Ban on Most Abortions Advances in South Dakota

[firsty]

edog, any lapses in my logic should definitely be pointed out.

re feminism vs feminist politics. if you're not sure what i mean, please ask. feminist politics result in laws, or an approach to legislation, built around the feminist voting base. just like we can disagree about libertarian or conservative economics as a political interest, we can disagree about some of the issues that feminist political groups, such as NOW, might encourage, correct? the feminism as a social movement that i refer to is the desire for gender equality, and most sensible people would agree with that notion. i do as well. what i dont agree with, in some cases, are situations where legislation seeks to redress an inequality by sanctioning another inequality.

regarding "underestimating the burdens imposed on the woman and the outrageous amount of state power that exists when the state is granted the authority to ban abortion ie to compell a woman to carry an unwanted fetus and to give birth":

at what point is the fetus unwanted? when the woman has intercourse or when the woman finds she's pregnant. you're presuming a power which i've already spoken to. are most abortions due to forced intercourse? i'd have to look up statistics, but i doubt that thats the case. it may be that the legalization of abortions has helped blur that line. most people will say that they oppose the idea of abortions but wouldnt want to intrude on another's choice for themselves. this implies that from a moral standpoint, abortion is widely frowned down upon, even by many of those who may have felt forced by circumstances to have an abortion. but it doesnt imply that abortion is a necessary result of male power/female victimization. women, indeed, are not slaves "condemned to sacrifce themselves" for the sake of babies. most women do not die in childbirth, and with women having a longer average lifespan than men, it's not true to say that having children in the first place is any medical sacrifice to women. certainly not like your analogy of giving up a kidney. abortions, interestingly enough, serve to disprove your analogy, because abortions cause more harm than good to a woman's body. and the idea that woman are slaves to carry babies? are women slaves to their sexual appetite as well? are men? are we stupid apes walking around fucking one another without knowledge of consequences. isnt having an abortion sort of like suing a tobacco company?

[firsty]

also, edog, i think you're finding in my posts an extreme pro-life activist viewpoint that doesnt exist, which i have stated doesnt exist. i dont think we should overturn all abortion laws, it would cause too much chaos. if i misread a misreading of me, i apologize.

[e_dog]

"isnt having an abortion sort of like suing a tobacco company?"

we could start a whole new thread on this; i actually think the latter is a much easier topic: clearly it is just to hold companies liable for systematic harms caused by their product, especially (though not only) when it's addictive. but lets stick to abortion, shall we?

you wrote:

"most women do not die in childbirth, and with women having a longer average lifespan than men, it's not true to say that having children in the first place is any medical sacrifice to women. certainly not like your analogy of giving up a kidney. abortions, interestingly enough, serve to disprove your analogy, because abortions cause more harm than good to a woman's body"

and most people don't die in kidney donation. sacrifice doesn't nec. imply death: the physical burden and extreme pain and disruption of life-activities is a significant sacrifice that mothers make.

on the issue of power, you wrote:

"at what point is the fetus unwanted? when the woman has intercourse or when the woman finds she's pregnant. you're presuming a power which i've already spoken to. are most abortions due to forced intercourse? "

my point was not that the conception is itself an exercise of male power over women, though often it is, but that the gov't declaring a ban on abortion is an exercise of power over the individual woman. at every moment during her pregnancy -- which is, by definition, a pregnancy unwanted by her since we are talking about situation where the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy thru anbortion -- the state is forcing her to carry the child and then give birth. the state didn't force her to have intercourse, but it forces her to carry the child to term. the argument that a person forfeits all control of their body at the moment of intercourse is ridiculous, as if a person is compelled to finish a marathon simply because he takes the starting line (or, more to the point, happened to be walking near the vicinity of the race without the intention of entering it).

i repeat, forcing a woman to continue being pregnant is like turning her into a servant or slave.

how's this for an instance of feminism with balls:
it may be from this perspective just for a woman to kill a fetus in order to achieve women's liberation, just as it is morally justified for a slave to kill a guard in order to attain freedom; the guard isn't at fault for the slaves condition b/c the guard is not the master, he's just an employee -- heck, he might even be a slave too -- but you gotta do what you gotta do, for freedom.

[firsty]

edog, you have a stark view of children, who are merely immature human beings. i guess if you're not going to consider fetuses to be immature human beings and you're going to consider them to be a health condition, then your logic makes sense.

with tobacco companies, there have been warnings for years on packages of cigarettes. it should come as no surprise to smokers when they are diagnosed with lung cancer. actually, it may be more justified to sue tobacco companies because they advertise heavily and make an addictive product. there is no single advertiser for sex, and sex isnt a product that contains addictive ingredients. i guess one could sue God, but then that would sort of screw up the whole prochoice thing anyway.

true, most people dont die with kidney donation, but their bodies are harmed and put at risk MUCH MORE than childbirth. pain, burden, disruption of life activities? thats childbirth. the states arent slaveowners, the govts arent masters to the female slave, and children are hardly innocent bystanders, guards defending the states' interest to hold down the female gender. thats such a fucked up point of view that it's prolly time for me to stop debating with you. having sex is fun and there are plenty of ways, as i've already mentioned, to get your rocks off without intercourse, and treating conception as an inconvenience is a tough moral argument, i think. mothers make many sacrifices during and after childbirth, but none of them are surprises. extreme pain in child bearing is rare. extreme pain in child birth is nature. neither is a surprise, and both are a result of only one thing - intercourse. abortion as liberation? try a dildo.

