I wanted y’all to see what Representative Favors did yesterday, because it’s important. She stood up in front of her fellow legislators and said, “I was there when the women came in … dead on arrival or hemorrhaging.”
Rep. JoAnne Favors, D-Chattanooga and a registered nurse, passionately objected to the resolution and told committee colleagues that “it disturbs me that we spend this much energy on something we can’t prevent. If we reverse Roe v. Wade tomorrow, it will not stop abortions; if we amend our Constitution, it will not stop abortions.”
And Representative Vince Dean said, “I respect her opinion. I have my position. And my position is in line with the wishes of my constituency.”
I want you to think on that just a little, because it takes a second to get past the condescending bullshit of the first part of Dean’s comments, where he dismisses Favors’ eye-witness testimony as so much “opinion.” But just think about what this means.
Conservative legislators in this state now know (as if they didn’t before) that outlawing abortion will not end it and that it will indeed lead to the deaths of Tennessee women. They have heard it from a person who has seen the maimed and dead.
And, in the face of that, Dean says, basically, “That’s the wish of my constituency.”
According to Dean, if you have an abortion and it kills you, that’s a knowable and acceptable outcome to him and the people that vote for him.
One wonders, of course. Really? If a 15 year old girl’s step dad is raping her and she gets pregnant and self-aborts and dies, that’s okay? She basically deserved it? If a stay-at-home mom with three kids discovers she’s pregnant at the same time her husband loses his job, we’re all fine with her dying and leaving him with no job and three kids to raise on his own?
This is the pro-life position in this state? “Well, if some women have to die so that there aren’t any legal abortions happening, that’s okay”?
That’s the pro-life position? “Eh, so some women die. That’s okay with my constituents.”
Hello?! “Pro-life”=”some dead women”?!
Holy shit.
Filed under: abortion, The State of Tennessee
If a 15 year old girl’s step dad is raping her and she gets pregnant and self-aborts and dies, that’s okay? She basically deserved it?
YES. That is exactly their position, that she deserved it. Because she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place if she were a “good girl”.
You probably the piece at RH Reality Check about what’s going on in Missouri: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/04/01/missouri-legislature-coerced-pregnancy-fine-voluntary-abortion-no-way
This kind of argument is exactly what frustrates me with both sides on the abortion issue. Both sides refuse to acknowledge that the fundamental disagreement on when life begins. This disagreement shapes the rest of the conversation. The two sides aren’t playing with the same set up rules and understandings.
If you believe that life begins at delivery, I can see why you think that abortion is OK and a woman’s choice. However, if you believe that life begins at conception, I can see why you believe that killing an unborn child is no different than killing a birthed child.
Pro-choicers like yourself don’t believe that you’re supporting murder, and pro-lifers don’t believe that they’re stifling a woman’s choice. The argument hinges of when life begins.
Do you think that a woman has the right to kill her one-year-old child? Probably not. Because pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception, they don’t see a difference.
Don’t accuse pro-lifers of killing pregnant women if you don’t want them to accuse you of killing children.
I don’t care if pro-(some)lifers accuse me of killing children. They have to, because if we were to have the debate on my terms, they’d be in trouble.
I don’t care when life begins. If life begins at conception, fine. If it begins at first breath, fine. If it begins at some point in between those points, also fine.
The question for me is “Does the State have the right to require women to give birth?” and the answer to that is always going to be “no.” It’s my body and I have the right to say what happens to it. That’s what’s at the heart of freedom and liberty–to be able to say what happens to your own body.
If the state can force me to have a baby if I don’t want to, then I am not truly free. I’m not a full citizen. I don’t have the same liberty as real citizens, who are protected from the State forcing them to compromise their health or put their lives in danger, unless it’s under extraordinary circumstances–like a war (and we don’t have a draft at the moment, so it’s even different than that) or as punishment for a crime.
The fact that I’m sexually active doesn’t give the State the right to force me to give birth, no matter how loudly the pro-(some)lifers complain about baby killing. My brother might someday need my kidney. The state can’t compel me to give it to him. I would gladly give it, but I can’t be compelled, even if he would die without it.
The same should go for any other organ in my body. Someday my son might need my uterus. I would gladly lend it to him, but the state cannot compel me to lend it without violating my liberty.
Pro-(some)lifers are well aware that they’re attempting to violate my basic constitutional rights; that’s why they have to cry “murder” “murder” in order to distract from the rights’ grab.
Sorry, Tyler, is there any disagreement about whether a woman is alive, or a human being? I must have missed that. These policies do and will kill women. No one questions that; no one disagrees about it. It is, in my understanding, not controversial. And yet the self-styled pro-life crowd is willing to accept the death of an actual, unquestioned human being but not of an only-possibly-or-potentially-human entity about whose humanity we can’t even all agree. So, no, there is no equivalence between the accusations of baby-killing and woman-killing. The latter is a fact no matter which side of this question one falls on; the former is only an assertion.
“Pro-(some)lifers are well aware that they’re attempting to violate my basic constitutional rights; that’s why they have to cry “murder” “murder” in order to distract from the rights’ grab.”
Well said Aunt B, well said!
