The Morning After Pill & Politics

Politics International Politics
41

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“Bodo”]
Your argument about the child’s prospects are likewise centered on the assumption the fetus is not a human being. If the child is born, and it is apparent it has little prospects in life, that does not then give the parents the right to kill it. I know I keep coming back to the same question, but it seems to me that all of the other issues are tangential: is that mass of tissue a person or isn’t it?[/quote][/quote]

So, any thoughts, or are you just going to keep repeating the question?

42

There you go.

43

So…you got any thoughts, or were you just here to take cheap jabs? :slight_smile:

44

[quote=“Hobbes”]
For me, the idea of framing abortion as a social policy question, or “women’s rights” issue, has always seemed rather bizarre. The only questions that matters is whether the action results in a loss of human life.

…

All the rest is just contemptible political posturing.[/quote]

Hobbes, dude, sir,
Although I agree the understanding of what makes a life human will also be important to any discussion, I am gonna have to disagree with you here. The issue of a woman’s right to control her body is clearly important for women and men alike. Consider this analogy (Which is not mine.)

It is discovered that my liver is the only match for a liver-diseased child from West Xylophone (or for a homeless vet living on the south side, or for a prison inmate). I could donate half and keep half, and both of us would probably be fine. If I don’t share my liver, the potential recipient will surely die.

Can I be forced to donate half my liver to Ralphy?

Does the answer change if the recipient would only have a 50 percent survival rate even with the new pink liver?

Also Is THE ONLY issue here whether my decision results in the loss of a human life ? Or does it also matter who decides what I do with my body?

To me it’s the same question with abortion. Can the state compel one person to use their body to support the life of another?

45

Bravo!! Thank you for articulating my feelings/thoughts on this topic. :bravo: :notworthy:

46

It wasn’t a cheap jab, just poorly written sarcasm ‘:oops:’

You have dealt with the issue, eloquently and at length, as has Bodo, Muzha Man, Jaboney, Hobbes and other posters on the thread- it seems apparent that everyone knows what the question is, so why do you keep repeating it?
We get it!

47

Once “human life” is legally defined all other issues come into focus fairly easily. Arguing legalities and social mores without a fundamental legal definition of life in place though is an exercise in the futility of circular logic.

It’s argued that “human life” can’t be legally defined because it’s just too difficult. The reality is that law can’t function without at least a defacto definition of humanity in place and the current working definition of the beginning of “human life” is about the crudest imaginable – from the moment the fetus exits the birth canal.

48

Bravo!! Thank you for articulating my feelings/thoughts on this topic. :bravo: :notworthy:[/quote]

This is coming close to “babies are parasites” train of thought. :s

49

Two women dead from RU-486

edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/03/1 … index.html

50

[quote]The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.

“If you hand out contraception to single women, we’re saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that,” Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.[/quote]

kansascity.com/mld/kansascit … 098907.htm

Shorter Missouri Right To Life:
If you don’t want children, you have to have them.
If you do want children, you can’t have them.

51

Does anyone have a clue as to what “human life” is in a way which can be logically described?

52

Bravo!! Thank you for articulating my feelings/thoughts on this topic. :bravo: :notworthy:[/quote]

(1) In my view, this is an excellent question. Bodo: I think you did a good job of making the point --I could already see where you were coming from-- but s.b. did manage to make it even more concise. Anyway, cheers both.

(2) The argument the two of you are making is very similar to one propounded by a certain school of libertarian political theorists regarding abortion. For most libertarians, rights to one’s own property (including one’s own body) are of paramount importance, and affirmative duties to support the life of another are generally believed to be unjust.

(3) Although people have debated this view from a number of angles, one of most important is illustrated by the following example (where even hardcore libertarians will often admit that an affirmative obligation to support the life of another can sometimes arise):

[quote=“Some crazy libertarian giving a hypothetical once”]

I own and airplane, and invite some people to come flying with me.

  • The plane is my property. I have a right to decide who can use it.

  • I have no affirmative obligation to allow anyone aboard my airplane.

  • We get 5000 feet off the ground.

  • I object to a joke one of my guests makes about Michael Moore’s weight.

  • I tell him to get off my airplane. He refuses to leave.

(If you want to avoid the affirmative act of “pushing the guy out” in the hypo, feel free to imagine that the plane experiences pressurization difficulties, and I refuse to give him an oxygen mask to breath. “The mask belongs to me. I don’t have to use my mask to save another’s life.”
)[/quote]

[color=blue]Question: Am I obligated to give this person use of my airplane until it lands, or can I push him out the door of my property right now?[/color]

Even for a hardcore libertarian who prize individual rights above all else, this question becomes difficult. Cases of “compelled support” can be very different in the case of non-rape pregnancy on the one hand, and in your hypo of your homeless West Xylophonian prison inmate on the other.

Another set of questions that comes up is this:

[b][color=blue]Questions:

  • How important is it that I invited the person onto my plane?
  • If he had snuck on without my permission would it be okay to push him out?
  • What if he were a baby and had snuck on without my permission, but it wasn’t his fault?
    [/color][/b]

Questions like these are what this viewpoint considers in cases of abortion due to rape. The argument being “No affirmative duty exists to support the other life, because you did not choose to do something that you knew could result in that life existing.”

