a snippet from NYT 6/24/70, p35: "Two Key Backers of Abortion Reform in the Legislature Are Defeated Upstate", by Bill Kovach MICHAELS MAY RUN ON LIBERAL LINE "Mr. Michaels, who is confined to a hospital bed because of a recent auto accident, declined to speculate on the cause of his first defeat after 10 years in office. But John Rossi, the 33-year-old Auburn lawyer who defeated Mr. Michaels to win the Democratic nomination, said "the way Michaels voted on the abortion bill" was his key to victory.

Toward the end I heard the argument about a woman not being able to be a feminist and be against abortion (by supporting laws against it).
Again, it is a common confusion about "choice" that people have, and every time I hear the confusion expressed, it compels me to try and clear this issue up, again. I'll stop when every feminist and non feminist alike stops making the broken link of abortion and choice. The argument is not about choice at its core. It is about whether a fetus is considered a human being.
Is it possible for a woman to be a feminist and support laws against infanticide? Is it not the womans choice to be able to do what she wills to her own infant? Different? In what way? Is it because the infant is outside the mothers body? If so, is it merely an issue of whether a creature is inside or outside a womans body that determines whether it deserves protections or not? What if an advanced and twisted alien zapped a womans 10 year old daughter, shrunk her, and trapped her inside the womans body? Should she have

So at what point beyond the blastocycst does it become a human?

Legally, a human life begins would when the child is born, i.e. fully separated from the mother. I don't have my copy of Black's with me, but I believe that is what it says verbatim.

Since the original argument essentially a morale one why do you try and deflect it to a legal one?

I've made a similar legal argument, because the traditional notion of a human being, i.e. after birth, creates a gray zone from conception to birth. This physiological situation creates a legal conflict between two legal beings, and no body of law has defined the legal relationship clearly. The lack of test cases probably has much to do with this. Anti-abortionists have succeeded in pushing their cases further, but the womb is still a battleground.

Black's is a recognized legal authority that's still recommended to law students. It's definition of a human being is still not superseded, which gives a moral argument legal heft, because Black's is compiled from precedent.

I think you have it backwards, but I am not interested in arguing about what the law is but what it should be, in this instance.

Toward the end I heard the argument about a woman not being able to be a feminist and be against abortion (by supporting laws against it).

Her point, I believe, is that while it is consistent with being pro-women's rights to believe abortion is wrong, the idea that it should be a crime to have an abortion is barbaric. Of course, no one gets to decide by fiat what a "feminist" is. That was just a fun question from Joan. On the deeper question of politics and ethics, I agree with Gail: criminalizing the termination of a pregnancy is a very bad idea.

Trying to argue in this way misses the point that the legal consensus, that personhood begins at birth, has a long history, and is itself a moral argument. The opinion goes at least as far back as the 18th Century. And, morally, common law makes a distinction on the maturity of persons, such as minors and women. The notion, that a person must be able to reach decisions independently and without influence is fundamental to common law. That's why children are judged differently than adults. Until recently, too, married women were not considered capable of a crime, because legally a woman was considered one fraction of a marital unit and hence incapable of performing the requirements for intent. Your tactical flip, that my argument is a moral one, is itself a tactical maneuver concocted by a legal insurgency.

Quoting Baltimoron: I've made a similar legal argument, because the traditional notion of a human being, i.e. after birth, creates a gray zone from conception to birth. This physiological situation creates a legal conflict between two legal beings, and no body of law has defined the legal relationship clearly. The lack of test cases probably has much to do with this. Anti-abortionists have succeeded in pushing their cases further, but the womb is still a battleground.

Yes it does. You took the implications of the argument seriously enough to recognize one of its pitfalls.
Here is my solution. I do not see an infant as having the same moral weight as a 10 year old either. But I'll get to the solution in a sec. At what time does a human life cross the threshold to becoming a human being? How man grains of sand must stack up to become a mound of sand? These are questions to which there are no definite answers. In the case of a human being, the most pragmatic answer in my view is to simply err on the side of setting the protected status at a point

Quoting JonIrenicus: The argument is not about choice at its core. It is about whether a fetus is considered a human being.

