Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?

[Vigile]

If no-one should get a vote, if no laws can be enacted, by what means can a woman prove to me her right to privacy?

 

By default. 

 

That wasn't hard, right? 

 

It's the state and you that need to prove why you have an overriding reason to impose your vision on an issue that does not affect you or society. Else, as I've stated, the democratic process prove itself merely another form of totalitarianism. 

[Akheia]

Wow, that is some rigid-ass thinking there.

 

Okay, let me be as kind and as succinct as I know how to be here. I've outlined a number of reasons why the idea of men talking down to women about their reproductive rights is unfair and dramatically sexist. I've asked you repeatedly to think about why women might find this upsetting. Your responses have ranged from deflection to outright false dilemmas. You don't seem inclined at all to putting yourself in our shoes, but you nonetheless think it's okay to take our rights away and force us to be incubators against our wills. If you can't seriously think about the question, if you can't for a moment allow the sheer fucking injustice of our position to wash over you, if you can't for a second imagine the absolute horror of being trapped in a pregnancy you don't want, if you can't actually empathize here a little, you're going to come off like a monster. And that is part of what I want you to understand. That is how women see it when men step into this arena. You've steadfastly ignored everything I've written, and don't think I haven't noticed it. I don't know how much you know about law, but I do know you seem more sexist and inhuman than any lawyer I've known, and uh I've known a few (screwdriver cocktail, anybody?).

 

I don't need to propose a way for women to collectively decide upon abortion rights because I've already said I don't think anybody has the right to override individual liberty. I reject your assertion that I should do so and declare that you are just trying to deflect again. My point has always been that I don't think either gender should be discussing a private matter that should only be up to the woman involved, but that I think it's particularly ludicrous that you, a man in a privileged position in your culture, having set up a society antithetical to women's rights and hostile to unplanned pregnancy's issues, should attempt to dominate a woman in this manner. It's not required for me to jump through the hoops you're trying to set up for me. It's also not required that I demonstrate my rights to you personally. It's on you to prove that I don't have 'em and that moreover you have a pressing legal reason to remove those rights from me. I'm thankful for a judicial system that's thought this through more than you have.

 

Your shifting of the burden of proof and your general lack of human empathy have become additional reasons I think you're still religious. You just found a new god, that's all, and it's an even more vicious one than the one you abandoned.

[SquareOne]

Vigile and Akheia

 

I think that we have reached the end of any kind of useful discourse.  I have thought about the things that you have said, and answered your questions.  It would seem that you are not satisfied with the answers.  So, we are in a state of disagreement about this issue.

 

I have invited you both to explain to me how "women deciding things for themselves" would operate in the real world of law and politics, but you have not done so.

 

Akheia, we obviously disagree about where rights come from and how rights are proved.  I don't think either of us is going to change our mind on this, so we are in a state of disagreement there.

 

This concludes my discussions on these issues with both of you.  I expect you will want to reply, but I probably won't reply back to you again on these issues.  So by all means have the last word.  Call that deflection if you will, but I think if anyone looks back up the thread they will see that I have answered your questions at one point or another.

 

 

....

 

I would be grateful for anyone else to join this discussion, and get back to the OP.  And specifically talk about the argument for the viability of life as a basis for the 24 week cut-off period.

[Ravenstar]

"How should it work in practice?  As a practical matter, do you believe that only women members of congress should vote on abortion laws? Do you believe that only women supreme court justices should hear cases concerning abortion? Do you believe only a woman president should sign an abortion law?"

 

It's a health issue, not a political issue. It belongs between a woman and her medical caregivers & family, if she wishes.

 

I've had an abortion, I also lost a child at 26 weeks (don't tell me about viability) and it took me 4 years to heal emotionally from that... now, I have a beautiful daughter. There is no way in the world that a man can comprehend what pregnancy (or childbirth) is like... or losing a child, or having to make the decision to end a pregnancy. There's no way even a woman can judge what that might be like for another woman. I've held crack babies.... no child should ever come into the world like that.

 

I chose to end one pregnancy because I was too young, I knew I was too immature to be a mother, not financially stable and the father was a psychopath and there was no way in hell that I was going to put a kid through that... as well as have a lifetime connection with this person who was nuts? Nope... I am grateful I had that choice. It was a damn hard choice though.

 

I never ignored birth control... ever. I just am one of those people who makes for that 1% birth control statistic. (all three times... I'm snipped now)

 

It takes over not just your body but your entire psyche - it changes you FOREVER - pregnancy isn't some weekend jaunt for crying out loud. And I mean it takes over... it's not like carrying a backpack for 9 months - sheesh - it affects every system in your body, including your personality.

