Amazingly my sig has gone mostly unnoticed for a week. Or maybe everyone just said, "I don't want to get into it."
Here's the place to discuss it. No, it's not sarcasm, Miss Poppins. Surprisingly, there are some people who think abortion should be legally wrong. One of the most important things to me right now is doing whatever I can to get a Republican senate behind the President, because his court nominees are not being approved, solely for partisan reasons.
The democrats claim it'd be wrong to use abortion as a litmus test for court nominees. That's sheer hypocracy; Jimmy Carter, the "Christian" president, quietly left a slew of pro-abortion judges all over this country. The democrats themselves treat abortion as a litmus test, or else they'd approve George Bush's court nominees.
Court nominees are appointed for life. It's one of the most important things a president does, but it's practically invisible to the American public.
No, I don't expect to find a lot of support here. :)
In my case, I didn't see that there was anything to discuss. "OK, Jdavidb is staunchly anti-abortion, can't say I'm surprised." Whether I agree or disagree, what would I have to say? "Right on, brother! Fight the good fight!" or "You anti-woman rhetoric-spewing bastard!"? It's been said before, many times, many ways.
I'd be happy to discuss this, and I even understand the words "litmus test", but, being unfamiliar with the US political system, I don't know what a court nominee actually is and what role he has in voting or amending laws.
Besides this, I've already explained my opinion somewhere : a law is not necessarily a bad law even if it's morally wrong or repelling. It's a bad law when it fails to help citizens. The point is : does abortion help citizens ? If so, is it possible to avoid abortion while continuing helping citizens (esp. women in this case) at the same level ? What does the goverment to prevent people aborting ? Is pure interdiction preferable to discouraging abortion, except in last resort ? How to discourage clandestine abortion in case of interdiction ? What about anonymous childbirth ?
In my opinion, people that are led to abort are doing this because (1) they don't want a child : and it's possible to reduce the number of cases by in-depth courses about contraception in schools ; and (2) because they don't measure all human consequences of abortion, or are otherwise not sensitive to this particular form of violence. This last one is really about respect towards life, something that comes usually with an education aimed at growing responsible adults, not childish consumers. Deep problem.
I don't see Bush wanting mandatory courses on contraception in all schools, including the religious ones. I don't see Bush explaining that respecting life is important while he's against abolishing the death penalty. He's thus unconvincing as an anti-abortion speaker. I don't want abortion to be made illegal, because this won't prevent efficiently illegal abortions -- this will only make them more dangerous. I prefer people to consider the other available alternatives -- and choose one of them.
Re:Court nominee ?
pudge on 2002-10-02T05:12:55
I don't want abortion to be made illegal, because this won't prevent efficiently illegal abortions -- this will only make them more dangerous.
If we are to say that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life (that is, the subjugation of one human's rights by another), how is this different from, "I don't want slavery to be made illegal, because this won't prevent efficiently illegal enslavements -- this will only make them more dangerous"? Or s/abortion/$insert_crime_here/?
I am not asking anyone to agree with me that abortion is killing babies. I am quite convinced that it is, though, and as such I am logically compelled to push for it being made illegal, just as I would be compelled to for slavery, murder, or any other total subjugation of someone's human rights.
To frame it in terms of practicality, or safety of the mothers, or choice, makes no sense in light of how I (and others) see "legalized" abortion: as the oppression of a whole class of human beings. Even if abortions are not performed, it is an atrocity merely that abortions are legal, because it is condoning this complete subjugation of these human beings.
Again, I am not asking anyone to agree with me. But you must see, if you care about understanding the various views, that many people in this country will never see any compromise in this; we will never be satisfied with making abortions "legal, safe, and rare," anymore than we would have been satisified with making slavery such. The anti-slavery movement was called the abolitionist movement because they saw that slavery was an absolute affront to humanity. Abortion is no different, except that it is worse, being that they are not enslaved, but killed; not having any power, but entirely defenseless; not merely stripped of some rights, but of all humanity.
I played games with my baby, while she was still in the womb, in her second trimester. I'd poke her, she'd poke back. We communicated. And it was legal for me and my wife to have her killed. That is absolutely disgusting. It cheapens us all, just by virtue of it being legal.
OK, maybe I am asking people to agree with me. But even if you don't, you should understand that the abortion issue, like the slavery issue, will never, ever, go away until abortion is illegal.
