The Roe Countdown

[autumn1971]

And the message requesting her yes vote for a bill protecting abortion rights included the word "please."

That’s un-American!
Heck, it’s downright Canadian!

 

[Meadmaker]

I would go further to say that it says, in effect, that the demand for abortion is inherently impermissible without the supervisory mediation of someone other than the pregnant person. It might still be fine, and maybe it's the right thing to do, but it operatively changes a demand to a petition.

Well, what I was talking about was selling it at the polls. I suppose we'll see what happens as election day nears. There's a little bit less than six months between now and then.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you equate financial support with blood and flesh?

You EXPLICITLY raised the issue of financial security in support of the fetus. Did you forget?

Yes, financial support is significantly different from bodily function support. But the situation of pregnancy is different from the situation of parenthood. There is no situation exactly analogous to pregnancy. For example:

Would you require a parent to donate a kidney to her sick child? No other obligation is comparable to requiring a woman to endure pregnancy and birth against her will.

Those aren't actually comparable obligations.

 

[Bob001]

You EXPLICITLY raised the issue of financial security in support of the fetus. Did you forget?

Yes, financial support is significantly different from bodily function support. But the situation of pregnancy is different from the situation of parenthood. There is no situation exactly analogous to pregnancy. For example:

Those aren't actually comparable obligations.

I was referring to the mother's financial security, the possibility, for example, that she might not be able to maintain her career or complete her education if she was required to bear a child. As noted above, parenthood after birth is not compulsory. "Safe haven" laws allow you to abandon an infant at a fire house or hospital, and an older child can be turned over to the state and put up for adoption. But an abortion ban would require a woman to endure and complete pregnancy and childbirth against her will and at risk to her life and health. There are no other circumstances where we impose such an extreme physical obligation on anyone.

 

[Meadmaker]

There are no other circumstances where we impose such an extreme physical obligation on anyone.

Well of course there isn't, because there is no comparable circumstance. In the case of pregnancy, the life of one organism that has human DNA is completely and totally dependent on another organism that has human DNA. The life of one of those organisms is completely dependent on the other one in a parasitic fashion. No one can take responsibility or ensure the survival of that organism except the host.

There's noting comparable in human experience.


So, yes, it is a unique imposition, but it is for a unique circumstance. Therefore the uniqueness isn't really applicable as a determining factor for whether or not to make the imposition. We can't say, "In all those other cases where one human organism is uniquely dependent on a specific second human organism, we allow the second organism to decide the fate of the first." There are no other cases, so there is no other case to which it can be compared.

 

[bruto]

Well, what I was talking about was selling it at the polls. I suppose we'll see what happens as election day nears. There's a little bit less than six months between now and then.

Yes, I realize what you were saying, but I just feel I have to keep pounding on this point, that quite apart from the moral issue of whether it is right or wrong, this stuff carries a really big, and really important existential payload. We give up certain rights for the common good, and that's as it must be, but we need to be conscious when we're doing it, especially if it's someone else's rights we're doing it to, and to understand the full price.

Right now people are mouthing the words "freedom" and "small government," but the snollygosters whose slogans they slurp up don't actually want that. They want freedom to live as they prefer, and a government that's compact, cruel and cheap.

 

[bruto]

Well of course there isn't, because there is no comparable circumstance. In the case of pregnancy, the life of one organism that has human DNA is completely and totally dependent on another organism that has human DNA. The life of one of those organisms is completely dependent on the other one in a parasitic fashion. No one can take responsibility or ensure the survival of that organism except the host.

There's noting comparable in human experience.


So, yes, it is a unique imposition, but it is for a unique circumstance. Therefore the uniqueness isn't really applicable as a determining factor for whether or not to make the imposition. We can't say, "In all those other cases where one human organism is uniquely dependent on a specific second human organism, we allow the second organism to decide the fate of the first." There are no other cases, so there is no other case to which it can be compared.

All that may be true, but the very premise of an anti-abortion law gives the power to one side, and if one can also redefine what is a fully enfranchised human being, the game is rigged from the start.

 

[Meadmaker]

All that may be true, but the very premise of an anti-abortion law gives the power to one side, and if one can also redefine what is a fully enfranchised human being, the game is rigged from the start.

But is there any alternative?

The law has to say that the host organism either has control and determination over the life of the internal organism, or the internal organism has a right to life, so that the life cannot be legally extinguished. That doesn't have to stay constant over the life of the internal organism, but at every instant, either it may be extinguished, or it may not.

If you say that it has a right to life, it's rigged in one direction. If you say it doesn't, it's rigged in the other direction.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I was referring to the mother's financial security, the possibility, for example, that she might not be able to maintain her career or complete her education if she was required to bear a child. As noted above, parenthood after birth is not compulsory. "Safe haven" laws allow you to abandon an infant at a fire house or hospital, and an older child can be turned over to the state and put up for adoption. But an abortion ban would require a woman to endure and complete pregnancy and childbirth against her will and at risk to her life and health. There are no other circumstances where we impose such an extreme physical obligation on anyone.

Not to mention the abysmal state of our adoption and foster care systems.

Another reminder that after they pass through the birth canal, good luck.

And also an industry dominated by quasi-religious organizations.

It is absolutely a responsible decision to conclude that if the resources and circumstances just don't exist to raise the child to a healthy adult in all respects, not to do so. The world as it actually exists produces such scenarios quite steadily.

