http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9937350 Comments On: Savage Love by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 14:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by basic anatomy]]> Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:48:19 -0700 The Stranger That is a somewhat absurd statement in my mind.
Abortion's a medical procedure, and an essential one.

Okay first of all.... comparing a hair and a fetus is insane in my mind. A hair does not have it's own brain and nervous system and ability to experience pain and suffering. That's the salient point and for that reason: analogy fail.

Back to abortion policy... unless I'm getting my math wrong 12 weeks is three months. Thats quite a while to be pregnant and not notice.

I would prefer that women do it as soon after they find out as possible, but I would not be fully comfortable suggesting limits that force women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.

That's the difference between seeing the law as a "tool" versus seeing the law as some sort of handbook of what I think is right or wrong.

Women should have the right to choose. I would never want to change that. But it is, in a sense, a licence to kill and therefore something that should be respected by the owners of those rights.

I'm going to go right ahead and assume that in all these scenarios you think the man's opinion and feelings are 100% unimportant as well?
Posted by mydriasis]]> Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:08:18 -0700 The Stranger
I'm not sure why you say that a fetus is not dependent on the mother right before birth. It's getting nutrients and oxygen from the mother: in what sense is it not dependent?

Your so-called 'sadistic' abortion wouldn't disturb me at all. No more than it would disturb you if someone 'sadistically' plucked a hair off his arm because he wants power over those cells and follicles. Fetuses should only live as long as the mother wants. If it's in your body, taking your resources, you have the absolute right to terminate -- otherwise you're forced into being pregnant.

Would it change your mind on abortion if we had a method that could be shown to be completely painless?

As far as the 12-week line: some women don't even realize they're pregnant till later than that. Some women don't have the money for an abortion and need the time to get it or save it. Some women may have a major change in their lives -- a breakup, death in the family, losing a job, a sick relative -- and suddenly it no longer makes sense to have a kid.

(Those are the kind of arguments that most pro-choicers make, but they bother me a little because people shouldn't need a good reason to control their body at any time, and it's a little scary and disturbing to me to think that someone needs to justify their desire not to be pregnant anymore. Bans on sex-selective abortion are another example of someone not approving of women's choices to control their bodies.)
Posted by BlackRose]]> Sat, 01 Oct 2011 07:20:59 -0700 The Stranger Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:52:49 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Hunter78]]> Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:23:14 -0700 The Stranger
I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured the 'sweetie' was sass and not condescension. ;)

Yeah I'm not surprised when I come off as 'male' a lot of my personality traits are traditionally masculine.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:52:23 -0700 The Stranger Actually I was just curious if you were male because I think your views could go either way, regardless if you have children or abortions or not. That's rightfully your decision.
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:23:01 -0700 The Stranger
"if you're inside someone else, or dependent on someone else's body"

Those are two seperate things. That's why I reference viability way back when and you said it didn't matter. It appears to me that you're conflating viability and location. Certainly right before birth that child is no longer dependant on the mother, but they are still IN her.

I think all things that are alive are worthy of compassion in some degree. And most certainly things capable of perceiving pain. For example, I think killing an animal to eat it is fine, but killing an animal just to see something die is... well.. unethical.

To your point, if all abortion is by definition ethical... what if someone chooses to have one to fufil some sort of sadistic bent? You may not perceive a fetus as alive or human but many people do, especially as birth nears. What if someone said "I want to terminate that pregnancy as late as possible because I want to feel powerful and it would give me a rush to end a human life". Would that not disturb you?

As for where the line should be... I'm really not sure. Obviously I would prefer that women do it as early as possible, and before 12 weeks would certainly be nice.

Maybe I'm missing something but I see no reason that a women should be sitting around pregnant all that time with a child they don't actually want?

Finally, auntie...

No, I'm female. And I actually kind of found that question to be offensive because I assume you were waiting for me to say I was male so you could launch into some sort of tongue clicking about how men just don't understand women's rights.

I care a lot about women's rights, but I also respect other women enough to have high standards for their ethics and how they behave.

I assume you will now want to ask me if I've ever been pregnant or had children or an abortion and those are not questions I am comfortable answering a stranger on the internet about, so please hold off.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:22:21 -0700 The Stranger
I think this discussion pretty much proves, once and for all, that there are few things clearly in "black and white".
Me, I'm the reigning Queen of Gray Area, with a little help from Miss Clairol.
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:54:27 -0700 The Stranger
I completely understand: you support the legal right to abortion but think it's sometimes unethical. That's what I meant by saying "anti-abortion" though I guess that was a confusing term for it. There isn't a simple term for "thinks that abortion is unethical sometimes" vs. "thinks abortion is always ethical."

