A friendly political question

[Pure]

addition

i want to make an important addition to my earlier post. i do NOT wish to give the impression that the "human person" issue [applied to the fetus] is the only factor to be considered in approaching abortion. that once you have a 'person,' the issue is clearcut and settled.

there is a common focus--esp. by men-- on the putative "rights" of that person.

in fact, almost everyone will concede that--at some point-- there is a person in the mother's womb; it doesn't turn into one upon delivery.

but there are other persons involved, and the mother is in a special position. even if one concedes full personhood, one does not, as a matter of course, give that person/entity a right to live at the sacrifice of the mother's life. and the mother, like every other adult, has a number of other rights, including privacy and autonomy.

judging by polls, most people are quite comfortable with rape and incest exceptions, even within tight abortion restrictions. these implicitly recognize rights, even predominant ones, of the *other* person--the mother-- involved.

the issue of who is listening to who in this debate is crucial, and whoever is advocating 'rights' as a basis to decide the issue, needs to consider the rights of all persons involved, and the specially crucial rights of the woman who would bear the child.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

What it comes down to is that no man has a right to impose a child on a woman. That's not negotiable. Not her husband, not her lover, not her father and definitely not some savage hiding in an alley. Where the crux of the matter may lie is within the woman's responsibility to herself. I have a problem with defining it for her but I can definitely feel contempt for a person who makes no attempt to prevent having to undergo a procedure that even the most ardent "Pro-Choice" advocate agrees should be avoided wherever possible. And I am happy to include the 'morning after' pill in the prevention category. All us sentient types occasionally do things that we know we shouldn't have done--usually the next day!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you, Bear, Thank you, Pure. *snf*

but I can definitely feel contempt for a person who makes no attempt to prevent having to undergo a procedure that even the most ardent "Pro-Choice" advocate agrees should be avoided wherever possible.

Can you imagine that person being responsible for a child's health and welfare for the next eighteen years? I can't.

If a woman aborts simply because she doesn't think her tummy goes well with that morning's nail polish-- all the better that she does, I would think. I wouldn't wish that mother on my worst enemy.

 

[DeeZire]

Thank you, Bear, Thank you, Pure. *snf*

Can you imagine that person being responsible for a child's health and welfare for the next eighteen years? I can't.

If a woman aborts simply because she doesn't think her tummy goes well with that morning's nail polish-- all the better that she does, I would think. I wouldn't wish that mother on my worst enemy.

I've always wondered how many unwanted children end up as murderers. In those cases, how do those murder victims fit into the "right to life" argument?

 

[TE999]

Every one of us have a basic right to do what we choose to this body we inhabit. Be it pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, smoking, sexual promiscuity,tattoos, piercing, etc. A woman ending a life within her is exercising her freedom of choice, no matter how repugnant it may be to others.

Too many children are brought into this world only to be abused, unwanted and unloved. Quite often terminating an unborn child is saving them from a life of misery and degradation.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I've always wondered how many unwanted children end up as murderers. In those cases, how do those murder victims fit into the "right to life" argument?

There's an interesting book called Freakonomics that posed almost that question. The book's author claims that Roe v. Wade effected a drop in the rate of violent crime among 12-17 year-olds, 12-17 years after its passage. This is because, he claims, that fewer "unwanted" children being born results in fewer troubled young adults who commit violent crimes. This article, however, disputes that conclusion on the basis of botched calculations and conflicting data points.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've always wondered how many unwanted children end up as murderers. In those cases, how do those murder victims fit into the "right to life" argument?

Many unwanted children are murdered after their birth. They are still unwanted, after all.

And those deaths can occur in far more horrific, protracted, ways than a D&C.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Deleted.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There is no such thing as a friendly political question.

 

[mikey2much]

Yeah, Stella, there are friendly political questions.

