnant 15 year old, that's a lot of allowance to save.
I don't think it's any question that people who argue that if legal, 8 month pregnant women would line up for abortions are men. Being pregnant, deciding not to be pregnant, getting not pregnant, ALL these are difficult things. No woman who doesn't want to be pregnant chooses to have an abortion later rather than sooner if she can help it. No woman who is pregnant doesn't reflect on the fact she is carrying a potential child, and what that means for her. The only reason why we have such a high rate of 2nd trimester abortions compared to most European countries is we make it so difficult and expensive to access, not that American women are eating lunch one day and suddenly decide it might be fun to abort the fetus they've been carrying for 17 weeks.
111
I would also quibble that delivering babies alive and killing them with scissors doesn't meet any definition of 'abortion' that I know of, and if someone can provide an anecdote a legally provided on-demand third trimester abortion instead of illegal infanticide I would be more willing to concede, but ok.
This is silly, the women going to Gosnell were going to him for abortions. The fact that he sometimes delivered live babies and then killed them (instead of killing the fetus first and then delivering it) is irrelevant to why they wanted an abortion. It does show that women sometimes want to abort viable fetuses and will do so if they can.
114
The law, of course, doesn't compel her to stay with the abusive husband.
Ok, change the example so the husband is extremely ill and dependent on her for care. It may be difficult for her to legally abandon him and she may find caring for him a great burden but she doesn't get to unilaterally decide to kill him. Although in practice she may (or may not) get a light sentence.
122
Healthy people with healthy fetuses do not have late-term abortions.
This sounds unfalsifiable. If an apparently healthy woman with a healthy fetus gets a late term abortion you will claim she is mentally ill citing her late term abortion as evidence.
114
Maybe it's a lack of imagination, but I can't think of many laws that compel rather than prohibit conduct, or especially that compel people to sacrifice autonomous decision-making over their own bodies. ...
It seem to me that anti-abortion laws are prohibiting conduct. A compulsory abortion law would be compelling conduct. Lots of medical procedures are regulated. What drugs you are allowed to take for example.
126: Is she legally obligated to stick around as his caregiver?
128: All depends on your point of view.From one angle, it's prohibiting the killing of a fetus. From a different angle, it is compelling pregnancy. The angle you see it from has everything to do with how you weigh the competing values.
Aggggh did we just make the worst trade in baseball history? It's possible! And helped out Boston at the same time. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
Come on, you might be getting the great Carl Crawford for nothing.
129
Is she legally obligated to stick around as his caregiver?
You are the lawyer. I know that legally she can't just walk out and leave him to die. There may be some legal means of getting out of caring for him but I would guess it is complicated and time consuming.
130, 131: with the number of fucks in that comment, it might not wind up off-topic after all.
Ok, change the example so the husband is extremely ill and dependent on her for care. It may be difficult for her to legally abandon him and she may find caring for him a great burden but she doesn't get to unilaterally decide to kill him. Although in practice she may (or may not) get a light sentence.
This is a pretty conceptual unclear of criminal law. Many of the leading authorities are pretty suspect; much of it is statute based and mostly pragmatic. But legally abandoning someone is hard primarily 'cause there's some kind of assumed duty of care. Where does the duty of care to the fetus come from?
135
... Where does the duty of care to the fetus come from?
I am pro-abortion myself but the argument would be it comes from consenting to sex. By doing this you assume a duty of care towards any resulting children. Which is why men can be compelled to pay child support although they would rather not.
Alternatively you could argue that the child's interests trump any unfairness to the parents (which is why men who have been raped can still sometimes be compelled to pay child support, something I do not agree with at all).
Finally there is general rule that even if you don't have a duty of care once you start caring for someone you are obligated to continue caring for them if they would otherwise die. So in the case of late term abortions you could argue that a woman has assumed a duty to care by carrying the fetus for six months (or whatever).
136 --- which is kinda the point, right? I don't think having sex gives rise to that duty (certainly not to that extent.) It's an argument about sex, not an argument about pregnancy, in many ways.