I'm not sure. I think that the argument that the fetus is a person is merely a way of justifying controlling women. Nobody seriously believes the fetus is a person. That's why we don't give aborted fetuses or miscarriages graves and tombstones. When people start paying for abortion funerals and abortion cemeteries, then we can start to take their argument about the personhood of the fetus seriously. Until then, anti-abortionists simply hate women, and they justify their hate by any means possible. Actually, it would be interesting to read a survey of the history of arguments against abortion. As I recall, there used to be a lot more of the argument that abortion allowed women to "get away" with having sex, when they should be "paying a price" for indulging themselves. But I'm too lazy to do that research right now.

Quoting Ray: I'm not sure.

I think that the argument that the fetus is a person is merely a way of justifying controlling women.

Nobody seriously believes the fetus is a person. That's why we don't give aborted fetuses or miscarriages graves and tombstones. When people start paying for abortion funerals and abortion cemeteries, then we can start to take their argument about the personhood of the fetus seriously.

Until then, anti-abortionists simply hate women, and they justify their hate by any means possible.

Actually, it would be interesting to read a survey of the history of arguments against abortion. As I recall, there used to be a lot more of the argument that abortion allowed women to "get away" with having sex, when they should be "paying a price" for indulging themselves.

But I'm too lazy to do that research right now.

All your rationales are lazy here.

Quoting Whatfur: All your rationales are lazy here.

And your counter arguments are nonexistent.

Ms Collins are you being remiss? Or do you just not know? You should speak to Toni Morrison or at least listen to her interview on HBO's Black list. Find out how Black women were pushed and encouraged to get educated, purse advanced degrees, etc., while the men were discouraged and held back. Black men were led toward labor and away from education. Talk about gender roles! Stop making the same mistake that's become typical; looking at Black life thru White lens and in this case White feminist lens. What they were responding to and their needs were vastly different. Do your due diligence, search deeper more intimate. You will discover that the aforementioned phenomenon was more about the threat of racism over sexism. It was thought Black women were more acceptable, less a threat AND therefore it would be easier and better for the race, in terms of advancement, to push Black Women. It was a strategic philosophy responding to actuality. Also there was a long history of egalitarianism in the Black family, long before any 'movement'. Going back to the slavery days Black women held leadership roles all the time. Secret meetings

Quoting Whatfur: All your rationales are lazy here.

Hey! Where'd you get the idea to use the word 'lazy'?!? You're a rhetorical genius!

Quoting Ray: I'm not sure.

I think that the argument that the fetus is a person is merely a way of justifying controlling women.

Nobody seriously believes the fetus is a person. That's why we don't give aborted fetuses or miscarriages graves and tombstones. When people start paying for abortion funerals and abortion cemeteries, then we can start to take their argument about the personhood of the fetus seriously.

I think people believe that fetuses are persons, but not that they actually (at least not until quite late) have the same moral worth as born persons. I agree that there's an inconsistency in a lot of the anti-abortion rhetoric as a result. Lots of anti-abortion people are women, so the argument that it's just about controlling women strikes me as a way to shut up the argument, not convincing.

Lots of anti-abortion people are women, so the argument that it's just about controlling women strikes me as a way to shut up the argument, not convincing.

What do you think of the argument that pro-life is to a great extent about controlling women's sexuality? There are anti-abortion activists who are pro-female sexual freedom, but the abortion issue usually seems difficult to separate from reactionary views of fidelity-monogamy-virginity, etc.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Again, it is a common confusion about "choice" that people have, and every time I hear the confusion expressed, it compels me to try and clear this issue up, again.