I agree that personhood develops gradually over time. I still don't see why birth is arbitrary: before that time, the fetus is within someone else's 'zone of control.' Could you explain what you think makes a fetus worthy of compassion?

I understand that a fetus has different DNA, fingerprints, etc. I just don't see why it matters. And yes, it is about where someone is: if you're inside someone else, or dependent on someone else's body, you don't have the ethical right to stay alive because it's trumped by the ethical right of someone else to control their body and what's within. I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction: I just think that the right to control what's within your body trumps other issues (as well as a fetus being very very low on the personhood continuum). No one should be forced to be pregnant, which is why I'm opposed to the 24-week line.

If you want abortion to occur as early as possible, wouldn't you support a 12-week line even more (as some European countries have)?
Posted by BlackRose]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:28:06 -0700 The Stranger as arbitrary, but it still is arbitrary, as you hinted at but won't admit.

The fact of the matter is, the idea that a human being is not a human being, but simply a component of your body one milisecond and a full-fledged human being worthy of rights another second isn't biologically true, or ethically true in my mind. You seem to think that a baby isn't a full-fledged human being the moment they're born, so at least there's consistency there. Basically, you're agreeing with me that personhood isn't a binary entity, it is instead gradual and that's where there's tricky grey areas. I just believe that the things that make a person worthy of compassion happen earlier than you do.

As for the 24 weeks, I believe that if an abortion is to occur, it should occur as early as possible, I don't know when a human being is able to perceive pain but I would like to avoid that, if at all possible.

Wouldn't you?

Like I said, it's not religious, it's biology. You think that it's perfectly ethical to end the life of a human being if they are one millisecond away from being born. That human isn't "her body" it's just "in" her body. Different brain, different hands, different fingers and toes, different DNA. The difference isn't "who's body" it is, in my mind, it's where that person is. At that point, anyway.

So it's not the same as the difference between my body and your body even if we're a millimeter away. It's the same as in the living room it's ethical to kill me and in the kitchen it's not.

Like I said, and you don't seem to get it... I'm not arguing against the right for people to have an abortion, whatever the reason, I'm arguing that in some cases it wouldn't be an ethical thing to do. It would, however, be more ethical than keeping that baby.

I live in Canada, in a large city. I have seen anti-abortion billboards in the States, I have never seen anything like that here. I've never seen a pro-life rally, I've never seen a pro-life ad, and though there certainly are religious people here, they aren't a politically significant lobby. I have never worried that I, or anyone I care about would need to have an abortion and not be allowed to have one.

That is why I'm comfortable pondering the nuanced ethics and moving on from what I believe is a knee-jerk reaction on your part. You claimed I have an "anti-abortion" argument. I don't.

Let me put it this way.

There are things it is a dick thing to say. If someone says one of those things I might say "hey, it was a dick thing for you to say that".

That is not the same as challenging free speech. There are things that are mean (and yes, unethical!) to say, but pointing out that they are unethical is not the same as saying a person shouldn't have the right to say them.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:08:39 -0700 The Stranger
As far as ethics, I do think that people have the ethical right to control their own body. In other words, it's always ethical to do what you want with your own body. So I don't think abortion is ever wrong under any circumstance.

Where do you live that has no religious nutjobs? Again, I am really not understanding your anti-abortion argument if it's not a religious one.

As I said, I don't know about infanticide. It's a tricky issue. It doesn't personally bother me emotionally, but in the abstract, it might indeed be a lesser-of-two-evils. It's definitely much better than killing a 3 year old, say.

@281: The 24-week line is only the "current delineation" in some US states. Others have earlier or later lines, and some states have no abortion restrictions at all. I think most other countries have earlier lines as well.

@282: Why do you think 24 weeks is a better line than birth? Can you see my point that birth isn't as arbitrary because that's the point where a baby is no longer inside another person, and so the issue of controlling your own body isn't in play anymore?
Posted by BlackRose]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2011 05:04:26 -0700 The Stranger Posted by KateRose]]> Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:25:37 -0700 The Stranger But it is, again, arbitrary. We need to impose arbitrary lines to make laws about things like this, but I think any rational person knows that no magical thing happens at 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:37:42 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by avast2006]]> Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:32:09 -0700 The Stranger
Like I said, I believe the scenarios you suggested should be "a right" but not that they "are right" and there's absolutely a difference. The law needs arbitrary lines, reality and ethics are more nuanced. The law says age of consent happens at the stroke of midnight on a certain day, but certainly a person isn't a horribly unethical monster at 11:59 and a normal well-adjusted individual at 12:00 AM. Or do you believe that too, because the "alternative" is to do away with age-of-consent completely.