I find that far more laudable than the "quiverful" nonsense. God wants your wife to pop one out like a yearly harvest, amen.

 

[bruto]

But is there any alternative?

The law has to say that the host organism either has control and determination over the life of the internal organism, or the internal organism has a right to life, so that the life cannot be legally extinguished. That doesn't have to stay constant over the life of the internal organism, but at every instant, either it may be extinguished, or it may not.

If you say that it has a right to life, it's rigged in one direction. If you say it doesn't, it's rigged in the other direction.

True enough, it's rigged in one direction or the other, leaving the vital difference between choice and no choice. Abortion laws are inflexibly coercive, while choice is not. In both cases, some agency other than the fetus is making the choice.

 

[cosmicaug]

Yes, I realize what you were saying, but I just feel I have to keep pounding on this point, that quite apart from the moral issue of whether it is right or wrong, this stuff carries a really big, and really important existential payload. We give up certain rights for the common good, and that's as it must be, but we need to be conscious when we're doing it, especially if it's someone else's rights we're doing it to, and to understand the full price.

Right now people are mouthing the words "freedom" and "small government," but the snollygosters whose slogans they slurp up don't actually want that. They want freedom to live as they prefer, and a government that's compact, cruel and cheap.

Bodily autonomy has to be considered a basal right: that is, it is fundamental, it is a right that all other rights are built upon and all other rights we might have do not make sense without it. Every other right is secondary. We need to ask how anyone can claim to be supporting freedom while simultaneously deciding that this right does not fully apply to half of the population.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bodily autonomy has to be considered a basal right: that is, it is fundamental, it is a right that all other rights are built upon and all other rights we might have do not make sense without it. Every other right is secondary. We need to ask how anyone can claim to be supporting freedom while simultaneously deciding that this right does not fully apply to half of the population.

Because the fetus counts as a body? If one thinks that, then there is a very long rabbit hole of rights and interactions there.

 

[Ziggurat]

I was referring to the mother's financial security, the possibility, for example, that she might not be able to maintain her career or complete her education if she was required to bear a child.

Which applies equally to raising a child too.

As noted above, parenthood after birth is not compulsory.

It often is. See: child support.

There are no other circumstances where we impose such an extreme physical obligation on anyone.

That is false. We do even more than that with the draft.

But again, there are no other situations which match pregnancy. It is unique. The fact that laws surrounding it may be unique as well isn't disqualifying.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The "heartbeat" as mentioned in the various heartbeat bills is not a heartbeat - it's not evidence of a working vascular system.
But even if it was, we don't consider a heartbeat sufficient evidence of life in a grown human - thinking that it is in a pile of cells is incoherent.

Some people might have been tricked into thinking that by forcing women into pregnancy, they are protecting "THE CHILDREN!", but most are just playing power -politics.

 

[Bob001]

......
That is false. We do even more than that with the draft.
.....

The draft ended in 1973.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, I realize what you were saying, but I just feel I have to keep pounding on this point, that quite apart from the moral issue of whether it is right or wrong, this stuff carries a really big, and really important existential payload. We give up certain rights for the common good, and that's as it must be, but we need to be conscious when we're doing it, especially if it's someone else's rights we're doing it to, and to understand the full price.

Right now people are mouthing the words "freedom" and "small government," but the snollygosters whose slogans they slurp up don't actually want that. They want freedom to live as they prefer, and a government that's compact, cruel and cheap.

I have to agree there. And I think "existential" is a very appropriate word to use in describing it.

 

[Ziggurat]

The draft ended in 1973.

There's no constitutional prohibition on it, it was a purely legislative abolishment. And the legislature can bring it back at any time.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bodily autonomy has to be considered a basal right: that is, it is fundamental, it is a right that all other rights are built upon and all other rights we might have do not make sense without it. Every other right is secondary.

The right to life is even more fundamental than the right to bodily autonomy. It is not secondary to that, it precedes that. So that doesn't answer the abortion question, because we still have to decide where a human gains the right to life.

We need to ask how anyone can claim to be supporting freedom while simultaneously deciding that this right does not fully apply to half of the population.

If the right to life properly extends before birth, and we deny it, then we have denied it to the entire population, not just half of it.

There is no getting around this hard question of when the right to life begins, and nobody makes any headway in either convincing others or even understanding others by assuming that answers you disagree with were arrived at in bad faith. The consequences of the answer to this question do not lie equally at the feet of both sexes, because biology is not symmetric, but there's nothing inherently sexist about choosing one answer over another. Sex-selective abortion even demonstrates how abortion rights can become anti-female.

 

[Bob001]

There's no constitutional prohibition on it, it was a purely legislative abolishment. And the legislature can bring it back at any time.

The draft provides for conscientious objectors to perform alternative non-military service. And a draftee could even refuse to cooperate and go to jail. But the draft cannot force anybody to actually risk their lives in combat against their will.

 

[Ziggurat]

The draft provides for conscientious objectors to perform alternative non-military service. And a draftee could even refuse to cooperate and go to jail. But the draft cannot force anybody to actually risk their lives in combat against their will.

That's all legislative concessions, none of it is constitutional. And in terms of consequences, the prohibition on abortion only does likewise: threaten jail for those who don't obey.