[stilltrucking]

Sorry Doreen,




Beautiful day, eighty degrees, I heard the first mourning dove call of the year. Mating season I suppose.

"

[e_dog]

"you have a stark view of children, who are merely immature human beings. i guess if you're not going to consider fetuses to be immature human beings and you're going to consider them to be a health condition, then your logic makes sense."

so says firsty.

my analogy to the slavery case, admittedly quite 'stark,' was meant to demonstrate that even if one regards a fetus as a living human being, there can be examples where killing a human being may be morally justied even if the person killed was not at fault like an attacker or slaveowner.

however, to this argument you responded:

"thats such a fucked up point of view that it's prolly time for me to stop debating with you."

i accept your surrender. however, for any audience that this debate has, as well as other participants, i will continue to discourse on the issue.

the rest of your post indicates that you believe "surprise" is necessary for something to be oppressive or to be a harm the remedy of which is appropriate .

for example, you write:

"extreme pain in child birth is nature. neither is a surprise, and both are a result of only one thing - intercourse. "

the fact that something's natural -- like being eaten by wolves -- doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea to prevent it where this is feasible. it is quite feasible given medical technology. that being so, the state is actively intervening to prevent abortion -- that is the cause of the continuation of pregnancy and the eventual birth.

to think that women must rest content with all of the consequences of a decision for which they are responsible -- to have sex, in those cases where it's consensual -- is a form of punitive moralism. the argument is even misplaced where the person has done something wrong, unlike the case of sex which we may assume is allowable, morally permitted. suppose someone drives while intoxicated and gets injured. would it be okay for the gov't to ban medical care for such persons on the grounds that the person decided to drive? clearly not. if that is so, then how much more so is it wrong for pro-lifers to punish women for a moral choice to have sexual intercourse? the experience of abortion is punishment enough. (which is why the morning after pill should be widely available.)

[tinkerjack]

well said e-dog.

I can not find the page anymore but it was called:

The Phenomenology of Female Spatiality



Speculation only takes you so far. I think you need to bleed to know the reality.

...born of a stupid male fantasy that denies a woman the right to be a woman, but wishes to craft womanhood into the image men (for whatever sordid reason) finds most reassuring. ...

http://fullmoon.typepad.com/chaos/2006/week4/index.html

[firsty]

pregnancy isnt punishment. if one believes that to be so, then as far as i know, getting one's tubes tied, male or female, isnt illegal.

as i said, your philosophy values the decisions of a person over the life of an immature person. thats feasible within itself, i just dont agree with it from a moral point of view. personally, i dont think one can separate morality from nature, and a set of moral judgments that seeks to overrule nature is not something inherent to humanity, i dont think. i dont think we can separate ourselves that much from nature.

being eaten by wolves may be natural, and we should seek to prevent it. one way of preventing it is not sitting out in the middle of wolf country without a shelter. if one does that, and is eaten by wolves, then there is a certain rationale for that having happened. you can prevent being eaten by wolves in other ways. if one goes out into wolf country with a machine gun and no shelter, gets a little stoned and starts singing songs, that person would be reasonably likely to be approached by a wolf. if the wolf tries to eat that person, the wolf will be shot with the machine gun. now, did the wolf deserve to die or was the person baiting the wolf? was the person right to kill the wolf? could the person have gotten stoned and sang songs in his backyard behind a fence?

the analogy of a person driving while intoxicated is incomplete because, unlike the wolf analogy (which i can turn to demonstrate my point of view anyway), it doesnt include two lives.

like i said, if you insist that pregnancy is merely a condition, and you dont consider a fetus to be a human being, your point of view can stand. i think thats where you're wrong, tho, personally. i dont think that the fact that a woman wholly surrounds a fetus gives her complete and utter control over the fate of that smaller human being. just like i cant shoot my neighbor for pissing me off, even if he's retarded and less mature than me, or if i'm the one bringing him his meals on wheels and draining his catheter bag.

st, setting this up as a gender issue is wrong and puts more meat on the issue than is warranted. if in 100 years when they figure out how to install a uterus in men, i would still consider it wrong for a man to have an abortion. are women allowed to determine how a man's sperm donation is handled? are women allowed to have an opinion about circumcisions?