Re:Court nominee ?
rafael on 2002-10-02T10:04:54
You are pointing out the only place in my post where my personal opinion slipped through. This wasn't intended, sorry.You should understand that the abortion issue, like the slavery issue, will never, ever, go away until abortion is illegal. Not true. Replace "never, ever" by "never in the next 150 years in the U.S.A." and I'll agree -- you can't guess beyond that scope. Abortion (like slavery, death penalty, homosexuality, polygamy, ritual murder of widows, cannibalism, and other things that may or may not seem absolutely disgusting) wasn't always, everywhere, an issue, and it won't be an issue forever, because civilizations evolve, even if it's not always towards human progress.
Re:Court nominee ?
pudge on 2002-10-02T12:42:07
No, I can say never, absolutely. The death penalty, as well. These are distinct from homosexuality and polygamy, because abortion and the death penalty have to do with essential human liberties of an oppressed people. The issue absolutely will not go away. Of course, the death penalty is different because those people are not innocent (ideally), but still, it strikes at the heart of what it means to be a human being. Issues like that never go away until the side of liberty wins. I cannot think of any counterexample; can you?
Re:Court nominee ?
wickline on 2002-10-02T16:31:35
> the abortion issue, like the slavery issue, will
> never, ever, go away until abortion is illegal.
or maybe when birth control is so easy and perfect that nobody ever has children unless they want them. It would also be nice if all new parents had at least as much preparation as we require of new drivers or gun owners.
-matt
Re:Court nominee ?
pudge on 2002-10-02T16:54:47
No, it won't go away in that case. As I already said, the very notion that it is *legal* to abort my child, with whom I am communicating, with whom I am playing, is an affront to humanity. Whether or not anyone is being aborted, if it is legal to abort that life, that means that we are devaluing that life, and it is not acceptable.
It would be great if there were no unwanted pregnancies. But it wouldn't make the problem go away, because these principles, how we define life and humanity, how we codify the treatment of others in our law, shapes how we view each other, and ourselves.
Re:Court nominee ?
rafael on 2002-10-02T21:23:40
I'm with pudge there. A society might allow slavery and have no slaves -- this doesn't solve the problem that slavery is still legal in it. The problem is how we define life and humanity. Three centuries ago, black people were not, to most occidentals, humans, and thus slavery was morally acceptable for them. Now that child mortality is very low, our society learned to view humans in little children, but this doesn't extend to foetuses, not for everyone at least, mainly because a foetus is not an independent organism. Foetuses are a scary subject, and abortion only one side of it. I expect more and more related problems to appear in the next few centuries as medical knowledge progresses. No doubt our definition of life and humanity will evolve, in one sense or another.Re:Court nominee ?
pudge on 2002-10-02T21:44:43
Agreed!Re:Court nominee ?
wickline on 2002-10-03T18:46:34
In that case, your "as long as abortion is legal" could be ammended to "as long as abortion is legal and there are those who believe it should be legal" because making it illegal today would not put end end to the dispute. There are very many who would be quite upset were that to happen.
I'm not trying to take sides here, just pointing out that outlawing abortion may be a necessary condition for 'making the issue go away' (your opinion, and many others' opinion) but it is not sufficient. So long as there are folks who believe strongly in a woman's right to have an abortion, the issue cannot go away simply by outlawing abortion.
There are those who feel that abortion must be a legal option, and for them, the legalization of abortion is a necessary condition for 'making the issue go away'.
If abortion being legal is necessary for the issue to go away and abortion being illegal is necessary for the issue to go away, then the issue is not going to go away.
Laws won't make this issue go away. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like either side of the debate is on the verge of 'convicing' the other, and without that, the issue remains regardless of law.
-matt
Re:Court nominee ?
pudge on 2002-10-04T04:59:26
outlawing abortion may be a necessary condition for 'making the issue go away'... but it is not sufficient
I never meant to imply otherwise.
There are those who feel that abortion must be a legal option, and for them, the legalization of abortion is a necessary condition for 'making the issue go away'.
People felt that way about a lot of human rights issues in the past. They eventually got over them, for the most part. There are still people who believe in slavery, but we mostly took care of that such that it is no longer an issue. I also think that at some point we probably won't have the death penalty any longer; eventually, people will get over it.
Of course, abortion is a much more difficult issue than these because of its intensely personal nature, but I have faith in humanity that eventually we will get over it. For the longest time, we couldn't see that black people had human rights, and now we do. Anything is possible.
I am extremely familiar with the Republican stance on issues. I am extremely familiar with the Democrat stance on issues. I am unimpressed with almost all of them, and find myself quite disenchanted and more than a little discouraged.
