AbsitInvidia
Posts: 164
Joined: 11/23/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Abortion is a complex moral question and obviously people have impassioned views about it. But there's an aspect to what you've written here that you haven't considered: namely, that a human embryo cannot survive before a certain point unless its mother carries it, and women, at least in my view, cannot be forced to carry embryos since there is a limit to what the state can tell you to do with your own body. Besides, there are PLENTY of characteristics that are NOT determined at conception; we're discovering more and more of them, and they're determined in utero AFTER conception. Sure, the genes are all set, but the person hasn't been formed yet; the person doesn't come to be unless the mother sustains the embryo to the point that it can survive on its own.
Your analogy of a piece of paper that men should be able to sign in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for a child doesn't work because men aren't obliged to bear embryos inside their bodies. You're talking about a child-support issue, and women are already every bit as obliged to render child support as men are. This usually doesn't come into play only because it's very rare for separated women with sufficient income not to retain at least joint custody of their children. But it can and does happen.
Now, lastly, there's one inconsistency I find in YOUR position: why are the issues any different if we're talking about conception as a consequence of rape? If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then it's murder regardless of how the embryo was created. (After all, you wouldn't agree that willfully killing an ADULT who happened to be conceived during a rape would be anything other than murder.) I'm aware that most abortion opponents support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and every time some legislature tries to float a NO-EXCEPTIONS anti-abortion law, the people freak out. But I don't for the life of me understand the reasoning, and it makes me doubt that you truly place abortion on the same level as murder, despite all the rhetoric.
Sorry for the delayed reply - I only saw this now.
First of all I didn't say that abortion isn't murder in the case of rape. I said that it's irrelevant to talk about "sexual slavery to the patriarchal state" if the sex in question was consensual. Because it's not "sexual slavery" if nobody forced her to have sex.
I do think abortion is murder no matter how the child is conceived. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way - the reason that abortion is allowed in cases of rape is sheer politics. They want the law passed - it will never be passed without that concession - therefore they make the concession. I have met quite a few people who do hold the position that you posited (that abortion is wrong unless the mother is raped) and generally they are against abortion more for the sake of taking personal responsibility for one's choices than because they believe life begins at conception. However that is NOT my position - this was the statement I originally made and it was regarding the idea that forbidding a woman from aborting a fetus is the equivalent of holding them in sexual slavery:
quote:
"Submission to the patriarchal state and enslaving them to be baby making machines?" Honestly now if we were talking about abortion only in the case of rape that's one thing but the majority of abortions are by women who CHOSE to have sex KNOWING that omg sex causes babies.
And it is true that the embryo can't survive outside of the womb. That in my opinion doesn't make it any less alive. A newborn kangaroo can't survive outside the pouch for weeks...that doesn't make it any less alive either. And while it is true that not all of the fetus's traits are determined through genes at conception, and some are formed in utero, it's also true that others are affected way after the child is born. A malnourished child won't be as tall as a well fed one and so forth. However the basic framework is determined at conception and can't be severely altered - if the sperm and egg say XX instead of XY then you will NOT have an XY baby. There's a one in a billion chance you might have a boy...with XX genes...but regardless you will have an XX baby. That is why I think life starts at conception - because if and when genetics progresses to the point that we can read genes as a form of code - it might someday be possible to look at that cluster of cells and predict if you'll have a blonde, blue eyed Anna or a brunette, dark eyed Jason.
Also - the earliest premature baby born who survived was born at 21 weeks. Regularly, extremely premature babies are born at 22-25 weeks. A percentage of those also survive. Outside the womb. While it is true that most abortions are performed in the first trimester, it is not unheard of for them to be performed in the second. From abortion.com:
Abortion in the second trimester - from 13 to 24 weeks - is generally performed using a procedure called Dilation & Evacuation (D&E).
Like I said earlier, most abortions are performed in the first trimester though and as you said the child can not survive outside the womb. I realize that the difference between abortion and adoption is that adoption requires the mother to bear the child to term. Many people seem to think that is an unfair burden for the woman to bear - and their main logic is "men don't have to get pregnant and women do so we should compensate for that by allowing women to terminate their pregnancy through artificial medical means so that women can be as "free" as men from their biology."
Personally I see that as nothing more than fostering irresponsibility. It's more like "Men are able to be shitheads and not take responsibility for their offspring so rather than forcing them to do so through DNA testing and automatic child support deductions we should instead encourage women to maintain that same level of irresponsibility for their actions."
And yes that doesn't apply in the case of rape. However just as I conceded that my point about 2nd trimester abortions being able to survive outside the womb isn't AS effective because it's the minority of cases, I will also point out that "but what if she was raped" is also a minority. Most abortions are not a product of rape - in fact, even though they are a small percentage to begin with, the number of women who report rape at an abortion clinic is actually considered slightly erroneous since some women might say the sex was not consensual so that the doctor "doesn't think she's a slut."
Like I said in the last post it is hard to determine if one person's right to freedom trumps another person's right to life. With most abortion legislation however that is a null issue as like you pointed out, they all tend to make concessions for rape victims. To be honest I would not protest those laws if they were effected simply because I'm not Solomon - I can't choose the lesser of two evils here. I would still think the abortions performed were murders...but I would understand that the world isn't perfect and either way someone gets screwed over. And it would make me sad but I wouldn't be disgusted as I am with the current legislation.
< Message edited by AbsitInvidia -- 1/11/2008 9:44:18 AM >
_____________________________
-=SixFoot and Soshi=-
What most people call rights are merely social norms, they are expectations - but expectations can and will be violated on a daily basis. On her knees. In the mud. Hard, and savagely. Expectations likes it like that.
|
RE: Mike Huckabee's View of Women - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread