abortion classic or dud?

I hope he gets impregnated in jail fwiw

only 37 minutes of deliberation!

so, what kind of positive changes could obama make in the next 3/7 years to the discourse regarding abortion?

Putting aborted babies in frappuccinos and giving them to the poor.

How dare you figure out my moneymaking scheme.

<IMG SRC="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg"; ALT="some text" WIDTH=32 HEIGHT=32>

h/t sweet_communist at Gawker.com

None. It was skillfully played a wedge issue by the Right to induce religious fundamentalists to vote against their economic interests.

And for the question, it really comes down to whether one believes a human soul exists (aside a thought placeholder or rhetorical gesture). As a materialist, I see suffering of the living (and of the unwanted to live) from unwanted pregnancies, but embryos with little neural development have the same moral weight as any other tissue. For dualists and other spiritualists, a soul must become conjoined with the embryo at some point. Its impossible to really speak sensibly about the matter as each position is a radical denial of the other's fundamental premises.

I think its reasonable to put the legality of earlier trimester abortions off-limits, while also allowing the religious to have a say in whether their tax dollars contribute to what they consider murder. I have the same say in voting against out war mongers that I consider murderers. So I don't have a problem with the Stupak amendment.

Planned Parenthood has some rather wealthy supporters. Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett, for example, funded two-thirds of the first year's trials of RU-486. So long as the legality of early trimester medical abortions can be safeguarded, there are ways for private concerns to subsidize the costs.

dude, I fail.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg

Thx.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100405/pollitt

katha pollitt otm

jesus i didn't know that about maternal mortality rates

It really IS a good list.

the climate with this is so insanely polarised right now though. it feels like the worst approach WRT the healthcare bill was to try to take abortion off the table and leave hyde untouched, out of play; my question above was trying to work out what kinda of confrontation and reverse psychology and general jedi mind tricks need to happen for there to be any kind of turnaround on protection of foetal rights, criminalisation of mothers & general attitudes.

great article

Posted on a Yahoo News! Article:

"Abortion is evil and it is murder and anyone that disagrees, well, I guess Ronald Reagan said it best about those that value abortions. Honestly, to me, they are no better than those that strap bombs to themselves and kill lots of people, and especially the people that kill tons of children inside of the womb and then try to act as though nothing has ever happened to them in their lives. People like that are on par, if not exceeding, the worst of the black widow/black widower killers that I have seen in my life."

note that was not me that posted that, but some other asshole

black widow killers! hahahha

http://www.big-pix.com/shop/images/posters/f-blac-w.jpg

I believe in retroactive abortion.

so, what kind of positive changes could obama make in the next 3/7 years to the discourse regarding abortion?

I think Obama & his entire party have demonstrated that their only interested in this issue is as a bargaining chip, so don't look for "positive changes" imo

Its impossible to really speak sensibly about the matter as each position is a radical denial of the other's fundamental premises.

sorta feel this is true, hence it's an intractable issue.

well, but lots of things are intractable issues - evolution vs. creationism, for example. so we set a societal baseline, and that's science over spiritual conviction. people on the "spiritual conviction" side of the q are welcome to live their lives as they see fit, but should be told, firmly and repeatedly, that they have no right whatsoever to legislate according to their beliefs.

Okay I've gotta disagree with this somewhat: "I think its reasonable to put the legality of earlier trimester abortions off-limits, while also allowing the religious to have a say in whether their tax dollars contribute to what they consider murder. I have the same say in voting against out war mongers that I consider murderers. So I don't have a problem with the Stupak amendment."

The right to bodily autonomy is a pretty basic human right. Asking to have a say in what happens with somebody else's uterus is a pretty big infringement upon that right, in addition to the fact that women have a specific constitutional right to legal abortion. In other areas of life, we don't consider it acceptable to curtail people's access to their constitutional rights just because somebody else doesn't want to pay for it. The gov't spends money (on police, security, etc.) every time some group wants to have a protest march or rally; they do that even if it's a Nazi skinhead rally or something, because citizens have freedom of speech & freedom of assembly. Do I get to decide I don't want to pay for those things, because I think the U.S. version of free speech is too lax? Hell, no! The same goes for other stuff like defending yourself in court: If we cut off gov't spending on it because some people don't like paying for criminals to have public defenders, we'd be in a fine mess.

