One of the most salient comments I've seen in the election aftermath reportedly comes from (of all people) Alec Baldwin:
""You know your party's in trouble when you read this: A: The rape guy lost. B: Which one?"
Top image discussed at The Dish; lower one found at imgur.
So we'd all vote Republican if they just rid themselves of the d-bags above?
ReplyDeleteNo but I'd start to tolerate them.
DeleteA lot of horrible and untrue things were said, but I'm afraid that Ryan had it right: the manner of conception, be it consensual or not, should have nothing to do with the definition of life. Either a person is alive or he's not. How he got that way is not part of the definition of "alive"
ReplyDeleteSo you're against abortion, even in cases of rape then?
DeleteAnam Cara, well, right. Life begins when the cell divides, regardless of how the sperm and egg got together. That does not equate to insisting the victim bear the child of her rapist, though some, perhaps including replier "Jim", would like to argue guilt by association. If people would take their emotions and politics out of the way, they'd readily agree, it's just science. But humans have a bad habit of politicizing science, with tragic results.
DeleteI think committing justifiable homicide, abortion, in cases of rape and to avert death by childbirth of the mother is tolerable in order to respect the health of the mother. It's not an ideal choice, but there are no happy choices in these situations.
But there are happy choices pre-division. Prevention avoids all of that in the vast majority of the cases unrelated to rape or physical danger. Which is why NASA should be teaching contraception: redundancy. --A.
Shoot, I meant to add: not to defend any of the bone headed comments allegedly made by allegedly the above, but, is it really impossible that some seeking abortion on demand lie about having been raped? I can think of two infamous cases right off hand of two women who falsely claimed rape, to much publicity. Imagine how much easier it is for such a lie to be perpetrated in an abortion clinic exam room. Especially since some clinics act like a 12 year old is a "woman" and she merely had unprotected sex, rather than being an actual victim of in fact rape, but so as to not scare her away from aborting the baby, they pretend, to her, that her perpetrator isn't a criminal. And then they have to stick to that story to the rest of us. I don't know, it's so hard to tell who is truthful and who isn't in this issue. --A.
DeleteI think you're all losing sight of one inescapable fact. It's not your decision. It's between a woman (or a girl) and her doctor. While I agree completely that contraception it the better choice, no one uses it unless she plans to have intercourse. No one plans to be raped. But rape aside, it's still a decision between a woman and her doctor.
DeleteThe method of conception sure doesn't changes the definition of life, but most important, what gives the entire nation a definition of life? My personal, religious beliefs.
DeleteIf you truly believe that a post-conception ball of cells is a human, then your opposition to abortion under any circumstances is at least internally consistent and logical. A human's right to life shouldn't depend on who his father is. I'm pretty sure that is what Anam Cara is saying. Of course it is life... life is not created; it is only passed on from other living things. But is it a person?
DeleteNow again, there are many people who are opposed to abortion with the exception of rape and incest. This stance seems to be more moderate, but really has less to do with the sanctity of the fetus' right to life than with whether a pregnant woman deserves to be punished by carrying a child she does not want to carry.
As if anyone on earth is qualified to decide for everyone else.
Barbwire at 7:51pm, ok, so you like the party line. Obviously, that's not persuasive. It's fascism. You have lost sight of an inescapable fact: a zygote is not the woman's body. Having total say over your own body would, logically, entail being expert at keeping it from becoming an incubator, or becoming a sperm donor. --A.
DeleteMiss Cellania at 10:29am, re personhood: considering it's design and purpose, absent interruption, of course it is a person. A very, very young person. Can we agree that the cells divide toward a single goal, the production of a shortly separate human person? I know humans feel a special ownership of "personhood" and only those who possess such status are entitled to the civil rights we confer to ourselves. We guard it rather jealously.
DeleteA human's right to life should not depend on either genetic contributor but rather on both. Abortion on demand is precisely a political solution for girls and women yoked to an inequitable and oppressive state by men who denied them access to any say. Now the female wields all the power over the incipient person, with no consideration for the other contributor's rights. While killing our own young is not unique to our species, at least we have constructed due process in order to control the field of dispute. And there is a dispute.