What sickens me more than their condescension is that there are legislators who have campaigned as “pro-life” and are voting / will vote “pro-life” on these measures, but they’re really pro-choice. They just do it in the name of “their constituency” so they can keep their jobs. It’s despicable.
Don’t get me started on the facts that if the state put as much effort into sex education and pregnancy prevention and access to this information for men and women, it just might make those abortion numbers go down on their own anyways.
It’s much easier to pontificate on what your consitutents want instead of what many of them need. Access to birth control and education on how to use it.
if the state put as much effort into sex education and pregnancy prevention and access to this information for men and women, it just might make those abortion numbers go down on their own anyways.
Word.
Not to get into a tortured legal argument here, but it appears that the Constitution itself considers birth to be a prerequisite condition to due process.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
That’s one for the “strict Constitutionalists” out there, including the so-called libertarian Ron Paul, who is all about individual choice until it comes to a woman’s right to choose.
But hey, let’s at least be consistent. Maybe pregnant women in prison should file writs of habeas corpus, as their fetuses have been subject to unlawful imprisonment, and without due process of law. Free the zygotes!
So the arguement is that making something illegal will not prevent it from happening so why make it illegal? Should we legalize theft, rape, murder, etc. because even though these actions are illegal, they are still happening in our society.
As to the “my body my choice” arguement, I would say you are free to do what you want with your body. Just don’t harm the child’s body while you are doing it. Doesn’t she have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness too?
So, you’re saying that, as long as I’m pregnant, I have fewer rights than the fetus I’m carrying?
Well, see, there’s some disagreement about when a child enters the picture, isn’t there? Whereas there’s no such disagreement about when a woman is involved. And different religions, philosophies, and moral systems weight the claims of women and (potential) child differently, so maybe the state ought to stay out of the business of deciding among them.
I am curious, though, about those who say that the rights of a (potential) child absolutely trump those of a woman in all circumstances: why won’t they own that that’s what they’re saying?
I think because they know it means that sometimes women who do not die now will, in the exact same circumstances, die if they have their way and not everyone who’s anti-abortion hates women so much that they’re willing to accept that women will have to die to serve the pro-(some) life agenda, when there is medical technology around that would allow them to live.
I am saying you have equal rights. If the baby is threatening the mother’s life, i.e. complications in the pregnancy, then the mother has the right to defend her life. Let me ask – do we prosecute women who neglect their children? Isn’t she just choosing what to do with her body and feeding the kids or taking care of the kids is not something she chooses to do with her body? It’s all her choice right?
Jim, don’t be disingenuous. We can have a conversation in which we disagree, but we cannot have a conversation in which we disagree when you’re just being an asshole to be an asshole.
First, under the legislation that the state just passed, your first assertion is blatantly and provably untrue. Legislators begged and worked to get a life of the mother exception written into the amendment and you can look for yourself. They failed. It’s not there. So, what’s your point? Oops, they forgot? No, they know women will die and that is acceptable to them. If you find that gross, you’re on the wrong side of your own argument.
Second…
Fuck it. You know, fuck it. If you can’t even be honest about what’s going on in the first place I’m not going to sit here and treat the rest of your comment like it deserves my time.
I was not aware that there is no clause to protect the life of the mother in the legislation. I always support protecting the life of the mother in cases where their are pregnancy complications. I thought this legislation simply states that nothing in the State Constitution says that their is a right to abortion. It does not outlaw abortion, that would be a separate bill provided Roe v Wade would ever be overturned. I could be comepletely wrong on the particular legislation. If so, then I am sorry. My comments were meant to deal with the subject of abortion in general and not with respect to any particular law proposed.
If we’re going to have people without wombs raising specious sanctity-of-life arguments that hinge on when a collection of cells becomes a legal person (and, therefore, entitled to full legal protection), I may as well chime in.
If you are indeed pro-life, then you should be stridently anti-war, because every war, including the kind the U.S. likes to wage, kills babies. You should support some form of universal health care plan, because lack of health care kills babies. If you believe that full legal personhood begins at conception, then you should oppose any kind of fertility treatments that may result in the disposal of blastocysts, no matter how many other blastocysts are eventually allowed to develop into legal persons. You should support comprehensive sex education that includes instruction and provision of appropriate contraceptive devices, because that will prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
You should do all of the above, because it isn’t like you are just a fucking hypocrite who wants to control women through their sexuality.
I am anti war in that wars should be fought only to defend life at not as the agressor. I support health care for all, but do not agree that the government is the best way to supply that healthcare. I believe that fertility treatments that create extra embryos that are discarded are wrong and that disposing of those embryos is indeed killing a live human. I oppose using embryos for research as well. I support sex education and believe that all should understand the risks involved even with the use of birth control contraceptives. But I do not feel it is the government’s job or responsibility to provide free contraception products just so people can have a good time with less worry. I believe people should be personally responsible for their actions.
I see Sam’s point, but let’s stop making it about Jim. This isn’t about Jim, at all. Jim is not and never will be in the position where he may be forced against his will to carry a pregnancy to term. Jim’s personal hypocrisies are annoying but not at issue here.
