(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

So now that we've had some time to think about it (and I've calmed down a little): can we really gain anything from revisiting abortion rights in this country? As we know, abortion law in New Zealand does not accurately reflect the way we think about (or, indeed, practise) abortion. In practise abortion here leans towards (though is not close enough to) abortion on demand. In law, it's, well, dodgy.

I don't think it will come as a shock to anyone when I say that I think NZ abortion law needs reforming: it has to be more liberal and it really ought to reflect the way abortion is practised. Medical abortion should be made available more easily (it's currently available only in four centres, and I believe only in one in the whole South Island.) Doctors should not be able to refuse to provide abortion any more than they should be able to refuse to treat drunk drivers or murderers. And so forth. This is undeniably going to be controversial. In the last 24 hours posts have been popping up all over the NZ blogosphere bewailing this as an issue in election year. Nobody seems to think now is the right time.

But can we actually gain something from revisiting this issue? (Other than the obvious decriminalisation that no-one seems to think would be the result.) Look: National, as always, campaigns on being a party for "mainstream New Zealand," "hard working Kiwis." Obviously this is crap. But, you know: I think criminalised abortion does not represent the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders. I certainly don't think it represents the wishes of women. National this year are trying to present themselves as a new, younger, more relevant party. Are they really going to maintain this image by being anti-abortion? It's true that in 2004 most National MPs voted to make girls have to inform their parents if they were having an abortion (I wish I could find this voting record but all I can find is some of the debates - anyone recall how Katherine Rich voted?) But I think increasing parents' totalitarian control is a different issue to restricting the right of women (adults or teenagers) to have this procedure at all.

If they do end up on the so-called side of "life" - I think that'll lose them some votes. I think this is an important issue for women, REALLY important, and I think that young women actually realise that. Young men? That's another question. Would I say that most young men I know (including the ones who are likely to vote National) are pro-life? Nope. Do I think this is an issue that they will be in solidarity with women over - that is to say, do I think they will treat it as an important voting issue? Well... maybe not.

The party this could really be a test for is ACT, of course: they can talk the low-tax tough-on-crime libertarian talk, but can they walk the rights-over-our-own-bodies libertarian walk? (History says no. But ACT might always surprise me.)

Finally, and in a slightly different vein: there's an interesting article here covering a study which shows that the difference in boys' and girls' performance in maths is probably not determined biologically but is defined by socioeconomic factors. Briefly, the study (which is in Science here) surveyed hundreds of thousands of records of boys' and girls' maths and reading performance. Overall, girls outscored boys by 7% in reading and boys outscored girls by 2% in maths. However a country-by-country analysis determined that in poorer countries and countries where women's rights are worse off, the gap in maths is significant; in wealthier countries with good equality records the gap is minor. Meanwhile, the gap in reading skills appears to be consistent: although girls' advantage does decrease in the poorer countries they do appear to hold onto it in most of them.

Now, OK: none of that is going to come as a surprise to anyone here, so while I celebrate that I finally have a study to point to and say SEE HAHA, that's basically it. What DOES drive me crazy is the bit at the end: OOGA BOOGA THIS IS VERY SCARY FOR MEN WHAT IF IT TURNS OUT TEH WIMMINS IS SMARTER THAN US? Now, I am the last person to say that the degree to which boys are increasingly performing poorly relative to girls is a problem (although can I stand how ironic it is that the same people who complain about feminism are also the ones who, flip the pronoun, and you get sincere feminist concerns? right. In fact boys performing badly is a feminist concern anyway.) But the author of the article said something astoundingly stupid:

The study, however, leaves us with yet another question of this sort: why do boys appear to read so poorly? We clearly can't ascribe it to social inequality, but that doesn't mean it isn't due to some other social factor.

Well, first off, it would be nice if articles of this kind were EVER accompanied by a celebration of women's success in education, so I'm going to take ten seconds: girls, we rock. We're doing really well in education systems that are mostly designed for the ways boys learn. Of course, even with our better grades they're still paying us less and working us harder, but hey! Better give those boys some advantages.