As far as who is qualified to decide for anyone else whether or not they bear a child to term, or any number of other decisions of consequence, humans are not alone in setting society-wide standards that do allow for the many to make such decisions for the few. But that's not my concern. What I argue for is the consideration of and legal disposition of the rights of the other party, the father. If both parties issue a vote to kill their young, when rape/incest or imminent death by childbirth are not the case, thereby requiring a vote, then so be it. But when one party isn't even allowed to vote, now we have a perpetuation of the same injustice abortion on demand is advertised to solve for the historically oppressed. Of course, the courts currently do not believe they have jurisdiction to establish guardian ad litem for the naive third party without a tie to break.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. As you know, it's too rare on the interwebs. I enjoy your blogs, too. --A.
*Considering its design...
Delete--A.
Paulo at 5:17am,
DeleteIn single religion theocracies, to which religion you belong, then, right, you receive your moral guidance from your faith and everyone is in accord, at least publicly, concerning public policy. In other countries, not so much. In republics such as USA, the citizens have to work harder at reaching a consensus. Often failing, repeatedly. Being self-governing is not easy, not easy at all, when the citizens are so diverse in religion, language, codes of daily conduct, personal past histories from native countries when immigrant, and so on. --A.
Your post is inaccurate. Alec Baldwin's tweet read "You know your party's in trouble when you read this: A: The rape guy lost. B: Which one?"
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, he wasn't the first. Alex Carpenter (@alexcarpenter) beat him to it tweeting ""The Rape guy lost" "Which one?" Your party has serious issues if people have to ask "Which one?" #GOP #itstheTwentyFirstCentury."
I trust you for proper citations...c'mon dude.
Post citation amended. Thank you.
DeleteAnonymous at 10:42: we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with who is telling the truth if we just let women decide for themselves what they want to do with their bodies.
ReplyDeleteSee what I mean about ignoring science in favor of feelings and politics. When will I be met with thoughtful dialogue as opposed to rote recitation of party line? I'm not optimistic....
ReplyDeleteAmy at 10:03a, "[I]f we just let women decide for themselves what they want to do with their bodies." I am known as --A.
Are you sure the cells in division are (1) a part of your body as if a limb or organ, or (2) exclusively the product of your body? It's not. It is a separately forming human in a temporary location, designed to wholly separate from your body when due. Consider it a parasite in order to disentangle your emotions.
And, if only women, as in actual women of legal majority, would in fact control their bodies, when it would be the cleanest, simplest, and most incontestable, in their favor--before cell division. Before. But neither they nor the father do control their bodies beforehand. Not because they're not trainable, but because they cave to their lust--precisely as designed by god/nature. But since we think our higher functioning brain should expand our--wait for it--choices, we have invented varied, plentiful and cheap methods to circumvent the prime directive. So all we have to do is use those methods as if we really have to be good at it. Like our lives depend on being good at using them. Because they do. In fact, at least several lives depend on it in the instant: the incubator's, the sperm donor's, possibly the potential child's, the immediate families' and friends', and often the local community's public health services as well.
Every mature critical thinker reading this comment knows I'm right but because it is not politically correct, and pro-abortionists who are fanatical in their positions simply cannot bring themselves to so admit, I expect to be greeted with just more pro forma dismissal or ridicule or... silent agreement.
I tire of the fanatics on both sides who simply spout their gospel. "Women must have control over their own bodies" [please, like a boss, when it really matters for a change, guys too] is just as blindly obedient as "if the Bible says so I believe it." --A.
And even when women do control their bodies, no method is 100% reliable. Not even tubal ligation and/or vasectomy are 100% reliable. (Not even abstinence, as women who practice abstinence are sometimes raped.) Then what? When all reasonable measures are taken, when we've gotten really good at those measures, and that overwhelming biological directive takes over - then what?
DeleteIf life begins at conception, then what about copper IUDs and the morning-after pill, both of which prevent implantation? Are those considered homicide - however justifiable or unjustifiable - too? Some eggs naturally fail to implant. Some pregnancies spontaneously abort in the early stages, before a brain or a heart existed. Are those considered natural deaths, lives lost? Or just random chance of biology?