I think infanticide is absolutely wrong.

But for the record, I'm talking about the context of where I live, where there's no access problem whatsoever and no religious nutjobs trying to repeal these rights.

So again... you think infanticide is not a lesser-of-two evils? It's a non-evil?
Posted by mydriasis]]> Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:22:09 -0700 The Stranger
I think what's troubling you is that we currently consider killing a newborn to be a horrible crime deserving of life imprisonment. This doesn't make sense, because the end result is basically the same as if the woman had had an abortion instead. I think the inconsistency is on that end: killing an unwanted newborn is not as bad as killing an actual developed person.
Posted by BlackRose]]> Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:54:31 -0700 The Stranger
@Blackrose: You think that's the same? Ok. So if a women is in labour and 1 millisecond away from giving birth to a living breathing "baby" but because it's still a fetus she could in theory end the life of that "fetus" somehow if she wanted and it would be as inconsequential as pulling a tooth because it is still "her body".
Posted by mydriasis]]> Tue, 27 Sep 2011 05:22:48 -0700 The Stranger Posted by BlackRose]]> Tue, 27 Sep 2011 01:20:18 -0700 The Stranger Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:56:18 -0700 The Stranger My point applies there as well.

To say that [it is perfectly moral to end the life of a being] the millisecond before they leave the birth canal and [it is a tricky moral question about whether or not to end their life] the millisecond after is EXTREMELY arbitrary. You truly don't realize that?

You think that is, indeed, a clear black and white?
Posted by mydriasis]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:40:07 -0700 The Stranger
Before birth, a fetus is physically inside a woman's body. It's her right to control her own body. After birth, the baby is physically separate. Inside/outside. Fetus/baby. That is a clear, black-and-white biological distinction. That's why there's nothing wrong with abortion, but infanticide is a trickier question.

However, being a person with human rights, versus a non-person, isn't a clear or biological distinction: it's a moral and a social one. That's a shades-of-grey issue. A newborn infant is not a full person who is a member of a moral community. An adult is. There's a gradual transition.
Posted by BlackRose]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:20:40 -0700 The Stranger I don't mind a little doofus-bashing, myself, except that in
a battle of wits, they're usually unarmed.
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:56:08 -0700 The Stranger
Biology doesn't always like to make neat and tidy distinctions and seperations. The law does. Religion does. Biology does not. Much like "girl" and "boy" aren't always black and white, neither are "baby" and "fetus".

Please reread, regarding the muddiness of this distinction...

Some babies are born premature, do they then become "persons" before those that are carried to term? Is a 8 months old fetus a "non-person" on par with a tooth and a 1-month premature baby is worthy of respect and dignity? Is the head a "baby's head" and the feet a "fetus' feet" midway through birth? The head to be cherished and the feet to be discarded at will? What about a C-section, do they become a person upon incision?

You are pretending something is black and white when really there are gradations of grey.

To say that a person is a trivial clump of cells the millisecond before they leave the birth canal and are a "person, having human rights, part of a moral community, worthy of respect and dignity" the millisecond after is EXTREMELY arbitrary. You truly don't realize that?
Posted by mydriasis]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:38:52 -0700 The Stranger
@270: How is birth not a biological separation? Before birth, a woman has a fetus in her body. After birth, it's a separate and disconnected organism that's breathing and making noise and exposed to the world. Did you mean "secular" in your comment? Presumably as an atheist you only care about secular distinctions.

I just don't understand why you find some reasons morally repugnant, or, put another way, why you care about a fetus.

I don't think I suggested that viability was relevant. After all, some day we may have incubators with which any fetus is viable, even newly conceived ones. And babies aren't really "viable" without a lot of support and, often, technology. Some sick or disabled people aren't either but they're still people.

You hint at a difficult question: a mother, perhaps without abortion access, kills or abandons her recent newborn. Is this worse than abortion? The end result is pretty much the same. As you point out, a newborn isn't much of a person either. But it's not a right to kill or abandon a newborn, the way controlling your own body is.

There is a case to be made that infanticide isn't wrong, or at least not as wrong as killing someone old enough to talk and think. But we as a society don't want to condone killing separate, born, human beings, because of where this might lead, and how it might affect people who saw or did this. We do have exceptions for war and self-defense: I could see "recent unwanted birth" being another such exception. Some states have "safe surrender" laws as a way of safely dealing with unwanted newborns, which is one solution. I could also see having graduated penalties that get worse as a newborn gets older. These are difficult questions, similar to mercy-killing questions involving someone dying and in great pain.
Posted by BlackRose]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:23:46 -0700 The Stranger