Brownback: "Abortions for Rape Victims? I don't think s

[The Duchess of Zeon]

From what I've read, very few women have late-term abortions for 'random and frivolous' reasons. The accounts I've read are almost universally 'it was a difficult, agonising decision that affected me for years afterwards'.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when we develop the 'artificial womb' technology to support an embryo of any stage (up to and including a completely artificial pregnancy). The pro-life people will campaign to have every removed embryo raised artificially, and most mothers probably would not object to this, but would that cause and adoption crisis?

Yes, it would cause an adoption crisis. They'd have to be raised in state-run creches.

[Starglider]

Yes, it would cause an adoption crisis. They'd have to be raised in state-run creches.

Oh, I'm sure the pro-lifers would generously volunteer to <strike>brainwash</strike> raise them in their fine God-focused learning communes.

[SirNitram]

Yes, it would cause an adoption crisis. They'd have to be raised in state-run creches.

Oh, I'm sure the pro-lifers would generously volunteer to <strike>brainwash</strike> raise them in their fine God-focused learning communes.

No. No they wouldn't. Because they don't. Don't beleive the hype. Once it's born, they cease to give a shit.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

They probably don't even care about the fetus at all, but rather exerting some type of control over members of society.

I wonder if that's ultimately the agenda behind the extreme wings of pro-life.

[SirNitram]

They probably don't even care about the fetus at all, but rather exerting some type of control over members of society.

I wonder if that's ultimately the agenda behind the extreme wings of pro-life.

Of course! Stop 'immoral behavior', which includes sex outside of marriage and procreation.

[Uraniun235]

Why, if women have control over reproduction, then... then... then men might think it's the woman's responsibility, too! The men will all bail out on their families!

Not even fucking kidding, the "men might abandon their family responsibilities and stop supporting housewives" argument used to be a really big argument.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes, it would cause an adoption crisis. They'd have to be raised in state-run creches.

Wouldn't the same people who want to ban all abortion call massive state-run creches socialism and refuse to fund them?

[Redleader34]

On topic, Are these good justification for no abortion?

A. Society needs to protect the unborn less killing them results in self-destruction (social suicide)


B. Society must provide the right to live and the means to do this in dignity. (Guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence)

[Plekhanov]

On topic, Are these good justification for no abortion?

A. Society needs to protect the unborn less killing them results in self-destruction (social suicide)

There's hardly a shortage of people in the world, just the opposite in fact.

B. Society must provide the right to live and the means to do this in dignity. (Guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence)

Rights are something people have, a foetus is not a person.

There is also such a thing as a right to privacy and to exercise control over what happens to your own body, criminalising abortion denies women that right.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe a big burly black man should rape and knock up his daughters. See how he reacts then.

No, we need a Mexican illegal immigrant to knock up Pat Buchanan's daughter

[SpacedTeddyBear]

"You can't separate your political life and your Christian life," said Barry LeMay from San Jose, Calif.

I'm very tempted to look this stupid prick up in my local White Pages. Obviously this asshole has no idea that the job of our government officials in this country is to serve all of the people they represent, not force your own principles down their throats.

[Darth Wong]

"You can't separate your political life and your Christian life," said Barry LeMay from San Jose, Calif.

I'm very tempted to look this stupid prick up in my local White Pages. Obviously this asshole has no idea that the job of our government officials in this country is to serve all of the people they represent, not force your own principles down their throats.

People like this don't understand that American is supposed to be a pluralistic society. "Out of many, one". They think it's a "Christian nation" and that everyone else should just shut the fuck up and obey the Bible, or else they should leave.

[Big Orange]

I never understood why the Catholics abhor birth control or contraception

The bog-standard Vatican position is that sex and marriage exist only for procreation, not for recreation. Therefore, any and all sex should be for the sole purpose of conceiving children. Since birth control, abortion, and contraceptives all pretty much stem the production of children, the Catholic Church condemns them all. For a more thorough introduction, see here.

I don't agree with it, myself; in fact, I think you'll find that at least a significant minority of Catholics disagree, don't think about, or simply don't follow this particular teaching.

I hear in this forum that in Africa and other Third World countries where the Catholic Church has a notable presence they bar condoms for the sake of dumb ideology ("every sperm is sacred!") and perhaps millions of people are dying in consequence of that (as with early abortion, the fundie Christians are far more concerned with potential life than actual life).

and having recently had a bad personal experience with them, they're the most smug, inconsistent and backstabbing prickstained morons I ever came across.