It is simply two separate arguments, I think. There is an argument from control of one's body -- the idea is that one is not compelled to give up bodily resources in any other case. That's the basis for Tribe's stupid violin player attached to your body thing (I hate it because why should it matter that he's a violin player?), but not the basis on which the Supreme Court held in Roe -- the SC basically rejected the bodily rights argument in Roe and found based on a lack of personhood. So I guess I'm mostly agreeing. On the other hand, the "choice" argument could mean basically what you could get to from Casey -- that it's a philosophical issue that is undecided, so we all have the right to figure it out for ourselves. The anti-Roe and Casey take would be that it's the kind of decision that is typically decided by the voters, so should have been left to them (the states).

The

Quoting Wonderment: What do you think of the argument that pro-life is to a great extent about controlling women's sexuality? There are anti-abortion activists who are pro-female sexual freedom, but the abortion issue usually seems difficult to separate from reactionary views of fidelity-monogamy-virginity, etc.

I kind of addressed this in my next post, but I think there's an element of that wrapped up in it but not that it's the driving force. That is, for some who feel strongly about the issue, that's part of it, but you can't assume that it motivates the majority of activists. My impression also is that the acceptance of such a motivation has declined in recent years, too, but I might be self-selecting my anti-abortion activists too.

Quoting Ray: Hey! Where'd you get the idea to use the word 'lazy'?!?

You're a rhetorical genius!

And you are neither. However, you are better than graz who is now following me around like a lost puppy trying to find something/ANYTHING to save some face. Hmmm? Who does that remind me of? Now, I could call out graz on not calling out YOU and your "lazy" bullshit. Leapfrogging to my brush-off kind of shows his cards for what they really are. In any case, we will just place graz in your camp on this one. That's a fine place for him. Now, just to make this worth my time...a couple things... The only time I have had any feeling that Pro-Life people have suggested any control over womans sexuality are with those who seem to use abortion as if it were a condom. Sorry, even Catholic Pro-Life advocates would prefer protection over murder. Another thing, if your "tombstone" rant was not so illogically concocted it would border on insane. Let me attempt at bringing it back to reality and let you know that there are plenty of people who have lost children during pregnancies who have memorials for the

Quoting Whatfur: And you are neither... you are better than graz who is ... Hmmm? Who does that remind me of? ...a couple things... Pro-Life advocates ...Another thing...insane.

...

Quoting Whatfur: ...And you are neither. However, you are better than graz who is now following me around like a lost puppy trying to find something/ANYTHING to save some face. Hmmm? Who does that remind me of? Now, I could call out graz on not calling out YOU and your "lazy" bullshit. Leapfrogging to my brush-off kind of shows his cards for what they really are. In any case, we will just place graz in your camp on this one. That's a fine place for him...

This gibberish is only decipherable by you. As your proud Pappy and Mammy said... Use your words son. But they hoped that you would be rhetorical at least... when the genius was not in evidence. Oh well.

Quoting graz: This gibberish is only decipherable by you. As your proud Pappy and Mammy said... Use your words son. But they hoped that you would be rhetorical at least... when the genius was not in evidence. Oh well.

Oh I think there is at least one additional person who understands it. Doh!

Quoting Wonderment: What do you think of the argument that pro-life is to a great extent about controlling women's sexuality? There are anti-abortion activists who are pro-female sexual freedom, but the abortion issue usually seems difficult to separate from reactionary views of fidelity-monogamy-virginity, etc.

I agree with that idea. Whether people hold these ideas consciously or unconsciously, the debate is about the dichotomy of 'dirty-sexual-liberated-rebellious' women on one side and 'pure-respectful of the sanctity of life- obedient to God-submissive' women on the other. Once the dichotomy is in place, people forget about what they are about and they continue unchallenged. I think that people that are against legal abortion should stop having sex altogether, and leave the rest of people alone. That would just be fair.