I could be that this is not one of them. The question in my mind was not the Abortion part of the problem; rather I thought the main point was the people demanding how they would draw the line about spending tax money for one Item. In this case Abortion, but what do you think would happen if I paid my taxes and put a note with my check that I didn’t want any of this to go toward trying to arrest me, or anybody else on drugs. Or maybe forbid the use of my tax dollars for any military spending because I don’t believe in war.

Although I do admit, when I tossed my little thread, I knew that it might cause a few ripples in the water. I also must say that I enjoyed reading the different responses. Some were very good.

 

[lisa123414]

First of all, in order to gain a modicum of sensitivity to the views of others, I suggest that the pro-choice proponents imagine, just for the sake of argument, the six-week’s gestation fetus as a two-year-old child, because that is how s/he is seen by many. Then try out your argument, that it would be more humane somehow to kill her or him now, than to let them suffer what will probably be a terrible childhood. I am very torn on the entire issue. Even in cases of rape, because the unborn child is certainly an innocent victim, and to claim that genetically they are doomed, to me reeks of science gone awry.
Sex and society still has a long way to go.


Edited to add: Yes, I know I have missed the point of this thread which was supposed to be about health care reform. I am not familiar with the sticking points, is health care reform hung-up on specifically funds for abortion, or funds for prevention, meaning birth control and morning after medication?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I would say that you need to acknowledge that a fetus is not a two year old child.

It doesn't matter if that's "the opinion of many;" it simply means that "many" have an opinion born ignorance.

Healthcare reform is hung up on where the money goes. ALL issues of women's health have been denigrated at one time or another during this discussion;vabortion is only one of them. And of course, it has nothing to do with actual abortion. It's all about not letting those dirty sluts do those disgusting things without just because they want to.

 

[lisa123414]

I would say that you need to acknowledge that a fetus is not a two year old child.

It doesn't matter if that's "the opinion of many;" it simply means that "many" have an opinion born ignorance.

Healthcare reform is hung up on where the money goes. ALL issues of women's health have been denigrated at one time or another during this discussion;vabortion is only one of them. And of course, it has nothing to do with actual abortion. It's all about not letting those dirty sluts do those disgusting things without just because they want to.

I acknowledge so, my post stated that if you want to walk in another's shoes, think of it this way.

Politics will always be hung up on where the money goes. The needs of society will always be greater than the supply of money.

Stella, I think very much of you, but can you imagine, spending nine months in discomfort and shame, so as to let an innocent child live? I imagine that although you passionately claim the rights of others, that you would do this.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella, I think very much of you, but can you imagine, spending nine months in discomfort and shame, so as to let an innocent child live? I imagine that although you passionately claim the rights of others, that you would do this.

No, lovie, I would abort. No qualms, no problem.

I passionately claim my right to myself.

I passionately claim your right to yourself. Your body, your choice.

If you feel this fetus has the potential for a life that makes your nine months of humiliation worth your while, I willingly support you in that.

I had an abortion in my early 20s. I have two children both of whom were deliberate and wanted, and I've spent today celebrating my daughter's 21st birthday. I do not regret the earlier decision, not for one moment. If I had been forced to bear that child I would never have been in a position to cherish my daughter and son, and witness them become intelligent, talented, motivated, loving adults-- and what a wonderful pleasure it's been, and continues to be!

That first time? That was never a child to me. Inside my body was a blastocyte that needed to be removed. And I have never, ever spent one moment imagining that as a living person. I am a living person. You are a living person. You can chose to host a fetus until it becomes a living person as I did twice-- or not, as I did once.


And beside all of that-- I'm not really all that female anymore.

 

[Stella_Omega]

ETA:

BlackShanglan's deleted post reminds me that the question of possible deaths after birth was nothing more than a side issue.

For me, the issue is that women must have the right to be absolutely selfish with their bodies.