I’m running out of time here… so just one last question:

[color=blue]
Question:
What would happen if the supply of oxgyen in the masks was limited, and thus it would put your own life in danger to provide support for the guest on your airplane? [/color]

You see where this is going, of course. Then again, abortion in cases where the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother would not be a crime even under most non-libertarian understandings, since the preservation of one’s own life is universally recognized as a defense to murder.

I think all these interesting questions.

So perhaps I overstated my position in saying that only one question even existed? Maybe. But I am very reluctant to distance myself too much from it. Why? Because I am convinced that it is by far the most important question. It is the base question. And I still believe that all too often it is “skipped over” so that people can call each-other “immoral baby killer” and “backward misogynist” and whatever else – all without discussing where most of them really disagree. Name-calling and demonizing the other side may be great at raising money for lobbying groups and political parties – but it often does very little to help us come to the right answer. :s

Anyway, I’m out of time. So here’s my quick wrap-up of my thoughts on the “no affirmative duty to support” argument:

[color=black]1. A person has no general affirmative duty to use their body (or anything else that is theirs) to save the life of another.

  1. A person may, in some cases, assume such affirmative duty through that person’s actions. [/color]

H

53

Bravo!! Thank you for articulating my feelings/thoughts on this topic. :bravo: :notworthy:[/quote]

This is coming close to “babies are parasites” train of thought. :s[/quote]

JD, I really respect your views - though am on the other side of the fence many times - fetuses ARE parasites to some extent. Go back in the thread and take a look at the article I posted regarding this very thing. The fetus TAKES what nutrients it needs from the mother, and she gets whatever is left over. That is why it is IMPERATIVE for pregnant women to take super multivitamins, and eat a balanced diet - because the little lima bean growing inside is literally stealing things like Calcium and Iron and so on from the mother. In fact, pregnancy is an immunosuppressed state. In other words, the placenta releases chemicals that dampen the mother’s immune system, so her cells do NOT attack the fetus - as the mother’s cells will recognize the fetus as NON-self and attack and destroy otherwise.

EDIT: Hobbes, nice post. I am thinking about your questions.

Bodo

54

[quote=“jdsmith”]Two women dead from RU-486

edition.CNN.com/2006/HEALTH/03/1 … index.html[/quote]

JD - come on - this is a tangent. But, I’ll play . . . a little . . . we all know that all drugs have risks associated with them. Especially, if not used as directed or not monitored by a health professional as needed. It’s unfortunate that 2 women have died, how many have taken the drug and had no serious physiological sequelae? That might be a better stat to be familiar with don’t you think rather than employing scare tactics or inferring that because 2 women died from using the drug it is unsafe to be used by anyone.

Bodo

55

I’m always confused by these hypothetical analogies. Because there are very detail statistics on abortion these days.

Backgound of women seeking abortion
60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term “abortion”).

Reasoning in the USA for abortions
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

So who should not be given access to the morning after pill?

56

[quote=“Bodo”][quote=“jdsmith”]Two women dead from RU-486

edition.CNN.com/2006/HEALTH/03/1 … index.html[/quote]

JD - come on - this is a tangent. But, I’ll play . . . a little . . . we all know that all drugs have risks associated with them. Especially, if not used as directed or not monitored by a health professional as needed. It’s unfortunate that 2 women have died, how many have taken the drug and had no serious physiological sequelae? That might be a better stat to be familiar with don’t you think rather than employing scare tactics or inferring that because 2 women died from using the drug it is unsafe to be used by anyone.

Bodo[/quote]

Just bringing the news bodo; not a scare tactic. I have yet to state my opinion on this subject in this thread. The way the public views this drug may determine when and where and how it will be available.

As for the babies as parasites thing: I don’t think unborn offspring qualify as parasites. Parasites are totally different creatures: leeches and cows; tapeworms and people. When have you heard someone say,“Hey Joe, you’ve got a big ol tapeworm, better take a multivitamin?” No, parasites, once identified, are removed and or killed. I think it’s a bit too easy to call a fetus a parasite (and I know you did not) of some sort to justify an abortion.

peace

57

The real question is why, after thirty years, do people still engage in this futile debate over the right to control one’s own body versus the right to life?

Nary an argument made here hasn’t been made a thousand times or more since Roe v. Wade was decided without the slightest discernible effect.

The answer must be that both sides are arguing from different premises and don’t realize it.

The pro-choice side appears to be arguing from the premise that the highest good is the right to control one’s own body and the pro-life side clearly argues from the premise that innocent human life has an absolute right to live that supersedes almost any other right.

Once you accept either of these premises as paramount, arguments about human life or fundamental self-determination are beside the point.

58

Is termination not the ultimate in terms of risk to fetal health?

59

[quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“ac_dropout”]
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
[/quote]

Is termination not the ultimate in terms of risk to fetal health?[/quote]

Is that a PC way of saying there’s something wrong with the kid? Downs Syndrome or dwarfism or something like that? :s

60

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“ac_dropout”]
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
[/quote]

Is termination not the ultimate in terms of risk to fetal health?[/quote]

Is that a PC way of saying there’s something wrong with the kid? Downs Syndrome or dwarfism or something like that? :s[/quote]

I think it’s the PC way of justifying eugenics.