Quoting Ocean: I agree with that idea. Whether people hold these ideas consciously or unconsciously, the debate is about the dichotomy of 'dirty-sexual-liberated-rebellious' women on one side and 'pure-respectful of the sanctity of life- obedient to God-submissive' women on the other. Once the dichotomy is in place, people forget about what they are about and they continue unchallenged.

I think that people that are against legal abortion should stop having sex altogether, and leave the rest of people alone. That would just be fair.

The gap in polling between people who think "abortion should always be illegal except to save the mother's life" and "abortion should be illegal except to save the mother's life or in case of rape", about 20%, captures reflects the punishment-for-sex constituency.

Quoting Ocean: I agree with that idea. Whether people hold these ideas consciously or unconsciously, the debate is about the dichotomy of 'dirty-sexual-liberated-rebellious' women on one side and 'pure-respectful of the sanctity of life- obedient to God-submissive' women on the other. Once the dichotomy is in place, people forget about what they are about and they continue unchallenged.

I think that people that are against legal abortion should stop having sex altogether, and leave the rest of people alone. That would just be fair.

You are silly to believe what you say in your first paragraph and like Clay below and Ray (and graz) above you use it as your own blinder so you don't have to acknowledge the real reason 99% of the people are against abortion. As far as the second, I know you are trying to make a funny...but doing so at the expense of hypocrisy...two can play that game though... how about we switch your suggestion up a bit? All those who choose murder over birth should be the ones who have to give up sex from that point on.

Quoting claymisher: The gap in polling between people who think "abortion should always be illegal except to save the mother's life" and "abortion should be illegal except to save the mother's life or in case of rape", about 20%, captures reflects the punishment-for-sex constituency.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people within that constituency, can't see the contradiction between their 'pro-life' and their 'pro-war' principles. They have bought the meme, filed it away, and never revisited.

Quoting Ocean: Unfortunately, the vast majority of people within that constituency, can't see the contradiction between their 'pro-life' and their 'pro-war' principles. They have bought the meme, filed it away, and never revisited.

Hmmm...to think sometimes I am enamored by your elucidation. Sorry, but here your giant leap borders on the opaque, while your generalization borders on bigotry.

Quoting Ocean: ....I think that people that are against legal abortion should stop having sex altogether....

Bad idea, it would just make them more cantankerous than they are already.

Quoting Whatfur: Hmmm...to think sometimes I am enamored by your elucidation. Sorry, but here your giant leap borders on the opaque, while your generalization borders on bigotry.

Why can't you get it through your polyester pelt that Ocean, a brilliant women in her own right, simply holds an opposing view? You are right to question your prior judgement, as is always the case regarding that suspect concept. But once again, you have failed to engage an opposing viewpoint with anything other than insult. Carry on Dale Carnegie.

Quoting Whatfur: lost puppy trying to find something/ANYTHING to save some face. Hmmm? Who does that remin

I couldn't even read this until I visualized it written in crayon.

Quoting Whatfur: Another thing, if your "tombstone" rant was not so illogically concocted it would border on insane. Let me attempt at bringing it back to reality and let you know that there are plenty of people who have lost children during pregnancies who have memorials for the child.

This one I imagine written in Ransom Note. You're talking about a memorial for a miscarriage. That does happen sometimes. But I'm saying that all anti-abortionists must treat the remains of an aborted fetus or a miscarriage exactly as they would the body of, say, a seven year-old child. If they don't, then they don't believe the fetus is a person.

Quoting Whatfur: Sorry, even Catholic Pro-Life advocates would prefer protection over murder.

Some might. But the Pope does not. The Pope's Catholic, right?

Quoting stephanie: Lots of anti-abortion people are women, so the argument that it's just about controlling women strikes me as a way to shut up the argument, not convincing.

Why? You think women can't be party to the oppression of women? Seriously?