We have never been sovereign entities, societally speaking. The notion that every human being with a womb must consider her or himself hostage to the good of everyone else first-- removes from her or his calculations all question of that old Christian invention Free Will. Only the human beings with penises generally get to think about themselves and what they can do as a whole and discrete entity. It takes a woman of enormous willpower-- and rage, usually, to continue driving her against society's expectations-- to be able to buck that huge pressure.

It's perfectly possible to be selfless in another direction, for that matter-- but dude if you get knocked up, your test pilot days, your cowboying, your CIA spying, your bridge construction days are numbered.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Quite so! That is the absolute of the matter. Once a child is born, that small person becomes the center of the parents' universe. It must. We, as a species, take so long to reach maturity and independence that we require an inordinate amount of caring and guidance. This is not a responsibility to be taken lightly. Why, otherwise, do courts take such serious measures to insure that child support is paid by the parent that is not in custody? If a woman does not want that responsibility, for the good of the species and for the good of the children she may eventually choose to bear, she must have the option to prevent its occurrence and do so without having to take vows of chastity in the process.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't have any tolerance for anti-abortion stances. I cannot empathise with it at all. The idea that an ounce or two of potentiated protein sitting atop a woman's pelvic structure is more important that she is-- is maddening to this person.

Thus I have inadvertently insulted my beloved horse-- but really. Anti choice is incredibly insulting. In all the most traditional senses of the word. And it's a personal insult. Me. My choice, My destiny, you would interfere with? Not even in theoretical discussion-- especially since Joe Lieberman is doing his motherfucking pig-squealing god-damnedest to make it a practical impossibility right now as we speak. I wish an ectopic pregnancy on him, I really do.

 

[Pure]

note to lisa

Stella, I think very much of you, but can you imagine, spending nine months in discomfort and shame, so as to let an innocent child live? I imagine that although you passionately claim the rights of others, that you would do this.

i think this question is not well posed. I can imagine a woman enduring shame to bear a rapist's baby. I can imagine a woman who, faced with the choice of her life or that of the baby being delivered, says, "save the baby, rather than me."

What i have trouble with is a law that says, "the woman MUST endure the shame of the rapist-caused pregnancy" or that says "the woman MUST sacrifice herself for a baby being delivered,"-- "must" meaning criminal penalties is she does otherwise. [I can, of course, imagine a person saying, 'it's my opinion that the woman is under a moral obligation to... [etc.]' but that is not the problem here]

Be as noble as you want; just don't put my spouse in jail, if when pregnant or delivering, she is less noble than you. [Though you're entitled to your opinion of her moral choice.]

As far as the nobility of bearing a rapist's baby, iirc, the Catholic Church in some chaotic African situations allowed (suggested?) nuns to go on the pill, because of the danger of being raped. I don't have current documentation right handy.

 

[oggbashan]

If we ignore the contentious subject of lobbying (abortion) that led to the original post, there is still the question of politicians being influenced by lobby groups.

In the US and the UK there are numerous well-funded groups that orchestrate massive efforts to ensure that legislation is passed, or not passed, to suit their particular issues. Is this democratic? Is it fair? Should it be allowed?

You might agree with the aims of some groups. You might disagree violently with the aims of others. But what influence have you or I as individual voters on the lawmakers?

Compared with the special interest lobbies? None.

Og

PS. As a member of numerous organisations I help support and fund many special interest lobbies for example countryside protection to employee's rights. As an individual member my only sanction against the policies of the organisations I belong to, is to resign as a member. I have done that in the past. Effect? Nil.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Without wanting to be unpleasant, might I point out that without lobbying groups, democracy is impossible? In order for a majority to 'rule' there has to be a group to make up the majority. As in the case of Og's membership in countryside organizations, any time we wish to influence our representatives we know full well that it will be more effective if we have a bunch of like-minded folk along. That's a lobbying group. A single voter whining and complaining might get sympathy, but a couple of dozen filling up the office waiting room all whining and complaining in chorus will get results. Even when the biggest political donors aren't the one who calls the shots, the largest group will. That's what democracy is all about. The fact that your idea of Right didn't prevail doesn't mean it isn't right but it definitely means that the other side marshelled more voters.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's lobbying by numbers-- the problem is that we lobby with dollars. And the most dollars are in the least number of hands.