Back to the “constituency” not caring that some living, breathing, fully sentient human beings, with existing connections to other human beings, may die as a result of current attitudes toward women’s health and sexuality. I have not yet heard a convincing argument that it is in any way in the interest of the constituents – born or not yet born – to force women to undergo either one potentially fatal procedure (pregnancy brought to term) or another (home or back alley abortion). There are a great many other options that could potentially save lives of both the fully sentient human beings and the not-yet-born ones, so it remains completely unclear to me how any informed and logical human being (and I prefer my politicians to be informed and logical, and to encourage their constituents to be the same) would prefer laws that threaten health over laws that encourage health.
THAT is the clarification of the pro-life position that needs to happen here, Jim and whoever else is listening.
Tanglethis – how is allowing a 100% fatal procedure (abortion) in the interest of the not yet born? I would say stopping abortion would be very encouraging to the health of those babies.
What none of my pro-life brethren seem to understand is that the number of abortions are steadily declining in this country. The legality of abortion is making it a topic that can be talked about and educated about. It makes it easier for us to talk about sex education and it frees the tongues of a lot of folks who would otherwise rather we not offer any type of contraceptive education to our young people.
I’ve seen a lot of good come from having abortions be legal.
I’m sorry: that should have read “the number of abortions IS steadily declining.”
Jim, you’re ignoring both my questions and the premise of this post. Read the lead quote again – abortions are a given while there is a continuance of a certain set of circumstances that may lead women to terminate pregnancy. Whether abortions are legal are not, there will still be abortions in this set of circumstances; the only difference that illegalizing abortion makes is that women are duly “punished” for their “crime,” sometimes fatally.
With that given – that making abortion illegal does not reduce abortion and does hurt women – the question becomes, what is the proposed goal of making abortions illegal or less accessible? Why not make it easier for women (and men!) to prevent pregnancy in the first place, or to have better means of taking care of children once they are born?
I’ll grant that making contraception more attainable and abortion less attainable are not mutually exclusive goals (although I don’t ever want to see the latter occur). But Rep. Favors’ point in that quote is that if you want to start requiring all pregnancies to come to term while you don’t have adequate reproductive health care (and we don’t, despite progress, it’s nowhere near enough for many women) then you can expect the horrific scenes she describes. And the problem is that pro-life politicians are okay with that.
And now I’ve just summarized B’s whole post again… jeez, sorry B.
I think most of the time there’s a huge disconnect between the different sides of the abortion issue.
‘Pro-life’ folks think that abortion is being used as birth control. “Oops, condom broke I’m gonna need an abortion.” Or maybe “No condom? That’s okay, I can always get an abortion.”
I think very few of the really rabid anti-abortion people really consider the nuances of the situations that can cause a woman to consider abortion. That can be a little hard to believe of people who comment here, or of Rep Dean after hearing the story by Rep Favors, but people have a huge capacity to insulate themselves from the really tragic things they hear from others or on the news. And once you get the simplistic view firmly in your head it takes a lot to knock it out.
Throw in an increasingly libertarian slant as I get older and that’s pretty much the story of my opinions on abortion. It took a long time for me to really get past the abortion as birth control viewpoint.
what if i’m fairly sure that life began some three-plus billion years ago, and has been replicating itself ever since?
i think i finally figured out why that silly phrasing ticks me off so much. it’s because it devalues a potentially good anti-choice argument by smearing it with the brush of intellectual laziness, if not willful ignorance.
see, we can have a genuinely decent argument about when personhood begins and what manner of organism should have what set of rights — about at what point in gestation a fetus should acquire the right to live, and (presumably, later on) the right to be kept alive at other people’s expense. what with gestation not having any bright black-and-white lines in it, since it’s all a continuous grayscale of seamless development, that sort of debate could actually get interesting and worthwhile.
but that is nothing at all about life. no fetus gets any such rights simply because it is alive. they don’t even get such rights because they are human, because there are living things of human extraction which we still don’t give a shit about keeping alive, nor care if we kill. heck, individual gametes are all of them alive, so how could any “life” begin at conception?
and if somebody claims that conception is so important to them as to make the conceptus inviolable by law, you’d think they would have studied it enough not to say patently wrong things about it in their political sound bites. claiming that “life begins at [pick-a-point]” is patently wrong, twice over; firstly because life doesn’t begin any longer, it’s been running for a very long time already, and secondly because that’s not what the debate is about. we’re debating the concept of rights, not “life”.
so, folks who carelessly use that particular sound bite are effectively telling me something important about themselves. namely, that they might be quite ignorant about what they’re speaking of; or they might simply be remarkably stupid; or that they care more about imposing their policy than about being in the right; or any combination of the three. and i can’t stand people who match any of those descriptions, so the sound bite is an instant warning label to me that there goes somebody not worth feeding if we were all starving to death.
Tanglethis – How is an assumption that certain behavior will continue if it is outlawed a reason to not outlaw it? As I pointed out above,how does this arguement proceed on crimes like rape, murder, and theft? Those are all illegal, yet still occur. Should we legalize those actions since it looks like our laws are not preventing the crimes?