Aggggh did we just make the worst trade in baseball history? It's possible! And helped out Boston at the same time. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
Here's hoping!
you are acknowledging that the burden of carrying a pregnancy to term is sometimes too much to impose on a woman and supposing you are in a better position than she is to decide under what circumstances that burden is too much. ...
I'm distressed to see that I'm with Shearer here on this being not all that atypical--it's a pretty mainstream position within philosophy of law to claim that the essence of law is precisely to make authoritative judgments about right or wrong in cases where folks disagree about the correct answer, but feel that the political community must (for whatever reason) speak with one voice on the issue. And what Benquo says about conflict of interest--that is, reasons why not to leave these situations to individual judgment--seems not absurd, either (which isn't to say right, just not crazy or incoherent; though of course one can see considerations cutting just the opposite way, that the woman in question is the one most likely to give the fetus due consideration).
It's entirely coherent to say, "yes, killing the fetus is the wrong thing to do, but in these specified circumstances, forcing the woman to do the right thing is unreasonable, because the burden is so great." Using criminal law, whether to compel or to forbid, isn't just about the rightness or wrongness of the activity in question; among other things, it's also about the burden it places on the actors involved. I suppose it's not unfair to say that this reasoning seems patronizing and agency-denying towards women, but I feel like this sort of reasoning is, yes, as James says, precisely the kind that gets used in situations that are unquestionably about killing--when can police shoot suspects, when do you not have a duty to retreat, etc. "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife," mutatis mutandis; perhaps for many of the people who make these exceptions (and it is a fairly popular position), the idea of having to carry your rapist's or father/uncle/whatever's baby (and I assume folks sort of assume that an incest baby is also a not-really-consensually conceived one) to term seems a sort of absolute moral horror, one that absolves the person in the same way Holmes thought about physical threats.
I think this "no with exceptions" view suffers from a real lack of empathy; undesired pregnancies can't be neatly divided up into "reasonable burden" vs. "moral horror." I think this whole area is not at all the sort of situation, setting aside if there are any, where the political community needs to authoritatively settle things in the first place, and so I'm 100% pro abortion-on-demand. But the "rape/incest exceptions" view isn't necessarily inconsistent at all.
60: and ugh, Thorn, my sympathies. That is really awful.
I should add that rape/incest exceptions seem to be ridiculously under-inclusive in practice, for unsurprising reasons once you think about how you'd actually go about institutionalizing them, which is another reason I think it marks a failure of empathy/imagination to have that your preferred policy.
I want the fetus of Carl Crawford out of my womb.
I don't think that gets you out of the contract, sorry.
142: why is this such a bad trade for your guys? They'll get Gonzalez, who's a pro's pro and should help sell tickets and merchandise. They'll get Beckett, who's young enough to offer some hope that he'll return to being Beckett. And they'll get Crawford, who never was that good, who's now damaged goods, and who has an absurd contract that would crush most team's payrolls. But that doesn't really matter for LA, because the team is going to be made of money after it signs its new TV deal, right? Still, I can see being upset that your team will be helping out the Sox. That must burn a bit.
I'd be very sorry to see Gonzalez go. Beckett, not so much, although there's upside there. Carl Crawford I never wanted in the first place. Nick Punto, though, oh man that makes me laugh and laugh.
Trapnel, I can't say I disagree with anything you say. I do, though, think the primary failure of empathy in anti-abortion rhetoric is the failure to recognize that banning abortion really does compel as much as prohibit conduct. When you prohibit an abortion, you really are compelling a woman to commit her body for 9 months to the creation of a child. You aren't just preventing her/her doctor from performing a procedure. You are compelling a rather significant physical and emotional contribution from her.
The only law I can think of with a comparable compelled commitment of body and mind would be the draft. (Laws against spousal abandonment -- not that I know exactly what those are -- certainly don't prohibit checking hubby into the nursing home. I feel reasonably safe assuming you aren't ever legally obligated in any state to actually be the daily, round the clock caregiver to a sick spouse.)
146
... Laws against spousal abandonment -- not that I know exactly what those are -- certainly don't prohibit checking hubby into the nursing home. ...