But see here, mister author: what do you MEAN we can't ascribe it to social inequality? OF COURSE girls' outperformance of boys is ascribable to social inequality: it's a consequence of tthe fact that boys' learning is undervalued and increasingly boys who enjoy learning and education are pressured by their families and parents; the educated man is no longer a facet of the socially "ideal" man. This isn't some special social factor that isn't about equality: it's about the way we value the sexes differently, which is, hey - unequal.

Comments

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Do I think this is an issue that they will be in solidarity with women over - that is to say, do I think they will treat it as an important voting issue? Well... maybe not.

As a young (although perhaps not from your perspective) man who does not see abortion as an important voting issue, I feel the need to defend myself. Not that I'm likely to vote National, but in a hypothetical situation where I found a party with a really compelling economic platform aimed at reducing inequality but an aversion to abortion asking for my vote, I'd feel quite conflicted. Ultimately a flat-out ban on abortion would probably be a turn-off for me if only because it would make me suspicious of the party's anti-authoritarian credentials, but a less draconian position, while I'd weigh it, I might not give it as much weight as, say, a commitment to a universal basic income or strong support for collective employee bargaining.

But I tend to feel that the best way to achieve movement on broadly 'social' issues such as abortion, or for that matter gender inequality, is through economic reform to reduce inequality, not by banning or un-banning things, let alone by symbolic legislation. I guess what I'm saying is that, agree or disagree with this stance, I don't think it has anything to do with my gender, it has more to do with the influences and ideas I've absorbed, mostly through reading.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I don't think it has anything to do with my gender.

I do. And I'm not saying this to be sneering or because I think your position isn't well-reasoned, clear, and well-prioritised. It is. (And you actually seem to be saying that abortion, along with other social liberty restrictions, *is* an important issue for you but not as important as socioeconomic policy.)

Nevertheless: the voting pattern you describe is sacrifice abortion rights now in order to get socioeconomic freedom later. I think this is a position that men can afford to hold much better than women can. You can have a lot of unwanted pregnancies in a three-year term. I would much rather hang on to abortion rights because I think they are fundamental to the socioeconomic position of women and fundamental to women's ability to get out of poverty; fundamental to women's access to education; fundamental to women's sexual freedom. Sacrificing abortion is, to me, essentially sacrificing the end result you describe for women. Yes, there are other issues involved in women's socioeconomic struggles but I think abortion (and its educated, upper-class sister contraception) is serious, major, I don't think we can get to your socioeconomic equality without it.

Also, I want to be able to have one if I need one. I trust that socioeconomic change will happen. I don't trust that abortion rights will happen as swiftly or as inevitably. I think that gambling away abortion rights in favour of socioeconomic improvement at some later date is - to explain why I think this is a gender issue - I think this is a position men can afford to have much better than women, because men are not the ones who actually have to go through pregnancy and they're normally not the ones who sacrifice their careers or their educations to care for the results of an unwanted pregnancy. I'm not saying that you, specifically, would not deal with unexpected fatherhood responsibly, I'm sure you would, I'm just saying chances are even though you're responsible and liberal your career, your financial status and independance, would not suffer because of it.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

And to put my money where my mouth is: if Labour were to present a pro-life position they would lose my vote so fast. I would vote for a pro-choice ACT before I voted for an anti-choice Labour or Greens. And I really hate ACT so that's not an easy decision for me to make.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I do. And I'm not saying this to be sneering or because I think your position isn't well-reasoned, clear, and well-prioritised. It is. (And you actually seem to be saying that abortion, along with other social liberty restrictions, *is* an important issue for you but not as important as socioeconomic policy.)