We currently offer several government and private charity programs to help poor people, disabled people, those out of work, etc. yet we still have people in these conditions. Should we cancel the programs since they have not solved the problems?
I don’t follow your arguement that some women will still have abortions but will end up injuring themselves as well, so lets keep abortion safe and easy to attain – then only one life is lost for every abortion? Why not remove the police force from the streets so that criminals would not accidently be injured while commiting a crime. Then only the victim is hurt and the criminal will be safer.
Nomen – you are technically correct. The phrase should be that a new individual life distinct from the mother and the father is created at the moment of conception. That individual should be protected by the same laws we use to protect all of our other citizens which includes a right to life.
So to summarize. Yes, the citizens of America and the world in general should do more to help those in need including providing for their basic health, food, and shelter if they are not capable of providing for themselves. Yes, currently these systems do not provide for everybody in need. No, the government is not the best or most practical way to supply these services in my opinion. And no, we should not allow for the killing of unborn children just because they may be born into hardship or cause a hardship on the parents. We do not allow parents to kill children if they come upon a financial or other hardship, why let them kill their unborn children for these reasons? All people deserve a right to life and should be given every opportunity to live it.
As to the “my body my choice” arguement, I would say you are free to do what you want with your body. Just don’t harm the child’s body while you are doing it. Doesn’t she have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness too?
So what you’re saying is that if the woman doesn’t want to carry the fetus she should be free to have it removed and it can go on it’s merry way and she on hers?
ah, now we’re starting to actually talk.
the next question will have to be “what makes it distinct from its parents”, because that’ll be fundamental in explaining why the distinction matters. lots of things are distinct from my parents; most of those things i don’t care a whit about.
different set of genes? yes, true, but so have cancer cells got. so do random mutations. moreover, different genetics cannot be the only thing that matters, or you’ll have trouble with identical twins, not to even mention chimeras. so we’ll eventually end up discussing how much a distinct set of genes matter, as compared to the other things you’ll have to concede matter also.
(given that most of us never get our genes sequenced, and hence don’t actually know they’re distinct from any random other person’s, i’d humbly suggest you not make those genes out to be too very important. basing life ethics on things that were practically unknowable for most of human history would seem… odd. i would think there must be better foundations for ethics.)
such a comparison may eventually be a good warm-up for the balancing acts we’ll end up doing when we get around to talking about conflicting rights. but that’s for later.
[...] Aunt B of Tiny Cat Pants on SJR127 issues, which would amend our state Constitution to say that nothing in it protects or secures the right to an abortion, “including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.” Read that again. It specifies that there is no right to an abortion, even when necessary to save a woman’s life. B notes that a Rep who is an RN talked about her experiences when abortion was illegal, and how such legislation will never actually stop the procedure, and that Rep. Vince Dean essentially responded thusly: “According to Dean, if you have an abortion and it kills you, that’s a knowable and acceptable outcome to him and the people that vote for him.” [...]
The corollary of this belief is that if a woman dies refusing to have an abortion — i.e. she has health/medical problems for which she SHOULD have an abortion — then she is doing the right thing by choosing to die herself rather than “kill her unborn child.”
I was told that when I converted to the same ultra orthodox catholicism (think Bobby “volcano” Jindal, and yes they performed exorcisms). (I’m no longer christian, btw, and look forward to my place in hell).
That’s what’s at the heart of freedom and liberty–to be able to say what happens to your own body.
Do you think people should be allowed to sell their organs?
Yeah, I kind of do. I haven’t thought it through, but off the cuff, yeah, I do think so.
Then you’re consistent, and I can’t argue with you :)
In which case, it has no right for a woman to be forced to continue a pregnancy on its behalf.
Consider: You or I have a right to live. If we are injured, we have a right to survive that injury. If we require a blood transfusion to do so, we have a right to that. But if there’s no blood available, do we have the right to demand that doctors track someone down who’s not offering their blood and take it from them? No. And if that means we die, then we still don’t have that right.
But that’s the right you’re advocating for foetuses. They survive by parasitising their mothers’ bodies. Even if a foetus has a right to survive, that doesn’t extend into a right to take from a woman’s body what she doesn’t want it taken from it. THAT is giving it equal rights.
Not to mention that a foetus’s life is *not* distinct from that of the woman carrying it. As long as it’s living within a woman’s body, attached to her placenta, and borrowing her nutrient supply, it is neither separate nor distinct.
Jim, do you know what happens when abortion is illegal? Women die. Lots of women. Actually, about 70 000 women throughout the world die each year from unsafe abortion. Those are deaths that could very easily be prevented with laws that allow women not to have to put themselves through that.
And as for governments not being the best entity to provide healthcare – oh, come off. You’re showing yourself to be an ideologue. Maternal mortality and child mortality rates have been rising like crazy in the US compared to western democracies *with* universal healthcare.
My favourite thing is when ‘pro-lifers’ whimper about ‘big government’ where providing social services is concerned, but are perfectly happy with government interfering with what’s going on with women’s uteri.
The hypocrisy, it burns.
That should have been ‘come off it’ in para 4.