Yeah, fuck you too.

I'm terribly sorry, I didn't mean all Catholics in general, but I really disliked this clique' of Catholics who were working a charity shop while I was with an recruitment agency - I didn't try to get involved in their weirdness, I attempted to keep an open mind, I tried to be as accommodating and helpful as possible in helping with their administration work. But one day they fucking sneaked behind me and lodged a made up complaint about my supposed "misconduct" (I can't remember doing anything) to my recruitment agency and before I knew it I was thrown out before I could defend my position properly - this happened relatively recently this year and I'm still in a very bad mood about this. So I've clarified my unpleasant run in with middle aged Catholics and why their actions sullied my opinion somewhat (or they were simply being backstabbing arseholes, one of the reasons why getting a proper job in the UK is a fucking joke these days).

And as abortion - I don't see any moral qualms in aborting very early foetuses, but after five months when the foetus is much more recognisable as a human being it morally becomes much more problematic, they are essentially a barely formed person in a symbiotic relationship with the mother (which is why mothers are emotionally damaged by aborting mature foetuses). And while newborns are mostly not self aware they are still people, even though they are not fully developed people and most humans have a fundamental natural instinct to protect our offspring at all costs.

[Turin]

Well, personhood ends up having an impact on utilitarian ethics. The modern form of Utilitarianism: Preference Utilitarianism, is affected by it. It is assumed that an organism with introspective awareness and social awareness can be greater affected by suffering than an organism which has neither.

Certainly. No argument there.

It's not a case that personhood is the ultimate criterion for being able to do anything to it. You can blend Preference and Hedonistic Utilitarianism for different levels of cognition. Many animals can experience pain, but I don't know if they can all comprehend it to the same level. Not all animals can have the same desires, preferences, etc. either.

This is essentially what I meant when I was speaking of a "continuum of consciousness." It's easy to see a break in the difference of capability for suffering of two widely separated organisms (humans vs fish, for example), but the difference becomes less the closer related the two organisms become -- humans vs apes, or adult humans vs fetal humans.

Because of this continuum, defining "personhood" as some kind of rubicon for abortion is always going to be an exercise in semantics. We can argue all day whether or not a particular fetus is a "person" at Day 213. But it will be easier to compare the preferences of the two primary individuals affected by an abortion decision (the mother and fetus) without bothering to define whether or not any given set of capacity for preference is "personhood."

Personhood is a shorthand for judging the capacity for preferences, comparing what one organism has to lose compared to another one.

You and I may see it as a shorthand, but in the context of the abortion debate in our society, the shorthand becomes a hindrance to the discussion.

I agree with Dawkin's argument largely as well. He seems to be a strong Utilitarian advocate. Did you know he's part of Singer's G.A.P? I thought that was neat.

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this term (G.A.P.), but now I have something to look up and learn about.

Many people don't approve of the classical utilitarian opinion originally offered by Dawkins and Singer, which is one reason why he developed the new Preference Utilitarian/Classical model. The implications for the treatment of non-human animals wasn't accepted. They had to find a way to separate humans from other animals by expanding the utilitarian framework. No one would accept that you should treat all animal pain equally, which is what utilitarianism originally would require given the assumption that all animals that could experience it.

It sounds like we're getting more into the history of the development of Utilitarian theory rather than the theory itself, which I'll have to confess I'm a little ignorant about. I wasn't aware there were Utilitarian models that don't give weighting to capacity for suffering... I'll have to be more careful about my use of the term in the future.

[Cairber]

they are essentially a barely formed person in a symbiotic relationship with the mother (which is why mothers are emotionally damaged by aborting mature foetuses).

Parasitic is a more apt term. The mother gains nothing physically. Her nutrient supplies are taken, her vision becomes impaired, her gums bleed and nose is stuffy from hormones, water is retained and heart burn is very common, her digestive system is a mess from hormones...this list goes on and on.

How exactly do you feel the symbiotic relationship leads to "emotional damage" after late abortions?

[Big Orange]

they are essentially a barely formed person in a symbiotic relationship with the mother (which is why mothers are emotionally damaged by aborting mature foetuses).