Well thank you, sort of. I'll admit I don't like being told 'it's because you're a guy', but I was kind of expecting it and it could have been said a bit worse. And yes, to clarify, I suppose I would say abortion is an important issue for me, but to be honest I don't devote as much thought to it as I do to other issues, and certainly not as much as you do. My reaction to the Court judgement was quite surprised, both by the ruling and by my lack of knowledge on what the actual state of the law was, but it wasn't as strong as yours seems to have been. (Not that having strong reactions is bad)

Nevertheless: the voting pattern you describe is sacrifice abortion rights now in order to get socioeconomic freedom later.

Yes, that's basically it.

I think this is a position that men can afford to hold much better than women can. You can have a lot of unwanted pregnancies in a three-year term. I would much rather hang on to abortion rights because I think they are fundamental to the socioeconomic position of women and fundamental to women's ability to get out of poverty; fundamental to women's access to education; fundamental to women's sexual freedom. Sacrificing abortion is, to me, essentially sacrificing the end result you describe for women.

I'm not sure it is. Firstly, in a truly egalitarian framework, access to education and freedom from poverty would not be compromised by having a child, since they would essentially be rights rather than products to be purchased. Yes, I'm being utopian here, but this extreme case illustrates one of my central points - that the costs you're outlining, of access to education and ability to stay out of poverty, are economic costs. In other words, the more economically enabled women are,

Secondly, you've probably heard this before, but I personally feel that as a man who doesn't want children but does want to be in a relationship, I do benefit from the ability of my partner to access abortion services. If abortion was illegal and we had an unwanted pregnancy, and I wasn't prepared to take on my share of the burden of raising the child (and thus compromise my own access to education, ability to escape poverty, and all of the above) I'd need to either subject myself to the same legal risks (if not the same physical risks) as her, or walk out on her, not only ending the relationship but accruing a huge social stigma (and I would say that a man who walks out on a woman because he doesn't want to raise his child is generally viewed with far greater social stigma than a woman who gets an illegal abortion). So, while I agree that the costs for women are higher in an abortion-free scenario, they're not inconsiderable for men either. It's true that in practice men tend to skip out of these costs more than women do, but at least once the baby clears the womb and any post-natal health issues are resolved, there's no reason it has to be that way. The idea that women make better caregivers than men is a social construct and I think by saying that ultimately men need to defer to women on issues of abortion, or child-related policy in general, you're basing your arguments off, and thus perpetuating, that social construct.

But anyway, on to your final point (and I think this is the root of the disagreement)...

[confusiontempst.livejournal.com]

Woah. Your experience of social stigma surrounding not raising your child is way different from mine.
Not that I have a child, but I honestly never gathered the impression that it was viewed that disrespectable to not pay child support if you're a rural person.
Which is me trying to quantify the number of "Child support is unfair" things I've heard said, from many corners.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Well, it might just be my social group, but I don't think that people who were more socially conservative would feel differently.

I'm not even talking about not paying child support - I'm pretty sure that if a man broke up with his girlfriend because he didn't want to have a child and she did and went ahead and had one anyway, he'd pretty much not have anybody who'd still talk to him, regardless of whether or not he paid child support.

Which is kind of weird, because it can't be denied that it's far more common for a man to run off and leave a woman holding a baby than vice versa, which seems to imply that if I am right and the social stigma is greater, there are other factors motivating male behaviour in this respect.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I trust that socioeconomic change will happen. I don't trust that abortion rights will happen as swiftly or as inevitably.

I feel almost exactly the opposite. I don't really think that your trust that socioeconomic change will happen is born out by events. In the past thirty years we have moved backwards socio-economically. Our society, whether in New Zealand or in the western world as a whole, has become more poverty-stricken, more inegalitarian, harder to be poor in and less economically fair. The living standard of my generation compared to that of my parents is substantially lower and there's no signs that it's getting any better, even under ostensibly left wing governments.