 

Any time a woman gets pregnant she is risking her life, all it takes is a Rhesus factor mix up, a hemorrage, an infection, maternal diabetes, there's a ton of complications that can happen... and in the States prenatal/childbirth care isn't even guaranteed.

 

I spent the last 8 weeks of my daughters' pregnancy in bed with my feet up because I was high risk, yes, I put my life at risk to continue my pregnancy. I gave birth without medication. I was healthy, and it still was risky.

 

I know how terrifying it can be for a woman to discover she is pregnant and I would never presume to make that choice for anyone but myself.

 

The other issue is this... no matter what the 'courts' say, women are going to get abortions... they have since the dawn of time, that's not going to stop, and illegal abortions are, if you know anything about them, unacceptable in the 21st. century.

[SquareOne]

Thank you for sharing Ravenstar.  I really appreciate your openness about this issue.  I am sorry to hear about the hard things that you have had to endure, and I hope that you have been able to heal from some of those emotional and physical strains.

 

For me, you have articulated well some of the very serious issues surrounding abortion, and these are things that weigh on my mind heavily when I consider the issue of abortion.

 

Yet, the jurisprudential thinker in me cannot find peace with the uncertain nature of the 24-week foetus viability rule.

 

If abortion is sometimes necessary, why should it be restricted after 24 weeks?

 

Or - would you disagree with the 24 week rule?

[Akheia]

Nice use of another logical fallacy there in how you pre-emptively stated what you think we'd do in response to your legalese masturbation. Is that what they teach you in law school? Oh wait it is. I think I saw that exact fallacy on an episode of "Boston Legal." I've already told you why I haven't engaged with your ridiculous demand, but you maintain that it is essential that I do so, while still refusing to write any of your eloquent ripostes regarding my question. You use a lot of big words and you have some very lofty expressions, but you can't let that shit get in the way of compassion. As the saying goes, "Last night I bent the truth out of kindness, because while I often doubt what's true, I never doubt what's kind."

 

The funny thing is that yes, you're deflecting. Again. And doing some other shit that's not cool. But it's up to you. Sometimes it takes a little time and a little exposure to others' stories to learn to uncouple from old programming. You're not there yet. But maybe you will be in time. I think there's hope for everybody, and that includes you.

 

Tomorrow, or whenever you go out next, do me a favor. Look around yourself and all the women around you.

 

One out of three.

 

Think about it.

 

One out of three. Your own mother might have had one. Your grandma. Your best female friend.

 

One out of three. And the poorer the woman, the more likely it is she's had one. The cashier at the subway station. The girl driving that bus that just went past. The woman struggling with grocery sacks outside the supermarket. The homeless woman cadging smokes on the corner or selling her body. The gal next door to your flat. The pastor's daughter at the local CoE. The women in the background of your life, in your office, working and walking and living beside you.

 

One out of fucking THREE. The woman in your bed last night. The woman you wanted to marry. The woman you did marry. Your daughters, if you have any. Your sisters.

 

One out of three. Are they all stupid? Are they murderesses? Are they evil? Are they whores?

 

Criminalize abortion, and do you suppose these women will just magically decide that men are right and they need to have babies? No, hell no. Did making slavery legal mean that slaves were now totally fine with being slaves? Oh no. They knew their rights had been removed, and they still rebelled and ran away. Do you suppose making abortion illegal means all these women will now have babies--which will draw yet more of your tax dollars to care for them, which will further tax your healthcare system and your educational system? No, because for the same reason, they know that no matter what governments try to say, the right to control your own physical body is a right that can't be legislated away. The risks of childbirth and the financial and social burdens of having an unwanted child outweigh any legal or medical risks of seizing those human rights in hand.

 

If you really want to end abortion, put your money where your mouth is. Vote for societal changes that will make it much more rare to become pregnant involuntarily: good sex education, easy access to contraception, a culture that promotes responsible sex without slut-shaming women. Vote for financial changes that will make abortions due to low income a thing of the past. Stop worrying about the actual procedure and start worrying about why the procedures happen.

[Vigile]

I have invited you both to explain to me how "women deciding things for themselves" would operate in the real world of law and politics, but you have not done so..

 

We can agree to disagree, but please don't try and take the last jab here by claiming something that isn't true.  I've answered this question 6 ways to Sunday.  You just don't like the answer I gave because it didn't fit neatly into the box you tried to force it into. 

[Akheia]

Ravenstar, oh my gosh, that had to be terrible to go through. I can't even imagine what kind of pain that is to experience. My deepest condolences on your losses and my sincerest thanks that you are here.