That would be laws against kidnapping. And this assumes you have money, lots of things are easier if you have money.
146
The only law I can think of with a comparable compelled commitment of body and mind would be the draft. ...
You are under the same compulsion if you enlist.
148. But you're not compelled to enlist. You are compelled to report for a draft, even if they don't take you.
147: If the husband is capable of refusing nursing home care, then he is capable of arranging (or not arranging) his own alternative care.
150
If the husband is capable of refusing nursing home care, then he is capable of arranging (or not arranging) his own alternative care.
I don't think this follows and in any case capacity or incapacity would generally be decided by a court not determined unilaterally.
146.1 -- I can't believe I'm actually entering into this discussion, and in this way: a pro-life with exceptions person would draw exactly this kind of distinction between pregnancy caused by consensual as opposed to pregnancy caused by non-consensual sex.
Ok, engaging in this conversation is not better than cleaning up the dog vomit on the shag carpet. See y'all later.
[And where do you suppose the fucking carpet cleaning products are in our new house? The wife knows, but she's out of town, which certainly bears a causal link to the poor dog throwing up . . .]
151: So how do you get to "kidnapping" charges if he doesn't have the mental capacity to refuse nursing home conviction? We've definitely crossed the threshold into silly.
153: Rory's stock answer to "where is" questions is "check the dish drainer." This has proven accurate in a disturbing number of cases. Alternately, I'd suggest under the kitchen/bathroom sinks.
151: Abandonment would surely be based on the facts as they were thought to be by the defendant, so if the defendant thought victim capable the charge surely fails.
(Good lord this is the most absurd thing in my life.)
Um, nursing home *care.* Freudian slip...
More embarrassingly, new flatmate moves in tomorrow and I have lost the key to the front door and the other flatmate is out of town. So everything will have to come in back door. Awkward and stupid!
||
So the current debate in the theater scene here is about "boldness" (link below). Some criticisms of this critique are that the author doesn't really take anyone in particular to task for their alleged self-satisfaction, and that boldness is somewhat vague. What would bold theater be? Obvs, doing Waiting for Godot could be bold in a certain context, and self-satisfied in others. What is bold theater? Is that something to shoot for? Should the debate be framed differently?
||>
Link: http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/stageandarts/165662826.html?refer=y
OT: If Jean-Claude Van Damme is the most impressive thespian in your cinematic endeavor, then you might want to consider swinging through London and seeing what bits of superannuated huma scenery are willing to spend a week in Bulgaria wearing ascots with tiger-stripe camo pants and reading "We're not so different, you and I" off the back of a prop gun.
In related news, Jesus cosmetic surgery Christ do JCVD, Chuck Norris, Dolph Lundgren and Stallone look terrible.
In unrelated news, Ahnuld is like a god to me and shut up.
154
151: So how do you get to "kidnapping" charges if he doesn't have the mental capacity to refuse nursing home conviction? We've definitely crossed the threshold into silly.
Same way as you get to a rape conviction if someone doesn't have the mental capacity to refuse sex. The nursing home is probably going to want some evidence that you are legally entitled to make decisions for him. Especially if he is protesting. Even if he is actually totally incapable of caring for himself.
154.2 -- Even Rory would've been stumped on this one: we're apparently out (as confirmed by the wife by phone).
160 -- You didn't see that as a date movie did you? Do we need to stage an intervention?
There is great and important work to be done analyzing the progression of the Gathering of the Juggalos infomercials. Formally, the use of extensive greenscreen effects over the last couple of years certainly marks a level of sophistication not normally imputed to ICP and its apparat. And yet the stilted delivery, cliched scripts and repetitive nature of the entire enterprise seem to indicate that these texts remain the product of a decidedly pre-intellectual approach to marketing and public relations. Which is all to the good if we presume that the punishment should fit the crime. The event itself definitely seems to be a very sincere attempt to create temporary autonomous zones, and a successful one as well, by the lights of its adherents. It's a fertile ground in more than one respect.
163 may be right, but I really don't want to know.