Conversely, the record on abortion, and on social issues in general, is generally one of positive change, if slower than it could have been. In New Zealand, in the same thirty year period in which real incomes have steadily declined and wealth has become more concentrated in fewer hands, we've seen abortion legalised, homosexuality and then civil unions permitted, prostitution legalised, legal protection against discrimination for homosexuals, women, the elderly and minorities, the Treaty of Waitangi recognised as a founding document of the country and its principles written into law, and so on and so on.

For me the record of the last thirty years is one that's extremely bleak economically and relatively positive socially. This makes me feel that economic issues have far greater urgency to them. I realise that as a pakeha heterosexual male, I'm not especially well qualified to comment on this, but I have a strong feeling that it's better to be an economically secure gay/maori/female person than it is to be none of those, and economically deprived.

Oh and while others may think of me what they will, I don't really regard myself as 'liberal', and although I don't really want to hijack the debate into what that word means, I do feel rather strongly about that.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

I'm not especially well qualified to comment on this, but I have a strong feeling that it's better to be an economically secure gay/maori/female person than it is to be none of those, and economically deprived.

You can't have economic security without things like abortion rights and freely-available contraception and all that other social stuff, though; by ignoring those and leaving abortion in a precarious position, you leave women subject to a huge potential economic disadvantage. The two things go hand-in-hand. Not to mention the fact that women face, you know, sterility and death from illegal abortions (and the numbers in countries where it is illegal clearly show that women are willing to risk these things in order to not have a child.)

At the end of the day, men just do not run the same physical, societal, and financial risks from an unplanned pregnancy. I agree that it benefits men for abortion to be available to their partners, but it is not anywhere near the same level of risk.The thing is: a man can always walk away from an unplanned pregnancy. Regardless of whether he chooses to or whether he is societally condemned for it, he can. A woman, without the option of abortion, can't - without risking infection, sterility, death, and, hey, jail time.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

You can't have economic security without things like abortion rights and freely-available contraception and all that other social stuff, though

In the long term I agree, if only because it would seem absurd to economically empower women but restrict them from controlling one of their most economically crucial activities. But on the other hand, total gender equality isn't possible without overall economic equality. As long as work is commodified, women will never not be penalised for their ability to have a child. It doesn't matter how many laws forbid gender discrimination or how much control over their own sexuality women have or even how lavishly financially compensated or supported they are by the wealthy, as long as labour is commodified they'll never recieve the true value of their work in giving birth to a baby.

At the end of the day, men just do not run the same physical, societal, and financial risks from an unplanned pregnancy.

Again, agreed. I'm not arguing that men benefit as much as women from having abortion available, I'm simply arguing that they do benefit to some degree beyond the general sense in which everyone benefits from more harmonious gender relations (unless, I suppose, they're gay or asexual). I realise this isnt' controversial and I could be accused of arguing a fine point, but to be blunt, I feel I am capable of conceptualising the risks an unwanted pregnancy poses to a woman, in the same way I can conceptualise how much poverty sucks, even though I'm above the poverty line myself.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

As long as work is commodified, women will never not be penalised for their ability to have a child. It doesn't matter how many laws forbid gender discrimination or how much control over their own sexuality women have or even how lavishly financially compensated or supported they are by the wealthy, as long as labour is commodified they'll never recieve the true value of their work in giving birth to a baby.

I'm not really worried about recieving compensation for having a baby, I'm way more worried about being able to have babies as and when I choose, honestly. Like, the former would be nice, but the latter is the major economic concern for most women, and saying that, oh well, they'll realise they're better off worrying about economics first is kind of - it might be technically true, but it's not real-world true.

I feel I am capable of conceptualising the risks an unwanted pregnancy poses to a woman, in the same way I can conceptualise how much poverty sucks, even though I'm above the poverty line myself.

I don't dispute that you can conceptualise it. But it's not the words that matter; it's the bone-deep fear that someone can control my body. And you can't be scared of that like I can, because, short of some very extreme circumstances, it cannot and will not happen, whereas I see and interact with people every day who believe their "morals" trump my bodily autonomy. In the same way as I can never be scared of what will happen if my partner and I have PDAs like a gay person can, you can't feel that, because it can't happen to you.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

saying that, oh well, they'll realise they're better off worrying about economics first is kind of - it might be technically true, but it's not real-world true.