[firsty]

doreen, i cant even respond. i hate this debate always because the whole topic is so difficult to deal with. the only value i can see in even having it is because i honestly believe that it's framed wrong by our society. that doesnt mean that the decisions made by men and women every day about their own lives are or should be subject to constant judgment or criticism. that also doesnt mean that i think the solution is to outlaw the procedure, or that we should just do one thing and stop talking about it. i am very sorry if my talking about this appears insensitive. it's not meant to be. i'm prolly just going to stop talking about it altogether.

[Doreen Peri]

firsty -

You're right. It's a tough topic. But we do need to talk about it and I agree with you. It's definitely framed wrong by our society. Your posts weren't insensitive. They were honest and open so don't stop posting on the topic thinking you're offending someone with your opinions. You're certainly not offending me.

I'm on an email list with members from my 1971 high school class. Last year we had a similar discussion on the list. It went on for about 2 weeks with lots of posts by people I don't remember even knowing 35 years ago... but whom I thought I *should* have some things in common with given the fact that we are all the same age, grew up in the same place, went to the same school, etc. But it turns out not to be that way. 90% of those who are posting to the HS email list have views 180º from mine.

At one point in the discussion/debate, I offered the information that I had had an abortion and gave my reasons for doing it, just like I did here on this board.

Believe me, you have not been insensitive at all! But those people sure were!

I thought what I was doing was to show them that they actually KNEW someone who made a decision to have an abortion for very responsible reasons, both for society and for two lives (the life of an unborn child and the life of the mother).

You wouldn't believe some of the responses I got to my confession.

Some of those people tried and convicted me for murder, along with insinuating that I was a whore.

LOL!

Geesh.

And just to think, they're planning a 35th HS Reunion for some time this summer or fall. I may get the opportunity to have dinner with them.

[stilltrucking]

But those people sure were!

Maybe you were not offended Doreen but I was .

Yes you offended me firsty. But of course what right do I have to be offended. Right? This is not a flame. Just a emotional weather report.

[firsty]

stilltrucking - i will fight to the death to protect your right to be offended, even if it's me who's offending you. my first posts on this thread were meant to be offensive, but still honest and with something like reality embedded in them. i do think that prolife activists should be talking more about oral sex and less about vacuumed fetuses, but they feel that religion prevents them from offering up sodomy in exchange for abortions. i dont know if that sentence makes any sense. what i mean is, religion has contributed to the problem by their unwillingness to promote nontraditional sexual acts. i find no moral ground for valuing intercourse over oral sex, for instance, but i can find a moral stance against abortion. i dont see how this debate can take place honestly without offending someone. without offending those who've had abortions or those considering them, or those with strong feelings either way. your position seemed to be that as a man i couldnt really contribute anything to the issue, and i find that to be dramatically wrong. i hope that stance doesnt offend you.

doreen - maybe you should tell your classmates that cunnilingus prevents pregnancy and maybe if their daddies werent afraid of it, you wouldnt have had to put up with the bs from your classmates.

[Arcadia]

choices are good. And the fetus is inside the mother´s body so... The ideal thing would be not to need to do an abortion, but who knows?
Here the not birth control thing is complex, specially between poor people ( I hate the term poor people, but popular class is not better): the men don´t want to use condoms, the women don´t know how to use the pills and they don´t have money to pay them and the government provides them in an intermitent way. Most of the women here even though in terrible situations wants to have birth to the babies. Some of them not, and they have to be listened. But a baby is a garantía to maybe some more state help, it maybe causes empathy in society and maybe someone would give you some help... maybe your man would stay more time with you, maybe... ( the last one is not only between "popular classes").
Besides the Church here is anti-anticonception methods (it seems they know when the soul enters a body and all that stuff).
Romina Tejerina´s story is here an emblematic case to fight for a free and secure abortion.

[Lightning Rod]

I don't think anybody is FOR abortion

but sometimes we must choose the lesser evil

here is a poem I wrote when my last seed was aborted

----

LAMENT FOR UNBORN TRAVELERS


before you ended
a blob of scraped tissue
on a sterile curette
you were a cellular promise
a harbinger of the next generation
your stunted karma
and a perfect genetic compliment
crouched in the warmth of a womb
your sins are pardoned
will you pardon mine?

In the Easter of Unborn Memory
I listen for you
at roll call.
Your answer is light as helium
light as feathers and resurrection
I don't know if there is
consciousness in your juices
I don't know if there was a soul
in your cellular mass
but I know there was a longing
for you and a hope
there still is

[knip]

there are so many angles from which to approach this topic, and anything less than long responses just don't do it justice

so i'll give a short POV

i've flopped many times, but have been consistently pro-choice for about 5 years now, so long that i think i'm probably done flopping

i understand that, despite self-awareness, the fetus in the mother is still alive...i believe that

i just can't get around an individual's right to do what they want with their body...my arm is alive, but i have the right to cut it off (bad analogy, but no worse than some in this thread...)

as far as i'm concerned, it is part of the woman's body; it is hers to do with as she pleases...once the baby is born, circumstances change, but inside of her and part of her, it is her choice