[dB-Paradox]

Who wants a pizza?  I'm getting a large Hawaiian and All-Dressed with a 2L Coke. 

[Kurari]

If you really want to end abortion, put your money where your mouth is. Vote for societal changes that will make it much more rare to become pregnant involuntarily: good sex education, easy access to contraception, a culture that promotes responsible sex without slut-shaming women. Vote for financial changes that will make abortions due to low income a thing of the past. Stop worrying about the actual procedure and start worrying about why the procedures happen.

 

Well said! *applause* 

 

Trust me Square, we DO want to see the end of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. They aren't fun things to go through.

 

But you have to stop thinking with laws. They don't work. We tried that. Other countries are still trying different levels of restriction, and they aren't having much luck. We have the documentation about it. The Guttenmacher institute just made some lovely easy-to-read graphs about it. 

 

So it's time to stop and say, "Ok, so what else can we try besides relying on the government?" 

[Ravenstar]

hmmm.... 24 weeks.  I don't know. The vast majority of abortions (and miscarriages) happen in the first trimester. Most late term ones are to save the mothers life. Very, very few elective abortions are later than 12 weeks - 16 weeks max.

 

I think that counseling is important and needed, especially later in the pregnancy. Doctors know there are serious risks to late term abortions (you do realize that to have one there are really only two ways - Ceasarean (rare) or oxytocin is given to induce labour and the mother gives birth, right? They can't D&C after a certain point - you can't just rip the placenta off the uterine wall you know.) It isn't something many women would choose to have done. (shudder) If the child and mother are healthy the option to adopt should probably be offered - WITH FULL SUPPORT.

 

(Thanks Akheia, I don't mind sharing if it helps someone else... I couldn't talk about it for a long time - so I know I've healed now)

 

I went through that SquareOne... labour started on it's own then I was induced to hurry it along, there was nothing they could do to save the baby - and I was in a city with a great hospital and access by helicopter to one of the largest cities in Canada, only a half hour away.

 

KNOWING there was no chance my daughter could survive (maybe a 3% to 5% chance they told me) I had to go through the whole thing. They could not knock me out because the mom is needed for this process, so I know a little, maybe, of what it would be like. Not pleasant.. then a dramatic drop in hormones almost immediately causing post-natal depression on top of the grief? Any woman who would choose that would be in a pretty desperate place I would think.

 

Just because a few kids have survived that early does not mean most will.. and I can't imagine the expense for those who don't have universal health care.

 

I think, at the end, it's still a personal issue between a woman and her doctor. Should we support women more? Help them have more options? Absolutely. I think that would reduce the need for this a whole lot. Education and social support is the key.

 

I remember reading about a woman, in the seventies, who was so freaked out about a pregnancy.. this was late second trimester, that she stabbed herself inside with knitting needles...both mother and child died... oh gosh - I hope no woman ever has to resort to that.

[Akheia]

Well, it's okay to talk about government assistance in ending as much need for abortion as possible. But we're not going to get there by trying to vote on rights. Right are inviolable and not up for debate, and if those rights are violated, women will do what all disenfranchised Others will do in such cases: whatever they must to get what they know is theirs. That's why all the blather spewed about fetal "personhood" doesn't matter, why laws against abortion don't lower abortion rates, but only result in more dead women who, it must be said, don't get uppity about their rights.

 

What we vote on instead are humanity-affirming measures to make abortion more unnecessary. Government can do a lot to help there. Finland is having fantabulous luck with doing precisely this. They realized that a high abortion rate is just one symptom of a deeply dysfunctional society, and instead of the flaming, infected bandaid that is criminalization, they went the other route: affirming women's rights to their bodies, furthering societal support for women and children, and making sure everybody can get unbiased and complete access to healthcare either way they go. Experiments begun in the US have already shown results that are nothing short of breathtaking (such as the one offering free, reliable contraception to low-income women, a move that lowered abortion rates among those women like 75%).

 

So is the rhetoric and the imposition of one's own morality onto others more important? Or is actually lowering abortion rates more important?

[Ravenstar]

^^^^ this ^^^^

 

Other countries are finding solutions that work... we can learn from each other.

[SquareOne]

hmmm.... 24 weeks.  I don't know. The vast majority of abortions (and miscarriages) happen in the first trimester. Most late term ones are to save the mothers life. Very, very few elective abortions are later than 12 weeks - 16 weeks max.

 

That's a good point, and important to remember in the discussion about viability.