I've got to admit I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I don't dispute that you can conceptualise it. But it's not the words that matter; it's the bone-deep fear that someone can control my body.

OK, so perhaps I will never truly be able to formulate an informed opinion and should defer to those who are at risk, i.e. women. But as you've noted elsewhere in your comments, women do not speak with one voice on this issue. I can accept at least for the sake of the argument that women have more at stake and thus their voices count for more than men's in considering this issue, but which women's voices should I listen to?

For example, I've always admired the writings of Rosa Luxembourg. She lived in an Imperial Germany that was both economically and sexually regressive, and she chose to campaign for a more just economic order rather than for greater access to contraception and abortion. Not that I'm claiming she would endorse everything I say, but I feel the broad scope is the same, at least concerning short-term priorities. This, to me, shows that my position isn't derived from my gender, if those of a different gender are capable of reaching the same meta-conclusions.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

I've got to admit I'm not sure what you mean by this.

What I mean is that in a perfect world, it would be true, but in the real world, reproductive rights do a fuckload more to help women right now than campaigning for a perfect economy. And to a woman who's just found out she's pregnant, "but in an economy that valued your pregnancy you'd be fine" is pretty hollow comfort.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I think you're making a false distinction, to be honest. I'm no more campaigning for a 'perfect economy' any more than you're campaigning for a post-patriarchal utopia. Obviously a post-capitalist society would be lovely but there's a lot of more short term stuff to be done as well. I'd be fairly enthusiastic about any program that established a universal basic income, for instance, and that's something that could be done tomorrow, if there was a political will. Sadly, there isn't - mostly because parties of the Left seem to have chiefly put economic issues in the 'too-hard' basket since the 1980s.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Hey, I wanted to let you know that I've been all essayed out of responding but I'm following with interest!

I think what L's saying is essentially that women cannot afford to put off abortion legislation, irrelevant of economic factors. (I think this debate is largely academic anyway.)

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I think this debate is largely academic anyway.

Yes, if only because my hypothetical equality-seeking, abortion-disliking party is not likely to come along, at least in today's political climate. But if I didn't think academic debates were worth having I wouldn't have gone to University!

[kitsunerei88]

Hmm, about the study where about girls and math:

It just really reminded me of my university's home crazy, who wrote this when I was in first year:

Boys are smarter than girls

This was after he published that paper where he "showed" that in terms of intelligence, Asian > White People > Black People. I wonder if that means I'm smarter than a white boy?

My university is understandably infuriated, except they can't fire him because he has tenure. Therefore, they've merely forbidden him from teaching. Because he's a whacko.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Sheesh. You can't get away from the whackos, can you? Ick.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

My brain is too much elsewhere to have much intelligent to say about this at the moment (alas, as much as I would like to invest the time to think it through). I'll just say, for now, that it's really, really easy to make this a dispassionate, moral issue when you will never have to deal with the anguish of an unwanted pregnancy - i.e., when you are a man. Though I recognise, intellectually, that this is a "moral" issue, and gets at people's prohibitions against destroying "life", I have trouble seeing it as such, trouble seeing that there could be any debate, when I think about how bloody terrifying the prospect is of losing control of my own body and what I do with it.