Also, shag carpeting? I didn't know that it existed still.
162.2, 164: I may be dumb but I ain't no fool.
Further OT: Slate adds a little "somebody's got some privilege" to the reality television white-trash heap.
Also, shag carpeting? I didn't know that it existed still.
[Easy "your mom sure does" joke abjured.]
144 -- because, even though I love AGon, we're still not set up to spend more money than the Yankees and this trade (which is at least a $50 million overpay, even if things go well) only makes sense if we are. So instead of spending a lot of money smartly we're now locked into these dudes. Plus I have something of the love that dares not speak its name for Rubby De La Rosa, and if we're taking on this stupid money why are we giving up awesome prospects too and aggghh get Carl Crawford out of my womb!
But maybe we'll win the WS this year and everything will be OK.
166 -- I know! It's a bland light brownish, but not that old, I don't think. (House is mid-90s, but interior was redone by people with terrible taste [just how many shades of brown are there -- let me look around and count them all] in the 00s somewhere.)
Bigger worry is the dog. She seems to have been upset by the wife being gone for just a day [although I guess the dog doesn't know she'll be back soon] and what happens when she's gone for two weeks beginning in a few days. Should I maybe hire Molly Laich as a daytime dogsitter?
Wait on the dog sitter until there is enough vomit stain to require new carpet.
My 2-year-old is watching a video on YouTube of an Italian flash mob dancing to "Waka Waka". There are no good outcomes to globalization or the Internet.
163: That Missoula author CC linked to in the other thread wrote a piece about attending an ICP show.
I do, though, think the primary failure of empathy in anti-abortion rhetoric is the failure to recognize that banning abortion really does compel as much as prohibit conduct. When you prohibit an abortion, you really are compelling a woman to commit her body for 9 months to the creation of a child. You aren't just preventing her/her doctor from performing a procedure. You are compelling a rather significant physical and emotional contribution from her.
I agree with this--but my vague memory (from reading about a 30-years-out-of-date book!) is that, particularly among pro-life activists (women as least as much as men, here), even an enhanced sense of empathy won't necessarily do much here. For most activists, their pro-life commitments flow out of an all-encompassing worldview in which motherhood is the primary and divinely ordained role for women; for people who thinks this way, the idea of forcing a woman to take on this burden just won't be all that big a deal:
Women come to be pro-life and pro-choice activists as the end result of lives that center around different definitions of motherhood. They grow up with a belief about the nature of the embryo, so events in their lives lead them 10 believe that the embryo is a unique person, or a fetus; that people are intimately tied to their biological roles, or that these roles are but a minor part of life: that motherhood is the most important and satisfying role open to a woman, or that motherhood is only one of several roles, a burden when defined as the only role. These beliefs and values are rooted in the concrete circumstances of women's lives -- their educations, incomes, occupations, and the different marital and family choices they have made along the way -- and they work simultaneously to shape these circumstances in turn. Values about the relative place of reason and faith, about the role of actively planning for lire versus learning to accept gracefully life's unknowns, of the relative satisfactions inherent in work and family -- all of these factors place activists in a specific relationship to the larger world and give them a specific set of resources with which to confront that world. Pro-choice and pro-life activists live in different worlds, and the scope of their lives, as both adults and children, fortifies them in their belief that their own views on abortion are the more correct, more moral, and more reasonable. When added to this is the fact that should "the other side" win, one group of women will see the very real devaluation of their lives and life resources, it is not surprising that the abortion debate has generated so much heat and so little light [pp. 214-15].
161: When I was a nursing home nurses' aide, it only took one doctor declaring incapacity to get someone committed. It wasn't clear how someone wrongly committed could get out, as any expense or meetings with strangers were to be vetted by the relative in control, and the nurses didn't seem to have standing to protest (also, way to be unemployable, though some of the nurses were considering it).
(Elderly woman was declared incapacitated while coming out of anaesthesia; consensus view of the facility was that her son wanted to sell her house. She was plenty sane, though by this time depressed and heartbroken.)
175: even an enhanced sense of empathy won't necessarily do much here.