Emma,
it is neither separate nor distinct.
Maybe you’re not understanding what Jim means when he says the unborn are distinct from their mother. He doesn’t mean they aren’t in their mothers or attached to them or relying on them for survival. He’s merely pointing out they are a different aka distinct organisms from their mothers and not part of her even though they are presently located inside her body.
Those are deaths that could very easily be prevented with laws that allow women not to have to put themselves through that.
Ummm….. not really. The vast majority of those estimated deaths were women in developing countries. Making abortion legal in those countries isn’t magically going to make it safe.
For a better example, you should compare the U.S. to developed countries where abortion is banned such as Malta, Poland and Ireland.
“Maybe you’re not understanding what Jim means when he says the unborn are distinct from their mother. He doesn’t mean they aren’t in their mothers or attached to them or relying on them for survival.”
A non-viable fetus is not and cannot be distinct. It is conjoined and dependent.
Maybe Malta, though I don’t know much about it. But Poland and Ireland are a cheap, short ferry or train ride away from a safe, legal abortion in hygeinic surroundings, though, and Polish or Irish women who want them routinely get them in neighboring countries. The situation in those countries isn’t comparable to the situation the US would be in if abortion were outlawed here.
Bridgett,
Are you trying to argue that any organism which is attached to another organism and dependent on the other organism isn’t really a different organism?
Just because an organism is dependent and/or attached to another organism doesn’t mean that it isn’t really a different (aka distinct) organism. You seem to be using a different definition of “distinct” than Jim.
NM,
If abortion were outlawed in Tennessee, couldn’t women get a cheap bus ticket to another state where abortion would be legal? Regardless, they’re still much better comparisons than some developing country, no?
Jivin J, not if those states also have restrictions whose purpose is to delay, hinder, and deny abortions. As the states neighboring TN do.
NM,
That’s an interesting assertion considering most of Poland’s neighbors have more restrictions on abortions than most states in the U.S.
I’m not arguing. I’m stating. A non-viable fetus is not a distinct organism. If it could maintain a distinct existence, it would be viable. In fact, that’s the customary working definition of viability among neo-natal practitioners.
He doesn’t mean they aren’t in their mothers or attached to them or relying on them for survival. He’s merely pointing out they are a different aka distinct organisms from their mothers and not part of her even though they are presently located inside her body.
we could grant this arguendo, and immediately ask why it should matter to the topic. why should any such distinction grant the fetus any rights whatsoever, much less the right to impose on its mother’s body, health, and life for months on end?
in fact, isn’t that what Judith Thomson’s “famous violinist” hypothetical was partly about pointing out? it’ll need addressing at this point.
Jivin J, it’s an accurate assertion.
Nomen – so do parents or guardians of children have a moral obligation to care for their children? Are they free to withold sustenance from children that are unable to obtain it for themselves? Are these children not imposing on the adult’s body, health, and life even if it is just the act of finding another potential care giver? Why is there an outrage when children are neglected? Isn’t this just the adult deciding what to do with their body?
As to the Thomson hypothetical – Would a person on a remote island with no other adults that comes upon a healthy infant be morally responsible to care for the child provided they have everything they need to provide such care?
And nomen, weigh in on how many angels dance on the head of a pin while you’re at it. And whether God sees the fall of every sparrow. And whether we have a social, if not a moral, obligation to ridicule the self-important amateur ethicist who wants to help the unenlightened improve their moral acuity.
bridgett – all organisms maintain their viability by absorbing nutrients from other organisms. It is the cycle of life. Humans cannot live for long without consuming food in the form of other organisms. So are you saying that because the fetus is dependant on a single person he or she is no longer a distinct and separate organism? Again, a newborn child is dependent on another person for their viability. Does that mean the newborn has no right to life and could be killed for the convenience of whoever is caring for him or her?
But not all organisms need to live inside the host exclusively. Parasites and viruses, to take the obvious examples, can live independent of host bodies for a period of time. A non-viable fetus cannot.
bridgett, what exactly do you mean ‘non-viable fetus’. I’m starting to get the impression you mean something different from what I was thinking.
Jim, seriously, the poor analogies are annoying. I’ve yet to see you make an analogy that wasn’t trying to compare apples to oranges. And comparing apples to oranges is useless since they are nothing alike other than being generally globular shaped fruit.
How is the care of children compared to the care of the unborn a bad analogy? These are both human beings we are talking about. In the case of the unborn, only the mother can care for the child. Therefore, my question is if only one adult is around, are they morally obligated to care for an infant that cannot care for themselves? How is that apples and oranges? Have you read the analogy presented by Thomson on the violin player? Is that an acceptable analogy to pregnancy?
I mean a stage of fetal development when the fetus is insufficiently developed and cannot survive outside of the host body. That’s why it’s non-viable — it’s incapable of a distinct existence (what ordinary folks refer to as “living”) even with heroic neonatal intervention.
Because fetuses are not newborns. QED.
No, there are not human beings in both cases. That is part (though not all) of what we’re arguing about.
