dehumanization, car trunks, and "life begins at conception"
rather than (further) hijack discussions on right-side-of-lowell, i'll extent a point of the discussion here for rhetorical consideration.
in several of my comments, i observed the irony that under proposed laws based on the premise that "life begins at conception", (many of which would outlaw abortion even if bearing a child would cause the death of its mother), rights of female citizens become fewer than that of a locked car trunk. criticisms included missing the point of irony and the word "dehumanization".
even though the dehumanization of women is exactly my point. think about it:
under our laws today, if you murder a child (or any person for that matter) and you stuff their corpse in the trunk of your car and lock it, your conviction for that murder is overturned and you go free if the government (via the police or some other agency) breaks into your car trunk without either your permission or a warrant to find the body as a basis for your conviction. this is not out of any leniency on the subject of murder and murderers, or any lack of compassion for all human life, but, rather, demonstration that our Bill of Rights is sacrosanct beyond all other laws and legal interests to guarantee our lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. yet, inexplicably, when that locked car trunk becomes, rather, a woman's uterus, these new proposed laws based on "life begins at conception" would have women immediately eligible for the death penalty should she be found culpable in the termination of that pregnancy. (ok, maybe i exaggerate and the penalties for breaking these laws will be less harsh, like, say, life or other extended imprisonment, instead...)
roe v. wade is not wrong. it's the Bill of Rights that's at stake here, not whether or not you or i believe more strongly in the sanctity of human life. want affirmation? i'll agree with anyone and everyone that vast preponderance of people in this country believe that abortion is a human tragedy. what i will not agree upon is that somehow the existence of tragedy should cause us to deny women their civil rights to privacy in the interests of life not yet even conceived.
the Bill of Rights. doctor/patient privilege. HIPAA laws. you name it, the whole premise of our society is that the interests of government are secondary to the interests of citizens. having some fanatical segment of our society ready to trash it all is beyond my patience to endure. if you, our government, or anyone else lays a hand on my daughter to force her to act, refrain from acting, or in any other way determine how she chooses to conduct her life when her life is on the line, i will forcefully defend her. you can call the SWAT teams now. it will get violent.
i don't love this country because i don't have to stand up to defend its basis. i love this country because i must stand up to defend its basis.
in several of my comments, i observed the irony that under proposed laws based on the premise that "life begins at conception", (many of which would outlaw abortion even if bearing a child would cause the death of its mother), rights of female citizens become fewer than that of a locked car trunk. criticisms included missing the point of irony and the word "dehumanization".
even though the dehumanization of women is exactly my point. think about it:
under our laws today, if you murder a child (or any person for that matter) and you stuff their corpse in the trunk of your car and lock it, your conviction for that murder is overturned and you go free if the government (via the police or some other agency) breaks into your car trunk without either your permission or a warrant to find the body as a basis for your conviction. this is not out of any leniency on the subject of murder and murderers, or any lack of compassion for all human life, but, rather, demonstration that our Bill of Rights is sacrosanct beyond all other laws and legal interests to guarantee our lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. yet, inexplicably, when that locked car trunk becomes, rather, a woman's uterus, these new proposed laws based on "life begins at conception" would have women immediately eligible for the death penalty should she be found culpable in the termination of that pregnancy. (ok, maybe i exaggerate and the penalties for breaking these laws will be less harsh, like, say, life or other extended imprisonment, instead...)
roe v. wade is not wrong. it's the Bill of Rights that's at stake here, not whether or not you or i believe more strongly in the sanctity of human life. want affirmation? i'll agree with anyone and everyone that vast preponderance of people in this country believe that abortion is a human tragedy. what i will not agree upon is that somehow the existence of tragedy should cause us to deny women their civil rights to privacy in the interests of life not yet even conceived.
the Bill of Rights. doctor/patient privilege. HIPAA laws. you name it, the whole premise of our society is that the interests of government are secondary to the interests of citizens. having some fanatical segment of our society ready to trash it all is beyond my patience to endure. if you, our government, or anyone else lays a hand on my daughter to force her to act, refrain from acting, or in any other way determine how she chooses to conduct her life when her life is on the line, i will forcefully defend her. you can call the SWAT teams now. it will get violent.
i don't love this country because i don't have to stand up to defend its basis. i love this country because i must stand up to defend its basis.
posted by kad barma at 12:05 PM
7 Comments:
I'm not disagreeing with Roe. I get it, the woman has a right to her body. Just as if you needed a bone marrow transplant, and I'm a match, the government couldn't 'force' me to give you my bone marrow. Even if you were my child.
I just think something should be done about it, considering we hold parents to protect the lives of their children outside of the womb. Roe, herself never actually have an abortion, has a relationship with the fetus today, became pro-life, and converted to Catholicism.
I'm all for due process, and I don't mind using the legal framework for better pro-life laws.
The goal isn't to do something unconstitutional, rather amend the constitution in the same way we have over time.
Grasp the nettle. When does the "thing" become worthy of protection against an abusive mother (or biological father)?
A friend of mine, a former Head of the Virginia Branch of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, asserts that the human brain in not fully developed until age 23. Seems a little long for the abortion knife to be hanging over the head. Age of reason is about 8. At the age of 2 children understand the word "no".
Put another way, at what age does a Mother owe her developing child standing?
Regards — Cliff
I disagreed with the state's prosecution of the Twitchells over the question of whether the state or a parent's care for their own child should be the trumping legal consideration, so I am a bad person to ask such. But grasping the nettle as you say, I will argue that as long as a fetus depends upon its mother for life itself it is not yet emancipated to legal personhood seperate from her. How can it be proposed that individual life exists in such a case?
Now we have an answer. I would suggest you are in the camp with Peter Singer.
Re "Angels on the head of a pin", it has always been a suspect point.
Regards — Cliff
Hardly. (And it's somewhat offensive to be characterized so). Singer talks about sentience and "personhood" as the driving principles. I'm talking about biology and independent life itself. Until there is the basis for life to exist on its own, we shouldn't be worried about what anybody "thinks" except the person whose body we are tugging and warring over.
No man is an island. No child survives outside the womb, unless someone else is tending to its needs. Heck we have 25 year olds still dependent on a parents for health insurance. We can force parents of legally adult children to cover them with health insurance, with our laws.
Renee, I will then presume that you are fully in favor of Constance Johnson's proposed amendment doubling down on the Old Testament? ("Any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child."
It's bullshit to claim hypothetical personhood for every zygote that has every probability of being spontaneously aborted, (just ask Rick and Karen Santorum if every late-term fetus survives, and please acknowledge that as many as half of all first pregnancies end in miscarriage, and between 10 and 20 percent overall), and deny women the right to save their own lives.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home