Another excellent discussion on bloggingheads.tv. I also think that of all the women that Ms. Collins profiled that Ms. Ella Baker is an excellent choice for blogging head listeners to read and get to know more about. Her contribution in the development of SNCC was profound and essential and is woefully neglected by most historical accounts. Her methods of organizing were extremely courageous where she would time and time again subordinate her ego and empower working class people. Her patience with the young activists was infinite and led them to gain a level of wisdom that outstripped their age. However I would be remiss in not including Ms. Septima Clark right next to her as another woman who further exhibited many of those same traits. Ms. Clark was her "running buddy" in the SCLC and accomplished some monumental feats of her own. Finally there is no way to mention that period without also including Ms. Fannie Lou Hamer who went on to assist in forming the Mississippi Democratic Freedom Party which laid the basis for independent black politics and demonstrated the ability to challenge existing party structures. Ms. Hamer

Quoting Whatfur: Hmmm...to think sometimes I am enamored by your elucidation. Sorry, but here your giant leap borders on the opaque, while your generalization borders on bigotry.

That's the problem with being enamored, you set yourself up for disappointment. As to the "giant" leap, it may seem so to you. Everything is relative.

Quoting laura: Bad idea, it would just make them more cantankerous than they are already.

I hope you do know I was kidding.

Quoting Ray: Why?

You think women can't be party to the oppression of women? Seriously?

Sadly, I agree.

Quoting Ocean: That's the problem with being enamored, you set yourself up for disappointment.

As to the "giant" leap, it may seem so to you. Everything is relative.

Maybe you need to define Pro-War. I personally do not know anyone who is... which really was the basis of my comment. You make up an ugly personae and then try to attach it to something else that you are attempting to paint as ugly also. Do you have an example of someone who fits this bill? How about a woman who exemplifies this? I still am seeing nothing but an empty generalization.

Quoting Ray: I couldn't even read this until I visualized it written in crayon.
This one I imagine written in Ransom Note.

You're talking about a memorial for a miscarriage. That does happen sometimes. But I'm saying that all anti-abortionists must treat the remains of an aborted fetus or a miscarriage exactly as they would the body of, say, a seven year-old child.

If they don't, then they don't believe the fetus is a person.

Some might. But the Pope does not. The Pope's Catholic, right?

You seem to think that you are entitled to make the rules. Nobody died and made you Pope as far as I know. Your points are inane. I liked the crayon comment though.

Quoting Whatfur: Maybe you need to define Pro-War. I personally do not know anyone who is... which really was the basis of my comment. You make up an ugly personae and then try to attach it to something else that you are attempting to paint as ugly also. Do you have an example of someone who fits this bill? How about a woman who exemplifies this? I still am seeing nothing but an empty generalization.

Be aware that you are the one talking about ugly personae. If the moral/religious basis for the anti-legal/safe abortion position is the sacredness of life, the same principle should apply not only to fetuses, but to all age groups. It would include any and all possible threats to life, including war, and death penalty. I would also think that the same concern for life would make people want to have universal health care to protect those children as they grow and develop into and through adulthood. Are you saying that you don't know anybody who is anti-legalized abortion, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, supports wars and opposes extending health care to more Americans? Nobody? Seriously?

Quoting Ocean: Be aware that you are the one talking about ugly personae.

Like you said...its all relative. The easy route would be to hang out at right wing sites, would it not.

Quoting Ocean: If the moral/religious basis for the anti-legal/safe abortion position is the sacredness of life, the same principle should apply not only to fetuses, but to all age groups. It would include any and all possible threats to life, including war, and death penalty. I would also think that the same concern for life would make people want to have universal health care to protect those children as they grow and develop into and through adulthood.

Are you saying that you don't know anybody who is anti-legalized abortion, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, supports wars and opposes extending health care to more Americans? Nobody? Seriously?

I thought I asked a simple question. No answer then eh? Conflating abortion with these other things is kinda jr. high debate team...you are correct...you are disappointing. Never mind...go hang with Ray.