The freedom not to get pregnant/have babies is, I would say, the single most significant indicator of women's liberation. The more I research women's lives at other times, the more this becomes increasingly clear. It's really, really big. Virtually everything about the way I'm currently able to live is predicated on the fact that I do not have to get married/have children, and having to do so, not having a choice in the matter, is so utterly alien and scary to me. The whole point is getting free of biological tyranny, forming other ways of being. And doing that is so recent, so, so amazingly recent - and yet, we take it totally for granted, and people think they can even argue about it. But for me (and I realise this goes against everything intellectual) it's beyond argument, and I'm not prepared to get into the argument, but that this issue is absolutely non-negotiable, possibly more than any other. It gets right at the root of everything. And as you say, I don't know whether it can take on that same importance for someone who cannot get pregnant - though I could be wrong.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

And I realise this all places women who are unable to get pregnant in kind of an iffy position, as well as sounding rather (or more than rather) biologically essentialist, both of which trouble me intensely - but unfortunately it has to remain, for the moment at least, more an emotional response than a decent argument.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

I find the place of women who are unable to get pregnant very interesting, re: the abortion debate, because I've seen a lot of comments along the lines of "women shouldn't be having abortions, they need to consider adoption, because so many people can't have kids!" and "I have been trying to have kids for ten years and I don't understand why someone would kill their baby!". Essentially, large portions of society seem to believe that a fertile woman has a responsibility, if she doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, to do so in order to give someone else a child. Yet no-one would ever tell a fertile man that it was his duty to donate sperm to help those other, less fortunate couples where the man couldn't get the woman pregnant.

It seems to tie in to some sort of conception of women's bodies as public property that I find very disturbing; like we're all in possession of some ur-Womb which is there to distribute babies to the Deserving, no matter who they may be. The mother's comfort, safety, and life don't come into it; it's all about her selfishness in _not_ carrying a child for a stranger. We don't see people arguing that those with two healthy kidneys or a healthy liver are selfish and horrible for not donating organs to strangers; yet that saves lives, and has a comparable risk to carrying a pregnancy to term. It just really highlights for me how women's reproductive systems are co-opted as society's property. And the worst thing is that it pits women against women, as those who can't get pregnant rail against those who can and choose not to carry to term.

Just - when are we going to get away from this notion that women are communal property, even the communal property of other women? That a womb belongs to everyone, but a penis is the ultimate symbol of personal status and pride? Why are there people who think my body isn't mine?

(Er, sorry for the comment spam there.)

[confusiontempst.livejournal.com]

Now I'm REALLY curious as to what grounds were used to underpin the ruling that international adoption is a human rights violation.

Because as far as I can see, it's that ruling more than any other that gives any weight at all to the "but I want kids, why don't you spawn babies for me to adopt?" school of retardery.

Well, that and racism.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Personally, if I was pregnant and someone told me to not have an abortion because they wanted kids, I would do everything in my power to make sure they never got their hands on any child, ever, especially mine.

Seriously, though - what makes these people think that women who want abortions are gonna want to hand over their kid to someone who is telling them what they should and should not be doing about their pregnancy? It's like the guy I had a go at on the PA forums yesterday who aruged men should be able to veto abortions - what woman in her right mind would hand over her baby to the kind of controlling asshole who'd want to override her bodily autonomy?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Not that I disagree with anything you said there, but I think J was talking about whether or not women who are infertile are in the same position as men in terms of being unable to understand the stakes of abortion in the same way women do.

(Personally, I would say that this would only be true if a woman had always thought of herself as infertile and additionally had never had the experience of having what to do with her body dictated to her. To elaborate on my first point, given the difficulty my mother had getting pregnant I've occasionally wondered whether or not I'll run into any kind of reproductive difficulties, but I would always assume that I *was* able to have children, and think about myself as a potential childbearer, first.)

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Er, yeah, she probably did mean that, her comment was just the starting-off point for my rant. Hence, comment spam. :P

In re: that point, I think that there is a certain amount of that going on with women who are infertile and blame other women for getting abortions - like, they want children so badly they are incapable of understanding how someone could have an _un_wanted pregnancy. Which isn't the same thing as being a man, but, yeah.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

"Yet no-one would ever tell a fertile man that it was his duty to donate sperm to help those other, less fortunate couples where the man couldn't get the woman pregnant"
yeah i think you could. 1/6 couples are infertile, and i feel it's my duty to donate sperm as much as it's my duty to donate blood.