 

[oggbashan]

Lobbying by numbers sometimes works, at least in the UK.

It worked for support of the Gurkhas. It didn't acheive everything that was wanted but it shamed the government into action.

However that is the exception. Most lobbying is by money.

Og

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That's lobbying by numbers-- the problem is that we lobby with dollars. And the most dollars are in the least number of hands.

That's the common wisdom, but the NRA, despite screams about Big Money Gun Makers, has built up one of the world's most powerful lobbies with numbers. Do the math. Firearms manufacturing is tiny potatoes. The number of companies and their net worth is a spit in the ocean. What the NRA does is organize membership, better than anyone else has ever been able to do. You want political results? There's the model!

And whether we like it or not, the Pro-Life groups have done a better job of organizing membership than the Pro-Choicer's. Have you written your Congress body, yet? If not, don't complain when things go against you. If you don't vote, you don't count.

 

[oggbashan]

UK Members of Parliament interests

Each Member of Parliament has to declare any money or gifts received.

Here is the statement of one, George Galloway (famous for appearing in the Big Brother programme):

GALLOWAY, George (Bethnal Green and Bow)


2. Remunerated employment, office, profession etc
Fees for hosting a radio show every Friday and Saturday night on Talk Sport Radio. (£100,001-£105,000)
Weekly column in Scottish Daily Record, One Central Quay, Glasgow G3 8DA (from 25 June 2007) (£25,001-£30,000)
3 July 2009, payment of £2,491.66 for 4 weekly columns. Hours: 6.5 hours. (Registered 13 October 2009)
Fee from Guardian newspaper, September 2008. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)
Fee for three appearances on 'Right Stuff', January 2009. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)
Fee from the Association of Tobacco Benevolent Fund for attending a fund raising event at Lords Cricket Ground on 11 June 2008. (£5,001-£10,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)
Fee for presenting Real Deal on Press TV, July 2008. (£15,001-£20,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)
Fee for presenting Real Deal on Press TV, September 2008. (£15,001-£20,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)
Fee for presenting 'Comment' on Press TV, September 2008. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)
Fee for speaking engagement at Wellington College on 27 January 2009. (Registered 1 July 2009)
Fee from Eurasia Media Forum for speaking at a conference in Kazakhstan, 21-24 April 2009. (£5,001-£10,000) Eurasia Media Forum paid for my flights and accommodation for two nights. (Registered 1 July 2009)
Fee from 'Orlandos', Manchester, UK, for a public speaking engagement on 11 May 2009. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 1 July 2009)


6. Overseas visits
29 June-2 July 2008, to Iran, to attend a reception as a guest of Press TV, who paid for transport and four nights' accommodation. (Registered 12 January 2009)
23-25 November 2008, to Syria, to attend a conference as a guest of The Professional Association Complex, who paid for transport and two nights' accommodation. (Registered 12 January 2009)
14 February-11 March 2009, I took part in a material aid convoy from London to Gaza, organised and funded by Viva Palestina. (Registered 24 March 2009)


9. Registrable shareholdings
(a) Miranda Media Ltd, which receives my income as a journalist, author and public speaker.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's the common wisdom, but the NRA, despite screams about Big Money Gun Makers, has built up one of the world's most powerful lobbies with numbers. Do the math. Firearms manufacturing is tiny potatoes. The number of companies and their net worth is a spit in the ocean. What the NRA does is organize membership, better than anyone else has ever been able to do. You want political results? There's the model!

And whether we like it or not, the Pro-Life groups have done a better job of organizing membership than the Pro-Choicer's. Have you written your Congress body, yet? If not, don't complain when things go against you. If you don't vote, you don't count.

I have posted several lists of grassroots progressive orgs. I can post them again if you need them.