That's my sense as well: it's not a failure of empathy at work, so much, as a divergent conception of life's duties. Taking a "but think of the starving people in India!" approach -- i.e. a purely empathy-appealing approach -- isn't going to convince these people of much.
ON the other hand, great strides have been made in, say, the gay rights movement through the eventual and growing empathy people discover when a loved one turns out to be gay. I suspect that were all abortion outlawed everywhere in every case, we'd be back where we started: people would notice that their loved ones were getting knocked up to very ill effect.
||
NMM to the 1st man on the moon.
|>
It's not been a good couple of days for famous Armstrongs.
Looking at headlines on Google News, it appears NBC briefly ran the headline "Astronaut Neil Young, first man to walk on moon, dies at age 82," before correcting it.
Parsimon @ 177,
Yes. Abortion is widespread, I think about 40% of American women have at least one in their lifetimes. And, according to a friend who worked at PP, most women are married with other children when they get them, not unmarried sluts women. It's so stigmatized however, that few women are willing to speak openly about having one and people assume the number much lower. Btw, 40% of 52% is over 1/5 of the general population, about double the percentage of LGBT Americans (around 10%?), so the likelihood that someone close to you has had an abortion is even greater than that someone close to you is gay.
Can I change my pseudonym to "Grand Wizard Fyodor"? Apparently no one else has thought of that yet.
Arguments like 182 are hard to make because they amount to "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
Same thing with rape statistics. A popular subject of retweeting recently:
Dudes: If you "don't know any women who've been raped," it means you don't know a single woman who trusts you with the truth of her life.
How many women should be trusting me, personally, with the truth of their lives? More than one? If so, why?
178: every time an Apollo astronaut dies I think about the amazingly depressing Stephen Baxter short story "In the MSOB". Someone hurry up with the Mars programme or we'll run out of people who have ever set foot on a world not our own.
186 was me. 185.2 is irritating and wrong and should not be retweeted.
Do you mean I'm irritating and wrong, or the thing I think is irritating and wrong is irritating and wrong?
I don't understand why that retweet is irritating. Certainly it's chastising when perhaps no chastising was called for, and that can be irritating, and it engages in hyperbole (maybe the dude in question really doesn't know any women who've been raped) but the overall message is true enough, isn't it? Women generally don't share rape or abortion information about themselves, because they don't trust the listener not to ... shift his (or her) perspective significantly in the learning.
Someone hurry up with the Mars programme or we'll run out of people who have ever set foot on a world not our own.
Yeah. Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon is one of my earliest childhood memories. My dad was an engineer for Grumman and he worked on the LEM. Yeah, I'm a little bit choked up.
Can't find that story "In the MSOB," where is it?
182
... And, according to a friend who worked at PP, most women are married with other children when they get them, ...
In the US (as of 2008) 85% of women obtaining abortions are unmarried. See here.
I don't see how it matters one way or another.
Oh, ok, if not technically married, then in a serious LT relationship. From Guttmacher, almost 45% of women are either married or defacto married (15% married, 29% cohabitating), and another about 14% have been in a LT relationship with the father for more than a year, for a total of 59% of women in LT relationships. 61% already have children, 34% already have 2+ children. Nitpick away, but this doesn't change the fact that women who get abortions tend to be in LT relationships with kids.
Parsimon, I don't think it really does or should matter at all, but it does pushing back against the overall public perception and rhetoric of what sort of women get abortions, especially wrt the whole pro-life "if you knew what it was like to hold a baby in your arms you could never abort your child" argument, which isn't actually true. It also shows exactly how condescending and wrong all the mandatory ultrasounds and mandated doctor speeches on "you're carrying a BABY" are. Not that they aren't condescending and wrong no matter what, but the fact that a large majority of women who are getting abortions have already given birth just highlights how little such policies are about anything but trying to shame women and make abortions more difficult to achieve. It also affects the "just adopt it out" argument. As my friend pointed out, on multiple levels it's much harder to adopt out a kid when you have other kids at home, or if you're married (de facto or de jure) and relatives know you're pregnant.