I also think the fact that some people have "religious objections" to abortion is sort of a red herring. #1, these views don't deserve special consideration because they are religious in character. They're no more untouchable than whatever philosophical or ethical objections someone might have. And some Americans might have equally strong religious objections to birth control, prenatal care for unmarried women, viagra, keeping comatose people alive on respirators, or lots of other things. It would be absurd for insurance stop covering them for that reason. A person's medical decisions should be between them & their doctor; they're not up for a vote.

but there are ethical (if not typically explicitly or implicitly religious) underpinnings of all of our laws. and i don't think opposition to abortion is always essentially religious; often it is more broadly ethical in character. and i don't think it's as clear-cut as evolution vs. creation. there is no evidence for creation. issues with the personhood (or lack thereof) of a fetus at various stages of development are more contested and complicated.

we're gonna get into the same damn centrist vs. progressive argument we always do here but giving up that ideological ground, as john says a lot, is really dangerous and should not be on the table. really agree with gudrun brangwen's post

Gudrun is so completely OTM! On ILX it's easy to get annoyed with male posters having a huge abortion rights argument with very limited input from anyone who'd actually need one, but I care very little for anyone who trots out their ideology to attempt to deny me equal rights and I hate it even more when *women* do it.

Interesting conversation today: gay friend had to deal with some battyboy-type catcalling from black teens in his neighbourhood and challenged them with 'has being in a minority taught you NOTHING?' Pointed out to him that I could never say that to those kids if they were being rude to me, would probably have to go with 'being oppressed' instead.

My opinion on abortion is that I don't have the right to tell a woman what she does with a foetus in her own body any more than she has the right to tell me what to do with my internal organs.

the only reason this even turned into a debate is because one can't just (cleanly) self-terminate pregnancies and have to seek out a specialist. well that and xtianity but that horse has been beaten to death.

and on the third day, it rose again

i have an eerie feeling that we may be 2-3 posts away from a post involving necrophilia....

equine christ necrophilia

the album-title coil had to shelve

ahahahahahahahha

I think Obama & his entire party have demonstrated that their only interested in this issue is as a bargaining chip, so don't look for "positive changes" imo

eh maybe so, & i'm maybe putting too much faith in campaigning, senatorial obama's stated belief in repro rights, but the guy's in charge of every piecemeal bill that'll constitute a tide just like the erosive one of the bush years. the weird dynamic at the moment is that it's hard - or was hard prior to reading the pollitt article - to see any situations in which he's gonna be forced to stand up and address and defend, rather than avoid, abortion. there are tiny things like waiting until the day after the anniversary of roe to sign the (iirc) mexico city law, so as not to further inflame the opposition, that seem like attempts to manage/circumvent the ideological conflict.

sorta feel this is true, hence it's an intractable issue.

sure, but not everyone's drawn to one of the diametrically opposed positions; there's a huge middle ground which over the past however many years has drifted towards a more conservative anti choice stance - whether it's because of apathetic younger voters or different constituency makeup or whatever. i just don't think the incompatibility of the arguments have to impede on policy so much, because there are laws underneath and - like with gudrun's oppositions to whichever other policy areas - opposition can exist marginally. i'm sure there are things that can happen that liberate it from the separatist ghetto of medicine its currently seen as occupying so that it's perceived as a personal medical procedure, by most.