Therefore, my question is if only one adult is around, are they morally obligated to care for an infant that cannot care for themselves? (my emphasis)
I’m enjoying reading the conversation but can I interject something here? Who cares if they are or are not morally obligated to do anything (that’s going to differ based on who you ask)? The question is are they legally obligated and why or why not. It’s a distinction that CANNOT be anymore important.
On re-reading my comment I want to note that I’m not suggesting that Jim’s comparison of an infant and a fetus is valid. I meant only to point out that the discussion is about legality not morality.
if they do, then it’s one they can choose to deliberately surrender, or even have taken from them regardless of their own wishes. it’s certainly not an obligation they can be forced by law to fulfill. we have an entire foster care system to cover parents’ failures to fill this obligation, along with a complex and ever-strained adoption system.
if you’d like to adopt a week-old fetus to keep it from dying after being aborted, well, perhaps some day that will be medically possible. come that day, more power to you. however, i would still argue that even then, you should not — noone should — be legally obligated to adopt any fetus or provide it any care. it would be ethically laudable of you to do so, but by no means should it be illegal for you to refuse to do it, now or then or ever. (which was another point Thomson briefly touched on in her hypothetical, IIRC.)
however, your “healthy infant on an island” quip has nothing whatsoever to do with the “famous violinist” hypothetical. being physically attached to someone else’s body and unviable to survive otherwise does in fact make a difference, whether you like it or not. this foundling healthy infant makes an interesting hypothetical in its own right, and could be a fascinating subject for ethical discussion on its own, but as a response to Thomson it is a complete red herring.
in other words, you’re trying to dodge the point. quit that!
i made you a posting, but wordpress ated it.
Oh, god, I’m sorry. I should be paying closer attention to this argument, but it seems to have reduced down to “But if we can prove that a fetus really is a separate being from its mother, doesn’t that give us a right to force the woman to give birth?”
No, no it doesn’t. There is never any circumstance in which you’re going to get me to say “Oh, well, yes, under that circumstance, you should be able to force a woman to go through a painful and life-risking event, just because you have religious beliefs that demand it.”
Don’t worry, B. Jim wasn’t having any luck even on his own chosen philosophical terrain.
Yes I have had no luck convincing you that murdering a child is wrong. Sorry to hear that.
Were you talking about children? I thought you were talking about fetuses and confusing them with newborn castaway violinists. You can see where a person might be confused.
Time to shake the dust off your sandals, friend.
Coming in late, as usual, but I wanted to clarify my stance, and what I see as the stance of most us pro-women/pro-choice folks (if I am NOT speaking for any of you hypothetical “yous,” feel free to ignore me).
Unless and until birth control is 100% effective, unless and until carrying a child to term and bringing forth that child has no negative physical or emotional consequences for women, unless and until having a child has no negative economic impact on women (and previous children, by extension), and unless and until there is proper emotional, physical, medical and financial support for the birth of every child, no matter what, until no little girls become pregnant through abuse, coercion, or the stupidity that is the basic component of youth, until all women are safe from all forms of violence, neglect and poverty and from being second-class citizens under the law in all ways and all places, I support every woman’s right to choose. But all of these circumstances will never happen. So I will never, ever waver from my pro-choice stance.
How is that apples and oranges?
Born = apples. Unborn = oranges. For a variety of reasons that aren’t just limited to biological. I’m not going to try and discuss them because that ground has already been well covered.
While moral obligations and legal obligations seem to be lumped together a lot by our legal system, their are plenty of times when they should be apples and oranges as well. This being one of them.
“Yes I have had no luck convincing you that murdering a child is wrong. Sorry to hear that.”
Don’t lose any sleep over it, Jim; after all, no one can convince YOU that murdering women is wrong. It all comes out in wash, right?
No, no it doesn’t. There is never any circumstance in which you’re going to get me to say “Oh, well, yes, under that circumstance, you should be able to force a woman to go through a painful and life-risking event, just because you have religious beliefs that demand it.”
Religious beliefs that demand it?
Did I miss someone quoting scripture or is Aunt B. creating a rather obvious strawman?
If the unborn are living human beings (though Aunt B. doesn’t seem care either way), it seems rather lazy to defend their killings by acting like the only arguments to protect their lives are religious arguments.
Nomen,
however, your “healthy infant on an island” quip has nothing whatsoever to do with the “famous violinist” hypothetical. being physically attached to someone else’s body and unviable to survive otherwise does in fact make a difference
Why does location make that much of a difference? This an assertion lacking an argument to back it up. The only difference between them is location and you’ve provided no argument as to why an unborn child being in someone’s body allows them to kill the child while it’s not okay to kill the helpless child on the island.
I don’t see how moral responsibilities towards other human beings change simply because their location changes.
One of the main problems (there are many) with the violinist argument is that (as Jim’s abandoned infant scenario points out) it proves too much. If human beings have no moral responsibilities to use their bodies to protect their own children then I don’t see how people who abandon their newborns are doing anything wrong.
I don’t see why we can’t all get big bowls of chocolate ice cream after dinner every night. The inability to see something is a personal predisposition but doesn’t carry weight in rational argument. You are unable to see, for example, that the whole equation between newborn/fetus is at best debatable and at worst specious. Repetitious assertion doesn’t make it true. If that’s your first principle, then you need to demonstrate that it is so. So far, you haven’t.