Parasitic is a more apt term. The mother gains nothing physically. Her nutrient supplies are taken, her vision becomes impaired, her gums bleed and nose is stuffy from hormones, water is retained and heart burn is very common, her digestive system is a mess from hormones...this list goes on and on.

I guess "parasite" is a more apt term after all, although heavy pregnency is relatively brief as the foetus rapidly grows into a complete infant before birth.

How exactly do you feel the symbiotic relationship leads to "emotional damage" after late abortions?

Are you fucking kidding me? I think the mother and unborn child form a bond as soon as the child moves about within the womb and you have to take into account the profound evolutionary mechanism that makes the mother protect her unborn child at all costs, when it essentially becomes it's own entity...

[Sephirius]

they are essentially a barely formed person in a symbiotic relationship with the mother (which is why mothers are emotionally damaged by aborting mature foetuses).

Parasitic is a more apt term. The mother gains nothing physically. Her nutrient supplies are taken, her vision becomes impaired, her gums bleed and nose is stuffy from hormones, water is retained and heart burn is very common, her digestive system is a mess from hormones...this list goes on and on.

I guess "parasite" is a more apt term after all, although heavy pregnency is relatively brief as the foetus rapidly grows into a complete infant before birth.

How exactly do you feel the symbiotic relationship leads to "emotional damage" after late abortions?

Are you fucking kidding me? I think the mother and unborn child form a bond as soon as the child moves about within the womb and you have to take into account the profound evolutionary mechanism that makes the mother protect her unborn child at all costs, when it essentially becomes it's own entity...

Oh, man the irony here is ridiculous.

[Cairber]

Are you fucking kidding me? I think the mother and unborn child form a bond as soon as the child moves about within the womb and you have to take into account the profound evolutionary mechanism that makes the mother protect her unborn child at all costs, when it essentially becomes it's own entity...

First off, your post stated that the "emotional damage" stemmed from what you called "a symbiotic relationship."

In case you forgot:

they are essentially a barely formed person in a symbiotic relationship with the mother (which is why mothers are emotionally damaged by aborting mature foetuses).

YOu have yet to demonstrate to me two things:

1) Emotional damage results from late term abortions (this sounds a lot like how catholics like to spout on about PASS, ignoring the fact that many many women have an abortion and move on with their lives, up to and including 20 weeks- which is after movement can be felt). Your statement also, in my reading of it, seemed to claim that all women who abort 'mature' fetuses feel this way.

2) That emotional damage stems from, what you call, a "symbiotic relationship."



To me, you are just making too many blanket statements. Not all mothers want to protect their children. Not all mothers bond during pregnancy. Not all mothers experience emotional problems after choosing an abortion. Not all emotional distress stemming from the loss of a child is caused by hormones and space sharing; sometimes it is just the idea of what the future would have held and now it doesn't. To me, you are painting with too wide a brush.

[Cairber]

although heavy pregnency is relatively brief as the foetus rapidly grows into a complete infant before birth.

What does this mean exactly? What is "heavy pregnancy" and what do you define as "relatively brief"?



And how is it a "complete infant" before birth?

[Skelron]

Parasitic is a more apt term. The mother gains nothing physically. Her nutrient supplies are taken, her vision becomes impaired, her gums bleed and nose is stuffy from hormones, water is retained and heart burn is very common, her digestive system is a mess from hormones...this list goes on and on.

How exactly do you feel the symbiotic relationship leads to "emotional damage" after late abortions?

No parasitic is a very insulting and dismissive term that really gets me mad, it's a term that is likely to alienate.

When my Sister Miscarried I didn't, and she didn't, lose a parasite that had invaded her body. I lost my unborn Nephew and she lost her unborn Son. Thats not a scientific viewpoint, thats the viewpoint of her emotional state, for the rest of her life, she will at times mourn that lost child, and when you use the term Parasite, it feels like you are spitting at that loss and trying to lessen it in someway.

I do support abortion, and will continue to do so, but I hate that term, because in using it, you are seemingly dismissing a very real loss that people can suffer through. At least thats how I see it, so before you phrase your argument in that way, do try and think. You can lose an argument despite having the facts on your side, because people are not entirely rational beings.

(As a side point, my sister has since given birth to a wonderful baby girl.)

[Skelron]

Doh and a Addition, I am not neccersary arguin that you are wrong scientifically, just that, the choice of words seems so absolute, that it can be insulting. There is of course a differance between the planned/welcomed pregnency and the unplanned and unwanted one.