Will I still vote? Yep. Will your sig influence me one way or the other? Nope. Don't misunderstand me. I'm happy for your apparent strongheld beliefs and whether I agree with you or not is another matter entirely. I just don't find sigs politically persuasive. Thought-provoking, possibly, but not persuasive.
troll moderation
mary.poppins on 2002-10-02T10:21:01
A moderator has labelled my post a troll.
This does not meet with my understanding of the word. My post does not contain incorrect assertions, as far as I know. On the contrary, I was trying to point out a serious disconnect from reality which I believe exists in the statement that voting Republican is a great way to improve the lives of babies. If there is a factual error in my post, please respond and point it out to me, so I will be less ignorant.
I haven't seen any trolling (as I understand the word) on this thread, only earnest exhortations of various kinds, as one would expect, given the topic.
Re:offtopic moderation
mary.poppins on 2002-10-02T22:17:01
Ye powerful moderator, reply! I beseech you! Enlighten me, bring me out of this infernal darkness!
Re:offtopic moderation
autarch on 2002-10-09T23:21:14
I think labelling a post in this particular a topic a troll is kind of funny. The topic itself could be construed as a troll, but none of the responses has been trollish, in the sense that they were designed simply to fan flames. All of them (on all viewpoints) seemed thoughtful and sincere, FWIW.Re:offtopic moderation
hfb on 2002-10-11T20:38:51
truth is often considered a troll when so much disinformation and religion muddy the waters. Ms Poppins is correct and all you have to do is look around and notice that for a place with so little regard or respect for life of any kind, human or otherwise, it seems to be just another political vehicle to champion the stripping the right to choose from women in the cause to 'save lives'. 50 million or so people in the US have no healthcare, many of them children.
I might also add here that there are a number of ways women can get pregnant even when they are taking an oral contraceptive and other forms of birth control that are statistically 'foolproof'. An example would be in the case of an oral contraceptive if the woman has an ulcer, stomach flu, digestive upset, etc, anything that might impede the uptake of the medicine, she could be at a much higher risk for pregnancy.
Save lives, convince men that an outpaitent vasectomy is cheap, reversible, non-steroidal and shares the burden of preventing the unpleasant and the unwanted. It's always presented as a woman's issue but women don't go blind or get preggers by masturbating.
Re:offtopic moderation
autarch on 2002-10-11T21:18:20
To give some benefit of the doubt, I think that many people do honestly and sincerely believe that abortion is murder, and I think that's a perfectly justified reason for opposing it.
However, I _don't_ believe that many politicians who take this stance do so out of principle (well, I don't believe most politicians have any principles at all).
And just as importantly, if you really honestly believe that human life is sacred then I can't help but wonder if pushing for things like a Republican Senate will help, _overall_. Will it reduce the total number of needless (anything not of old age/personal stupidity) deaths? I don't think so, not with the powers that be (Democrats too) pushing for war against Iraq (death in Iraq), which will undoubtedly increase terrorism here (death in the US) according to the _CIA_, of all people!
Now take that example and extrapolate hundreds of times over to all the other ways that our government kills people around the world, and you've got a very large number of _preventable_ deaths that will occur because you're too damned wrapped up in a single issue (abortion) to pay attention to global politics.
So jdavidb, wake up and smell the global political reality, educate yourself (like, try reading a newspaper from outside the US), and do a little math. Then tell me what you think is the best way to save as many human lives as possible.
Boyfriend has fight with his girlfriend, who is 16 weeks pregnant (boyfriend impregnated the girlfriend). Boyfriend begins punching girlfriend in the stomach and girlfriend reacts by taking a knife and killing him. She's charged with manslaughter. At trial, her lawyer attempts to argue self defense -- not that she feared for her own life, but that she was protecting the fetus(es) (quadruplets). The trial judge did not allow that defense, ruling that at 16 weeks the fetuses were not viable, therefore there was no "other" life for her to be defending.
The court of appeals this past week reversed the trial court and ordered a new trial allowing the self-defense argument. The appeals court noted specifically that the viability of the fetus should not be the deciding factor -- she had the right to protect her unborn child.
Although the court tried to make the ruling a narrow one, limited only to the self defense issue, the pre-choice v anti-abortion advocates are already considering its possible ramifications. As one legal expert in the area observed: "One is left with a most peculiar legal situation.... Although she may use deadly force to protect the viable or nonviable fetus, thereby ending someone's life, she also has the constitutional right to terminate the pregnancy herself without consequence."
The prosecutor said she will be asking the Michigan Supreme Court to review the matter. As I said, interesting case.