Bridgett,
Jim made the argument comparison. Nomen said it wasn’t comparable without providing any argument for why it wasn’t comparable. I pointed out Nomen failed to make an argument. Now you seem to be opposed to me pointing out that others are asserting things as if they were arguments. It’s not my fault Nomen didn’t make (which is why I can’t see it) an argument for why Jim’s analogy wasn’t valid.
You also don’t seem to understand why Jim brought up the equation between newborn/fetus – it’s because pro-choicers like Aunt B. argued that it didn’t matter if the unborn are human beings. They’ve argued for legal abortion using the bodily autonomy argument instead of the “unborn aren’t human” arguments (which you seem use). When someone like Aunt B. or Nomen uses an argument like the Violinist which grants that the unborn have as much worth as a born human being (or abortion should be legal regardless), it seems rather silly to act like someone opposed to killing the unborn is arguing in poor taste when they argue with the same presuppositions.
If repetitious assertion doesn’t make something true then why have you continued to assert (without evidence) the unborn aren’t distinct (aka different) human beings than their mothers? Continuing to act like viable = distinct doesn’t make it so.
Something cannot have a distinct identity until it can have distinct existence. Not so hard a premise to grasp, really.
Really? Another single sentence assertion without an argument or evidence?
Just because an organism currently relies another organism for survival doesn’t in any way prove the reliant organism isn’t a different organism than the one she relies on.
Would you say that conjoined twins can’t have distinct identities?
Conjoined twins aren’t fetuses.
Bridgett,
Your assertion was that “Something cannot have a distinct identity until it can have distinct existence.”
Conjoined twins don’t have a distinct existence in the way that you’re using the term distinct since they are conjoined and often aren’t viable if separated. So by your argument they wouldn’t have “distinct identities.”
So either your assertion that “something cannot have a distinct identity until it can have a distinct existence” is false or you believe conjoined twins don’t have distinct identities.
Yep. If children were fetuses, you’d really have a point. But they aren’t.
Did you seriously say that Aunt B was using religion as a strawman in an argument about abortion? Good grief you’ve got some giant balls.
B, does that count as Fowlering?
ok, i’ve had three follow-up comments on this thread eaten by wordpress since my last one of record. i officially give up.
W.,
I said Aunt B. was attacking a strawman of religion. No one here (at least as far as I’ve seen) is citing scripture as a reason for their opposition to abortion and yet Aunt B’s comment acted like they were.
Bridgett,
I have no clue what your last comment is trying to argue. You made an assertion – “something cannot have a distinct identity until it can have a distinct existence” to argue that the unborn aren’t different human beings than their mothers. Now you appear to not believe this original assertion since you don’t appear to believe that conjoined twins (whether children or adults) have only a unitary (as opposed to distinct) existence.
Jivin J, come on. Lord knows I love me some sanctimonious, disingenuous asshats, but you’re not even trying. What do you think the claim “life begins at conception” is, if not a religious claim?
See, here’s what I find annoying. I looked around your blog. You’re clearly a bright guy. You’ve read at least this post of mine, so you know I’m a bright girl. You’ve been around the block a few times; I’ve been around the block a few times.
So you know as well as I do that almost every abortion “discussion” goes “OMG! They’re killing baybeez!” “My body; my choice!” “But it’s a baby. How can we let women kill baybeez?!” “It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus.” “Save the baybeez!” “Don’t worry, ladies! I have a penis and I am here to sort things out. Listen while I opine on something that I can never have as big a stake in as you do and I will wait for you to bow down to my brilliance!” “Um…” “Um…”
And even when I attempt to have a discussion that moves beyond “Oh no! Think of the baybeez!” you jackasses still want to stroll in and act all “Don’t worry, ladies! I have a penis and I’m here to make you see the error of your ways!”
Okay, fine, I give up! You do indeed have a penis and we all acknowledge that you’re here to show us the error of our ways. Can we just skip on to the meat of the conversation now?
If I woke up and found that you had attached yourself to me, I would have the right to cut you off me, even if it meant that you would die, because your right to life does not trump my right to have control over my body.
So, arguing that human life begins at conception and that something with 4 cells is just as much a person as I am doesn’t change my position. So what if a fetus is a person? It still doesn’t have a right to my body if I don’t want to give my body over to it. And the state still shouldn’t have the right to force me to give birth against my will.
Address that, Jivin J. What is your counter-argument? Are we going to have three classes of citizen in this country? Men, who have bodily autonomy, but whose rights end when they infringe on the rights of another? Unborn people, who don’t quite have bodily autonomy but have the right to infringe on the rights of another? And women, who have limited bodily autonomy, except while they are pregnant, at which point, the state has control of our bodies?
How does that square with what it means to be an American?
AuntB – here is the difference. When people engage in sexual activity (outside of rape) there is an implied consent that it may lead to pregnancy on the part of the mother. Even if the intention is not there. Therefore, the baby is not forcing you to care for them, you have implied that you are willing to care for them by you actions. So if you were forced against your will to be hooked up to Jivin, I can see how you should have the right to be removed. However, if beforehand you had agreed to be connected to Jivin, should you then be free to remove yourself from him without his consent?
