(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Fucking what now? The review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee (conducted under pressure from Right to Life NZ) has led Justice Forrest Miller to say that the legality of many abortions in NZ is questionable.

Fucking christ. I'm giving money to Women's National Abortion Campaign right now. This is such a big deal, people. D: D: D:

Comments

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

"when did you become a vegetarian again?" ???
what type of argument is that? what a ridiculous thing to say. Obviously there is a difference between human life and all other forms of life. Address the issue! if you want to make insolent comments, at least have some type of formed argument.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Obviously there is a difference between human life and all other forms of life.

That is not obvious at all: vegetarians commonly argue that since animals' suffering and pain is the same as human suffering and pain, animals ought not to be sacrificed for humans' mere pleasure. However, that is hardly the issue at hand. To the extent that human life and other forms of life do differ, and I agree with you that they do, it is I believe in functions of humanity that a foetus does not share (for example, the ability to communicate, higher-level intelligences, learning, and society. A foetus is not equipped to do any of these things.) It is meaningless to say that the foetus' right to life is derived from some special right to life that all humans have, as firstly a foetus is excluded from the meaningful categories of human life except for genetics; and secondly as the universal right to life is all-too-frequently abrogated (hello, you're in the armed forces.) If, therefore, it is acceptable to sometimes sacrifice one life for another; and if the degree to which this is acceptable depends on the harm caused by sacrificing the life as opposed to the harm caused by not sacrificing the life; I submit that the harm caused to the unthinking, unintelligent foetus is not as significant as the harm caused to a woman or girl who is not in the position to care for a child.

Definitions of the foetus as "alive" depend very much on who is doing the defining. Your willingness to sacrifice the wellbeing of women and girls in order to save this dubious quantity is both controversial and offensive to me specifically. If you're going to come here and roll out glib phrases like "the fact of the matter is, they're alive" and "too many people come into the debate with a pre-formed opinion" - that is to say, "too many people don't THINK about their opinions like CLEVER people like I do - they think about silly things like their own experiences and their friends' experiences and their concern for women generally, those silly birds" and then a) be super-offended by me being as glib back to you and b) fail to actually respond to me and c) call ME insolent and claim that I am not addressing the issue - you can do that. But don't expect me to take you seriously. I am not around in order to baby you and agree with your I'm-so-cleverness.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

i don't have a problem with abortion if it is going to harm the mother.
"or example, the ability to communicate, higher-level intelligences, learning, and society. A foetus is not equipped to do any of these things"
well, neither is a baby, is it ok to kill babies?

"I submit that the harm caused to the unthinking, unintelligent foetus is not as significant as the harm caused to a woman or girl who is not in the position to care for a child"
again, are you saying that it's not ok for a woman to choose abortion if it was a mistake?
And really, the issue here could be addressed in other ways. Benefits should help mothers anyway (to what extent they do, i don't know, but they should). Also the child could be adopted.

I can't think of any situation in real life where it is ok to kill a human being in cold blood. I don't agree with the death penalty, and unless someone can prove to me that there is a difference between a foetus and a baby (apart from the fact that the baby breaths and the circulation is in series rather than parallel), then i'm not sure whether i can agree with it, unless of course it would injure the mother.

You think i'm being smarmy? this is ridiculous. You were the one who first made snide replies to my comments, without even disagreeing with them.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

well, neither is a baby, is it ok to kill babies?

Nope, but a baby can exist outside the mother so not killing a baby doesn't mean forcing an unwanted pregnancy and then either the emotional trauma of adoption OR a permanent reduction in circumstances. You can do other things with a baby. but a foetus is a foetus is a few small cells with few if any pain sensors, no brain - it's like "killing" an amoeba.

i don't have a problem with abortion if it is going to harm the mother.

I don't know if you're aware but pregnancy just by itself is actually quite dangerous? By "harm" I don't just mean physical harm, though, I mean emotional and socioeconomic damage. A teenager (as an example) who goes through with an unplanned pregnancy either has to deal with the serious emotional consequences of giving a baby up for adoption AS WELL AS the physical risks involved in pregnancy; or she suffers a serious handicap to her education and employment, and for a significant length of time her ability to work and earn money will be impaired, not just by having to support someone else, but by not being able to work full-time hours, by having to pay for childcare, by having to take time off to care for a sick child, and so on and so forth.

Benefits should help mothers anyway (to what extent they do, i don't know, but they should). Also the child could be adopted.

Yes, benefits should help mothers. BUT THEY DON'T. Unemployment benefit is less than student allowance. Extra benefits for families are small. Children of beneficiaries do not get the same tax breaks children of working parents do. And you know, it's all very well to say that benefits SHOULD do this and SHOULD do that, but you actually have to *change benefit law first.* I mean, you have to. You can't force a woman to go through with an unplanned pregnancy and say "oh, benefits should help you" and she gets to the end and she's like "where's my fucking benefits" "Oh, I was too busy protesting abortion decriminalisation to get those rights for you." Start with the other one first and then we can talk but even then I don't think criminalising abortion is a good answer.

again, are you saying that it's not ok for a woman to choose abortion if it was a mistake?

What?

I can't think of any situation in real life where it is ok to kill a human being in cold blood.

I don't think anyone thinks abortions are cold-blooded decisions. What I'm talking about, though, is military decisions to sacrifice one life (a soldier's life; or a civilian's life in collateral damage) in order to take care of other lives (that is to say our standard of living.) In general I think these decisions are very very VERY hard but I do think sometimes they have to be made and I think you would agree (because, again, you're IN THE ARMED FORCES.)

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

"but a foetus is a foetus is a few small cells with few if any pain sensors, no brain - it's like "killing" an amoeba."
hahahaha this is just getting silly. A foetus, by definition, has all its structures formed. We're not talking about an embryo or a blastocyst here.

i can't stop laughing about that. it's gonna take a while to compose myself

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Wait, who's making snide responses to my comments without actually disagreeing with them now?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

oh, and you should read this (http://stilltruckin.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/coathanger-versus-pill-in-which-we-quickly-debate-the-rights-of-a-fetus/), it's very good.