 

I think that counseling is important and needed, especially later in the pregnancy. Doctors know there are serious risks to late term abortions (you do realize that to have one there are really only two ways - Ceasarean (rare) or oxytocin is given to induce labour and the mother gives birth, right? They can't D&C after a certain point - you can't just rip the placenta off the uterine wall you know.) It isn't something many women would choose to have done. (shudder) If the child and mother are healthy the option to adopt should probably be offered - WITH FULL SUPPORT.

 

Absolutely.  In Britain, I would fully support the NHS providing counselling to pregnant women, and to women considering pregnancy.  Also, to pregnant women considering abortion, and to women who have had an abortion.  And that would apply equally to any woman, whether she had a legal abortion or an illegal abortion.

 

I went through that SquareOne... labour started on it's own then I was induced to hurry it along, there was nothing they could do to save the baby - and I was in a city with a great hospital and access by helicopter to one of the largest cities in Canada, only a half hour away.

 

KNOWING there was no chance my daughter could survive (maybe a 3% to 5% chance they told me) I had to go through the whole thing. They could not knock me out because the mom is needed for this process, so I know a little, maybe, of what it would be like. Not pleasant.. then a dramatic drop in hormones almost immediately causing post-natal depression on top of the grief? Any woman who would choose that would be in a pretty desperate place I would think.

 

I sympathise.  That sounds like a truly awful experience for you.  I wish I could relate properly, but to the extent that I can relate to your physical and emotional pain (having had some myself of a different, and undoubtedly less serious, kind) I do sympathise.

 

I think, at the end, it's still a personal issue between a woman and her doctor. 

 

If the foetus had no personhood, I would agree.  Unfortunately, what I really struggle with is the issue of when a given foetus can be said to be a human being worthy of the same protection as the the mother herself.  It is maybe a question without an answer.  Biology does not always comport with our ideas of legal personhood.

 

Should we support women more? Help them have more options? Absolutely. I think that would reduce the need for this a whole lot. Education and social support is the key.

 

Of course.  Education and social support are vital.  There needs to be a huge push in favour of sex education, about contraceptives and safe sex, and that goes for both boys and girls of school age.

 

Also, and perhaps this is a secondary issue maybe worthy of a new thread - I think we should work to see if we can reduce social pressure on young people to have sex until they are ready and able to handle the social and emotional effects of sex, any unanticipated consequences such as pregnancy.

 

I remember reading about a woman, in the seventies, who was so freaked out about a pregnancy.. this was late second trimester, that she stabbed herself inside with knitting needles...both mother and child died... oh gosh - I hope no woman ever has to resort to that.

 

So do I.  But sadly, it happens, at that is a real tragedy.

[Ravenstar]

"If the foetus had no personhood, I would agree.  Unfortunately, what I really struggle with is the issue of when a given foetus can be said to be a human being worthy of the same protection as the the mother herself.  It is maybe a question without an answer.  Biology does not always comport with our ideas of legal personhood."

 

I would think legal personhood would be when that person was no longer biologically dependent on another person, until then it is not really a separate being. At least until science can create an artificial womb I would think - but we are stuck with the old-fashioned way for now. That's my take on it.

[SquareOne]

I would think legal personhood would be when that person was no longer biologically dependent on another person, until then it is not really a separate being. At least until science can create an artificial womb I would think - but we are stuck with the old-fashioned way for now. That's my take on it.

 

I disagree with this idea.  In my view, the foetus is a separate being.  It has separate DNA.

 

That makes it different in nature to a woman's liver or kidney or heart.  It is not part of the woman.  It is connected to the woman.

 

My argument would be that dependancy makes the child no more part of the woman than a person with kidney problems is a part of their dialysis machine.

 

(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not equating the value of a woman with the value of a dialysis machine).

[Akheia]

If biology doesn't comport with our ideas of legal personhood, then I'm not sure how anybody could think that a construct of personhood for fetuses could be anything but subjective. Personhood is a bullshit red herring anyway. Even if someone is a person, nobody has the right to hijack another person's body for his own benefit. There are words for that process, but none of them are really nice. For me, considering how few late-term abortions there are (meaning abortions after 16+ weeks) are performed (one estimate I saw was around 1%-2%), the viability argument is also a red herring. The bulk of abortions happen before the fetus is even medically classed as a fetus. It's just mental masturbation to go on and on about viability as a reason to criminalize a medical procedure.

 

SquareOne, I use the exact same analogy when I talk about women being forced to have babies, you know. Let's say you did get chosen as a match for some bright-eyed young college student who desperately needed you to be hooked up to him for nine months? Does that college student have the right to demand this of you? What if you found out it would be painful and that the procedure would incur significant medical risks? What if you found out the procedure would take nearly a year and possibly cost you your job, your financial security, your primary relationship, and your social standing? What if you had no choice whatsoever in this process and the government just showed up at your door one fine afternoon with a truckload of medical machinery and forced you at gunpoint to sit down, shut up, and roll up your shirt sleeves?