Now you may say that most people do not engage in recreational sex with the desire to become pregnant, but everyone has to realize that their actions have consequences. Just because you do not intend for you actions to lead to an undesired result does not remove the obligation your actions have created. So yes, women and men have the right to choose. Their choice is whether or not to engage in sexual activity that could lead to the creation of a new life that is dependant on them to raise and care for. Choosing after the fact to not want a baby is too late. The baby is there and deserves to be cared for and given a chance to live.
Jim (and JJ) — nope, not buying it. I, personally, think your contention that a fetus is somehow equivalent to a baby comes from your religious belief system — one that I don’t share and that you have no civil right to impose upon me (though you’d sure as hell like to). All your wah-wah amounts to “but you’re so wrooooong” and trying to police people’s sexuality. Keep your nose in your own business and your pecker in your own pants. That begins and ends your compelling interest in my reproductive life. My sins, if sins they be, are between me and my god and you can butt out of that while you’re at it.
However, I don’t think you have an answer for B’s “so the fuck what?” In essence, she’s saying “big deal.” And I’d join her in that. It really doesn’t matter, for my purposes, whether you characterize fetal tissue as teh baybeez or whatall. I have the same civil right to bodily autonomy as you do. Period. It’s not about teh baybeez, it’s about teh citizenship. Are you really going to argue that you hate individual liberty and welcome the intrusion of the state into intimate domestic life? Really? Can’t tell the progressives from the conservatives around here without a scorecard.
And that right there is why, when I’m feeling fertile, I fuck women. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Jesus Christ, Jim. I read your comment and I see that you barely believe your own bullshit and you expect me to? Ha ha ha ha ha.
If I have sex I’m implicitly consenting to have a baby?! Really? This is what you anti-abortionists have settled on as a winning argument? “If you don’t want to have a baby, you shouldn’t have sex.”
Whew, you think abstinence-only is a hard sell to teen-agers! I can’t wait to see y’all try to sell this shit to married folks. “Well, Joe, I hear that you and Mary only want the two kids you have. You’re 30 and Mary’s 28. Her mother didn’t hit menopause until she was in her 50s. But what’s 25 years of sleeping next to your wife without ever fucking her? Surely, it’s not too much to ask.”
But it’s not just that. Your comment doesn’t make any sense just at face value. How can I both implicitly consent to having a baby just because I have sex and not intend for my actions to lead to a baby? Either I’m consenting or I’m not.
Second, you’re ignoring an important part of the problem. A baby is never just “there.” It’s got to get out into the world somehow and there is not any way for that to happen that doesn’t involve some risk, often significant risk for the woman.
Third, all you’re making here are moral arguments. Okay, it’s clear. You believe that people who have sex and don’t have babies are somehow “cheating,” getting out of the proper consequences for sex. In other words, you believe that, if a woman is going to be sexually active, her punishment is pregnancy.
And you’re welcome to try all dang day to convince me that abortion is wrong.
But you have not yet even begun to establish how in the hell this is a legal matter. Does the State have the right to force women to give birth? Yes or no.
If so, then how can you say to me that I am legally equal to you, since the State never requires you to endure pain and risk harm or death unless you have beentried in a court of law or enlisted in the Armed Forces?
You don’t see it, because you’re so hung up on your fear that somewhere there are slutty girls enjoying sex without consequences, but what you’re arguing for is for me to be a 2nd class citizen.
Fuck that shit.
“How can I both implicitly consent to having a baby just because I have sex and not intend for my actions to lead to a baby? Either I’m consenting or I’m not.”
What you intend to happen is not always the result of your actions is it? And yet you must be responsible for the actual results of your actions regardless of what your intentions were. I.e. you did not intend to crash into that person’s car, yet you are responsible for fixing it if you do.
Now as to abstinence forever, I never said that. My wife and I have three kids and feel that is enough. We take measures to prevent conceiving another child and enjoy a healthy sex life. However, we understand that should something happen, we are not going to just kill the innocent child that results. We will care for him or her just as we do our other children. It is the adult, responsible thing to do. Murder is not right. I am sorry that I cannot convince you otherwise, so I will just stop now.
In other words, chickenshit. You can’t have the conversation about citizenship because you can’t make yourself go there; to think that thought is to make you feel badly about yourself and to recognize that your defense of theoretical babies proposes to do real civic harm to real women, like the one who raises your kids and cooks your breakfast. Or you can go there and you know it’s indefensible and so what and you don’t really mind, but you can’t say it out loud because you don’t want the heat of revealing the big ugly underneath all this lovely high-minded stuff about protection of the weak and personal responsibility. No, it has to be all about the imaginary sluts instead of real citizenship rights.
You are right to stop. You do not have the courage of your convictions.
Murder is not right. I am sorry that I cannot convince you otherwise
C’mon Jim, even you have to admit that this is some pretty extreme passive-aggressive, strawman bullshit.
There are 82 comments here and not even ONE has argued that “murder” was right.