Quoting Ocean: If the moral/religious basis for the anti-legal/safe abortion position is the sacredness of life, the same principle should apply not only to fetuses, but to all age groups. It would include any and all possible threats to life, including war, and death penalty.

This has always seemed rather striking. Even if one grants the sincerity of those who claim that a cell is a human being, it stands out rather starkly that it is only for supporting abortion that the majority of "pro life" religious leaders, particularly those of Catholicism but various fundamentalists as well, demand such things as denial of church sacrements and implicitly damn supporters to hell. It's hard not to connect this to some of the ideas up-thread, and note the connection to the pecularities and difficulties both groups seem to have with sexuality.

I would also think that the same concern for life would make people want to have universal health care to protect those children as they grow and develop into and through adulthood.

Wait. I'm so confused. The leader of the progressive pro-choice party just decided to spend 30 billion dollars/year more on death and drones (in addition to the current 3.6 billion/month Afghan War). And the Republican Party is providing most of his support. Only the Repubs. are arguing for not even setting a timetable or mentioning anything about eventual withdrawal. They must love debt, blank checks, fiscal irresponsibility and perpetual war. And oh yeah, life.

Quoting Wonderment: Wait. I'm so confused. The leader of the progressive pro-choice party just decided to spend 30 billion dollars/year more on death and drones (in addition to the current 3.6 billion/month Afghan War).

And the Republican Party is providing most of his support. Only the Repubs. are arguing for not even setting a timetable or mentioning anything about eventual withdrawal. They must love debt, blank checks, fiscal irresponsibility and perpetual war. And oh yeah, life.

There's no purity, Wonderment, no purity...

Quoting Whatfur: Like you said...its all relative. The easy route would be to hang out at right wing sites, would it not.

I thought I asked a simple question. No answer then eh? Conflating abortion with these other things is kinda jr. high debate team...you are correct...you are disappointing. Never mind...go hang with Ray.

Yay! junior high all over again! Yay! Yay! I disappointed Whatfur! Yay! Thank you for your permission to hang out with my 'compatibles'. Yay!

Quoting Ocean: Yay! junior high all over again! Yay!

Yay! I disappointed Whatfur! Yay!

Thank you for your permission to hang out with my 'compatibles'. Yay!

Your welcome. "Brilliant".

Quoting Whatfur: Your welcome. "Brilliant".

When I used brilliant, I hope you didn't think I meant to convey it in the English sense. Instead: as in bright spot, perceptive and inescapable. Sorry if I failed you.
On the other hand, you are the opposite: as in dull and muddied as a shopworn penny. And your posts don't even add up to two-cents worth.

Quoting graz: When I used brilliant, I hope you didn't think I meant to convey it in the English sense. Instead: as in bright spot, perceptive and inescapable. Sorry if I failed you.
On the other hand, you are the opposite: as in dull and muddied as a shopworn penny. And your posts don't even add up to two-cents worth.

I realize that graz, but because my posts are almost always followed by the "brilliant" insight of my avid followers (see above and soon below), I am providing a service ...even if as just a channeler. Heck, handle would not even exist here if it were not for me...how could we survive without him. Actually there are probably others who only show up here to read me and the fun responses I produce and receive. Maybe BHtv needs to pay me a commission.

Quoting Whatfur: I am providing a service ...even if as just a channeler. Heck, handle would not even exist here if it were not for me...how could we survive without him.

Quite well, as the six or more month period without either of us proved.
But Buttfur is using his clever sarcasm to make the point that there must be some need for him here... channeling? More than I came up with anyway.. way to wag that old horse shit divining rod, or as you theorize, assume the role of one.
But maybe it's true? Who want's to cop to coming here just to see what Buttfur is going to do next? Don't be shy. I will not respond or judge.

Quoting handle: But maybe it's true? Who want's to cop to coming here just to see what Buttfur is going to do next? Don't be shy. I will not respond or judge.

Another deafening response from the silent majority.... the imaginary support group of the delusional.... and I was sure they were on my side.