 

There is a reason that we do not force people to donate their organs or blood even though the government has a vested interest in keeping its citizens alive and healthy. If a fetus isn't a person, I don't fucking care about its "rights." If it IS a person, well, so am I, and my right not to be hijacked trumps any rights you imagine it has.

[Ravenstar]

That's where we disagree. The interplay, biologically, between a fetus and the mother is profound. Separate DNA or not, it is dependent... and it derives a lot of post-conception attributes from the environment of the mother. You can not separate that or no one would be concerned about pregnant women smoking or the effect their physiological, psychological and emotional state has on a developing fetus.

 

Do you know that some women lose their teeth during pregnancy? The fetus will suck whatever it needs right out of the mother... calcium (from bones and teeth) and any other nutrient, whether that harms the mother or not? No, it's not separate - only the blood (converted for use by the placenta back and forth between mother and fetus though) and DNA - that's it.

 

No, you can't separate the fetal environment from the fetus. That's really splitting hairs there.

[SquareOne]

You've given some examples of dependency there.

 

But, for me they do not justify why the dependent foetus should be considered to be part of its mother, and not a seperate entity with legal person-hood.

 

So yes, that is where we disagree.

[mymistake]

 

I would think legal personhood would be when that person was no longer biologically dependent on another person, until then it is not really a separate being. At least until science can create an artificial womb I would think - but we are stuck with the old-fashioned way for now. That's my take on it.

 

I disagree with this idea.  In my view, the foetus is a separate being.  It has separate DNA.

 

That makes it different in nature to a woman's liver or kidney or heart.  It is not part of the woman.  It is connected to the woman.

 

My argument would be that dependancy makes the child no more part of the woman than a person with kidney problems is a part of their dialysis machine.

 

(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not equating the value of a woman with the value of a dialysis machine).

 

Some people have two seperate DNA.  Do they count as two people?  Maybe they sould be able to drive in the car pool lane by themselves.

 

Do tumors have different DNA?  Because that would be bad if tumors were people.  I don't know how tumor DNA works so I will have to look into that.

[SquareOne]

So, do you advocate access to legal abortion at any time up until labour?  (Directed to Ravenstar)

[SquareOne]

Some people have two seperate DNA.

 

Do they really??  I've never heard of that, how bizare.

[Akheia]

Why does it even matter if a fetus is a person? You're only wanting to establish personhood as a first step in your ultimate goal, which is criminalizing abortion. But even if you establish personhood, you're still left with demonstrating why a fetal person deserves more rights than a PERSON person does. You might pull the first task off, especially with low-information voters who don't know better, but you sure as hell won't manage the second. And even if you did manage to turn your country into a theocracy and push that one through, you're still left with the knowledge that when push comes to shove, women who don't agree with your lofty assessment will get abortions regardless of whether or not you "prove" a fetus is a person who gets extra rights over them, because unless this rush to lofty proclamations and extra rights comes with major societal changes, your criminalization of abortion won't lower abortion rates. All it'll do is kill women.

 

Like the fundies who show up here thinking that they're going to have the magic explanation that fixes every flaw in Christianity, forced-birthers have had 40 years to polish their rhetoric and try to strong-arm their views into people's consciences. And they haven't done a damn thing to actually lower abortion rates. Meanwhile, countries that actually do want to lower abortion rates are doing what actually works.

 

As to when I think abortion rights should be withdrawn, I believe that my consent is required for any use of my personal body, and that I can withdraw that consent at any time. But again, it's mental masturbation since most abortions happen well before that.

 

And, uh,  you didn't know about that about fused DNA? Look up "chimera" sometime. It's fascinating. Some people fuse their own twins into their own bodies and look perfectly normal but have different DNA in different parts of their bodies. There was a cool show about it a couple years ago. It plays merry hell with family law. So what about that?

[Galien]

 

You've given some examples of dependency there.

 

But, for me they do not justify why the dependent foetus should be considered to be part of its mother, and not a seperate entity with legal person-hood.

 

So yes, that is where we disagree.

 

You are a guy, and luckily you never have to live through the whole dilemma. I'm pretty sure you would see it differently if you did.

[mymistake]

 

Some people have two seperate DNA.

 

Do they really??

 

http://santacruz.hubpages.com/hub/People-with-Double-DNA-An-Overview-of-Chimeras

 

Yes really.