On ILX it's easy to get annoyed with male posters having a huge abortion rights argument with very limited input from anyone who'd actually need one, but I care very little for anyone who trots out their ideology to attempt to deny me equal rights and I hate it even more when *women* do it.

hesitate slightly to go here but i kinda disagree with this, & w/barbara kruger:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LOouiLW1P4M/SjBqudcZ1iI/AAAAAAAAA-4/z2F0x01ypDk/s400/screen-capture-18.png

obviously this is true, and an indictment of the makeup of government, etc, but in any other situation i'm pretty okay relying on basic human understanding and empathy furnishing individuals with the skills to make a decision, irrespective of gender. i also don't think it's useful to totally distance guys from having some perspective on abortion - i'm not pushing for them to be considered as some equal partner in the equation, nor being part of the choice necessarily, but it just doesn't seem positive to present this as an issue from which they are immutably separate. a lot of things, like age, dictate how views change regarding repro rights, and i have no more time for the women in uk government who oppose abortion than i do the guys in the states. this is a very in a perfect world argument and i realise that we don't have the representatives who can process and empathise with the choice at hand, but it still bugs me a little.

like:

My opinion on abortion is that I don't have the right to tell a woman what she does with a foetus in her own body any more than she has the right to tell me what to do with my internal organs.

OTM, but i don't think gender is the variable here: it's that you don't have the right to tell anyone what to do with their body. it implies that being anatomically similar would equip you with the authority to pass judgement on the myriad circumstances that lead to making a choice about abortion.

I'm on the side of Kruger and I cannot fathom what's swimming around in the brains of men who make anti-choice legislation their raison d'etre/a career thing. I think that's all the piece she made is asking us to consider here.

his ENTIRE party!?

i actually agree with schlump, i don't really use the "it's not my place to say one way or the other, i'm just a guy" argument (while it's empirically vaild) becuase it to me is a matter of medicine and public health, and as a future health care professional interested in pubilc health it's an issue i feel strongly about and want to contribute to

people on the "spiritual conviction" side of the q are welcome to live their lives as they see fit, but should be told, firmly and repeatedly, that they have no right whatsoever to legislate according to their beliefs

kinda sums up this and just about every similar issue for me, but better than i'd have put it.

So a local doctor recently decided he was going to put a note on his door telling Obama-supporters they could find another doctor. He explained (probably to cover himself legally) that he wasn't turning them away, but if they saw the note and went elsewhere, so be it. (Seems a stupid business strategy in this day and age, no?).

Someone I know posts this on facebook and I reply critically, and a female who I don't know (but was on the other dude's friends list) smugly replies "Oh, but it's ok for a doctor to perform abortion?".

Why is abortion used so often in arguments where it doesn't even apply? For all I know that doctor doesn't even perform them.

I'm also real tired of people making us Pro-Choicers out to be goat blood drinking, baby murdering masses who hold monthly televised Abortion Parties.

Report this doctor to the licensing board. It'll take you fifteen minutes to find out their number & make the call. Health care professionals have no business pulling this kinda shit imo.

Abortion is essentially a reductio-ad-Hitlerum - once the conversation is successfully moved into a highly emotional place, the burden of defending one's arguments with reason/science is lifted and you can just yell at people.

The outspoken Grayson described Cassell’s sign as "ridiculous."

"I’m disgusted," he said. "Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, ’Do no good.’ If this is the face of the right wing in America, it’s the face of cruelty. ... Why don’t they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?"

I love this blabbermouth.

I'm always surprised how much religion has a part to play in arguments about abortion - I'll be honest and say I have difficulties knowing 100% how I feel about it and religion (and politics) doesn't come into it - and I agree with the point above that 'beliefs' shouldn't be untouchable because they're religious in nature.

I would have thought the main point of disagreement boils down to whether a foetus of any size is a 'person' and hence it's wrong to kill them whether or not they're in someone else's body. Not "religiously" wrong, just wrong in the same way that killing anyone is wrong. I guess for pro-life (hate that phrase) ppl there is less harm done all round by continuing with the pregnancy than resorting to killing what they see as a person. These aren't my beliefs at all, but for a pro-lifer would abortion be any different from say, killing your conjoined twin who shared 'your' body?

I'm *really* not trying to start a clusterfuck but I can kind of see the logic *if* you are of the belief that conception immediately = person. How this squares with the right not to tell someone what to do with their body I don't know, but then if the foetus = a person they should have the same rights? Feel free to put me straight about any glaring wholes in this train of thought.....

IMO you don't have rights until you are born

yep. there's no "conception certificate"

^^^^

if you're in the ground or inside another person, you don't belong to the body politic