To my mind, the decision belongs to a woman and her doctor. Not to a legislature. Even in the case of late-term abortions, even if the fetus might be viable at that point (I've read cases of 26 week old preemies surviving). Why? Because I don't believe anyone should be forced to carry a child they don't want. Period.
A family friend was the late-in-life accidental baby of a very conservative couple, and was reminded throughout her childhood that she was unexpected - and indeed, unwanted. She was actually told by both parents that she should consider herself lucky to have been born to such good Christians, as anyone else would've aborted her. That attitude is terribly damaging, needless to say.
On the flip side, I myself was supposed to be a medically-necessary termination. My mother chose to keep me. She ended up requiring a complete hysterectomy within a year of my birth to control the cancer that she waited to treat so she could have me. But what is important in that scenario is that Mom had a *choice*. She could choose to abort me and possibly never have a child of her own body, or choose to risk her life to keep me. She gambled and won, and I won too. But no one forced her to make either decision. It was up to her and my father and their family doctor. As it should be.
One last example. I practice the other 100% reliable form of birth control - I'm exclusively homosexual. If I ever become pregnant it will be due to rape. In that case, I will not carry the child. If abortion were to be outlawed, I already know which brands of contraceptives can be used to induce abortion - and I'm already on them for medical (not contraceptive) reasons. In an extreme case I would seek an illegal abortion. I would NOT carry and/or raise the child of a rapist. I would not carry ANY child, as I have a particularly bad group of inherited diseases I wouldn't pass on to anyone.
There are 7 billion human beings on this planet and the number increases every day. Life is not so sacred that we have to preserve every child of rape and incest and even just accident. So I will always err on the side of choice - the mother's choice, as it's her body building that fetus. Her blood nourishing it. Her ligaments and bones being reshaped. Her health being risked even in a normal and planned pregnancy.
Anony at 1:34am,
DeleteNobody is perfect but humans are eminently trainable and can be and are experts in various fields of endeavor. What more personally consequential and important effort can there be than exerting sovereign control over themselves at all times? If there were only two candy bars to pick from, well that would be different, but humans have invented many and varied methods such that we can customize with remarkable granularity and efficacy what methods work for each individual.
Abstinence is the only 100% effective method; failing to abstain is what does not work. Of course, we are biologically engineered to be bad at abstaining. Those who fail to keep from letting a zygote get started are usually those who didn't try anything at all. We all know that, we've all been there. When more parents emphasize preventing zygote formation and all the ways to do so successfully, pick two, fewer and fewer of us will just not pick any.
When does the zygote begin, before or after attachment? What about ectopic attachment? No, it's not where, it's when. When the cell divides. Now it is one thing, and one thing only: a person in progress.
You cite in your case that the decision should have been up to your mother, and your father... as it should be. Except, currently there is no legal recognition of the father's say at this stage. While the mother bears all incubation duties, she wouldn't be so without the genetic contribution of the father. If *she* considers the risks you list--blood, bones and ligaments--*before* inviting cell division, then *she* would *choose* to make sure to prevent it. So would *he.*
I agree that not every of the 7 billion humans alive are so sacred we must save them all. Which is why we should get rid of those of us who reject our laws and boundaries, those who summarily execute others outside of due process, e.g., convicted murderers.
I don't know if you think I argue for no abortion at all, but I don't. --A.
So, it is silent agreement. OK --A.
ReplyDeletelol, the way you say that, makes me wonder if i've been drunk commenting. (especially ending on --A.). --A. er, really --A.
DeleteMaybe we should just extend personhood to ALL of life, and maybe then we will protect all lifeforms like some folks want to protect fetuses. So if a ball of cells or a fetus is a "person" why don't they have social security numbers, names, addresses (lives in uterus of XYZ woman?), etc.? Also legally, corporations are considered "persons".. personhood is getting extended to legal abstractions at this point and it's getting confusing.. And for the record I'm pro Choice.
ReplyDelete