This will of course affect the emotional state of the woman, when well they have an abortion in this case, it just strikes me that classing the fetus as a Parasite in all cases, is a poorly considered move.

[Spin Echo]

When my Sister Miscarried I didn't, and she didn't, lose a parasite that had invaded her body. I lost my unborn Nephew and she lost her unborn Son. Thats not a scientific viewpoint, thats the viewpoint of her emotional state, for the rest of her life, she will at times mourn that lost child, and when you use the term Parasite, it feels like you are spitting at that loss and trying to lessen it in someway.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the proper way to deal with a woman that miscarried and is greiving that loss is to say "Oh well, it was just a parasite. You're better off without it"

However, the effects of a fetus upon a woman are parasitic and that is something to keep in mind when discussing abortion. All too often anti-abortionists will say that when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy that she should simply give it up for adoption, ignoring all the unpleasant side effects and disruptions that pregnancy causes in a woman's life.

[Skelron]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the proper way to deal with a woman that miscarried and is greiving that loss is to say "Oh well, it was just a parasite. You're better off without it"

However, the effects of a fetus upon a woman are parasitic and that is something to keep in mind when discussing abortion. All too often anti-abortionists will say that when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy that she should simply give it up for adoption, ignoring all the unpleasant side effects and disruptions that pregnancy causes in a woman's life.

Oh I get that logically, I guess through... Argh I am not sure really, I get what he was saying logically, and I get the goal, it just... Well, it's worded in such a way to leave no wiggle room on his part. At the very least, if the argument was 'an unwanted...' etc it would seem somehow more fitting.

I know such a thing is not logical or scientific and I am likely falling into Style fallacy here, but... It just seems when you are talking about such a highly charged topic, as human reproduction you have to cover everything that can occur, you have to take ino account the various emotional responses people will have to the topic. Does that make any sense or am I just being a bit of a pain in the ass here?

[Spin Echo]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the proper way to deal with a woman that miscarried and is greiving that loss is to say "Oh well, it was just a parasite. You're better off without it"

However, the effects of a fetus upon a woman are parasitic and that is something to keep in mind when discussing abortion. All too often anti-abortionists will say that when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy that she should simply give it up for adoption, ignoring all the unpleasant side effects and disruptions that pregnancy causes in a woman's life.

Oh I get that logically, I guess through... Argh I am not sure really, I get what he was saying logically, and I get the goal, it just... Well, it's worded in such a way to leave no wiggle room on his part. At the very least, if the argument was 'an unwanted...' etc it would seem somehow more fitting.

Hint: Cairber is a woman. I'm pretty sure she meant in the cases of unwanted, but I'm sure she will clarify later.

I know such a thing is not logical or scientific and I am likely falling into Style fallacy here, but... It just seems when you are talking about such a highly charged topic, as human reproduction you have to cover everything that can occur, you have to take ino account the various emotional responses people will have to the topic. Does that make any sense or am I just being a bit of a pain in the ass here?

I see your point and obviously particular situations will best be handled with different words than others. However, in most abortion debates, as this thread is or has turned into anyway, I feel parasitic is appropriate to use to drive home the effect of a fetus on a woman's body. If the woman wants to have a baby and is willing to put up with all side effects pregnancy entails, that's great. But if she doesn't want to be pregnant, parasitic is a good description of what she's going through and a good counter to the "why don't you just give it up for adoption crowd?".

[Skelron]

Hint: Cairber is a woman. I'm pretty sure she meant in the cases of unwanted, but I'm sure she will clarify later.

Goes very redfaced at this, my humblest apology to Caiber about the gender mixup

I see your point and obviously particular situations will best be handled with different words than others. However, in most abortion debates, as this thread is or has turned into anyway, I feel parasitic is appropriate to use to drive home the effect of a fetus on a woman's body. If the woman wants to have a baby and is willing to put up with all side effects pregnancy entails, that's great. But if she doesn't want to be pregnant, parasitic is a good description of what she's going through and a good counter to the "why don't you just give it up for adoption crowd?".

Perhaps, meh I'm going to concede because my point is a purely subjective one, and really not adding anything to this topic. Yes in this case I can see why the term is used, So meh, I'm not really going to win a style debate here, and it's a fair term from a purely objective POV.