And the female counterpart of that is eggs. not a baby. You can't compare women to men in that respect, simply because women are the vessel for reproduction. That may sound sexist, but until we discover a way to grow foetuses outside the womb, it'll remain true.

I'm not saying that the womb belongs to society, just that you can't compare a baby to sperm.

And can people please stop arguing about how this will affect women more than men (which i admit it would) and actually address the real issue? whether it's right or wrong. We don't say "o, maybe we should be a bit more lenient on drug dealing, seeing as our jails are now 50% full of Maori".

Noone seems actually prepared to define why a mother has more rights than a foetus. I'll say that i'm undecided on this issue, simply because noone has ever been able to convince me of why i should believe this.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Noone seems actually prepared to define why a mother has more rights than
a foetus.

Because a woman is a sentient, living, breathing human being, and an embryo or foetus is a parasitic mass of cells which is human only in potentia. Privileging the "rights" of the "unborn child" above those of the woman is arguing that the potential life of the embryo is more important than the actual life of the woman - and that reduces women to nothing more than vessels for potentiality.

Think of it this way - if you were a potential organ donor for someone who would die without a kidney (which, the laws of chance being what they are, you probably are for someone in the world) no-one would dream of legislating that you were required to give up that kidney, regardless of the consequences to yourself. Yet people are happy to legislate that women must give up their lives, metaphorically and literally, for something that isn't even human yet. How is that not wrong?

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

first off, i'm not talking about an embryo, i'm talking about a foetus. And what makes them not living? give me one piece of information that defines them as not being alive.

I concede that, by my definition, a mass of undifferentiated cells is not humanly alive. How can it be, when it could be easily divided up and give rise to other zygotes. This is the human in potentia. A foetus is not.

What makes foetuses inhuman?

"women must give up their lives" - that's ridiculous. WHile it is a burden, it's not giving up their lives.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

What makes foetuses inhuman?

Well, if we're talking about viable foetuses - that's to say, those past about 25 weeks - then I actually don't support abortion for reasons other than the mother's health and life. Before that, they're not viable, they're a parasite which requires the mother's body to survive. So I'm quite happy to privilege the mother's life over theirs. (And, before we get into a medical-care-and-incubators argument: no-one else has to hand over their body to support someone on intensive medical treatment or a baby in an incubator.)

WHile it is a burden, it's not giving up their lives.

Well, let's see: pregnancy has many severe side-effects and can be life-threatening, as well as just plain painful. The psychological side-effects, in particular, can be long-lasting. It's expensive. It requires that the mother take leave or give up her job for a period. It then produces a baby, which is even more expensive, as well as making the mother totally responsible for another human being for the next, oh, eighteen years, with all the accompanying effects on one's life and career.

That, and I don't see how you could wish a child a mother who didn't want it and probably doesn't have the resources to care for it properly.

Frankly, from where I stand as a student? Having a baby would be the worst thing that could happen to me, short of losing a limb. And it's not that I don't want kids - I really do. I'm living with someone I want to have kids with. I just don't want to (and can't afford) to have them right now.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

a baby when born is pretty much a parasite. Have you seen a new-born baby? they can't do anything. They couldn't even crawl out of the sunlight. They are completely, 100% reliant on their mother. So is a foetus.

A viable foetus at 30 weeks still requires the mother's body (or life support) to survive, so what's the difference? viability will become younger and younger as technology increases. The point which must be defined is when does it become humanly alive?

Are the mother's right to have the time for education and a career greater than the foetus' rights to life? Yes, it might have been a regrettable mistake, but that's all irrelevant if it turns out that abortion is wrong. I'm not saying that it is, i'm undecided, just that whatever is going to happen to the woman's (and her partner's) career is too bad.

And yes, i support abortion if the pregnancy is deemed life-threatening.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

A viable foetus at 30 weeks still requires the mother's body (or life support) to survive, so what's the difference?

But, no, it doesn't. Induced labour _will_ result in a live baby. Not the healthiest baby in the world, maybe, but a live and reasonably healthy one. And I say again: a born child is not uniquely reliant on its mother. A foetus in the first or second trimester cannot be reliant on anyone else. Hence, the woman should and must have the choice of whether she wants to support it.

Are the mother's right to have the time for education and a career greater than the foetus' rights to life?

Well - yeah, actually, I think; the foetus doesn't have rights. Let's also add the mother's right to not risk her health, to put her other children first...it's not all about education or career. 50% of women in New Zealand who have abortions have children already.

You're getting perilously close to slut-shaming, I hope you realise.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

i don't know what slut-shaming is, but i think i can figure it out, and i'm not trying to be. It was yourself who first brought up education and career.
To what degree does having a baby risk your health? I have no problem with abortion for medical (physical or mental health) reasons, but i don't think that's what we're discussing.

Like i say, younger and younger foetuses are becoming viable. When is there an actual point where it is not humanly alive?

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

To what degree does having a baby risk your health?

Let me put it this way: from the moment a woman becomes pregnant, a surgical abortion is twelve times safer than going through normal childbirth. Complications of pregnancy can increase that ten or a hundredfold. Humans are possible the least well-adapted species out there where childbirth is concerned.

Like i say, younger and younger foetuses are becoming viable. When is there an actual point where it is not humanly alive?

Actually they're not; twenty-five weeks is still the barrier, and premie babies born around then are very unlikely to survive. Not to mention you have reductio ad absurdium there; you undoubtedly have brothers and sisters in vitro who were never born. Did they have a "right to life" because they existed? Did your parents have a moral duty to implant them? Now, of course you can say that an embryo isn't a foetus...but as you say - where do you stop?

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

i've already explained where i stop. Differentiation. With a group of undifferentiated cells, they can divide up as you like, yielding pretty much infinite clones. And if undifferentiated cells are humanly alive, then does this mean that identical twins are half-alive each? obviously not, therefore i wouldn't consider a mass of undifferentiated cells as being humanly alive.

That's the only point at which i can see a clear difference between humanly alive and something which yields human life.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

but as a percentage, how many women get a lifelong injury or death because of pregnancy?

the main reason why people say that humans aren't well adapted in terms of childbirth is that our heads are too big for the pelvis. This isn't a risk anymore now that we can safely perform C-sections.

[confusiontempst.livejournal.com]

I knew idiot would have it buried somewhere:
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2004/11/votes.html

[confusiontempst.livejournal.com]

ACT voted against this partiicular draconian measure
The Maori Party voted against
The Greens voted against

United Future voted for it

Copeland - Independent List MP, voted for it
Field - Independent Mangere, voted for it

Stewart didn't vote party line for NZ First
Woolerton didn't vote party line for NZ First
The rest of NZ First voted for it

The majority of Labour were against
The majority of National were for.

Edit:I'll stop now, promise, I just kept realising I'd forgotten to add party names to this

Reasons to think ACT will be neocons

[confusiontempst.livejournal.com]

http://www.act.org.nz/node/27130
http://www.act.org.nz/node/26152
http://www.act.org.nz/node/24457

And if you want to be exceptionally annoyed

[confusiontempst.livejournal.com]

Liberal Feminism (http://www.act.org.nz/node/21694)

Well at least, it's what ACT thinks Liberal Feminism means. Does appear to condone availability of Abortion though, in contravention of all those later things it produced.

Re: And if you want to be exceptionally annoyed

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

God, reading that made me want to throw up; could they be more victim-blaming? Seriously? Women just need to toughen up and fight abuse individually! The only collective right they deserve is the right to vote, after that they're on their own!

*gags*

Re: And if you want to be exceptionally annoyed

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

hey, i've been all essaying lately but I wanted to say thanks for your digging! :)

Re: And if you want to be exceptionally annoyed

[confusiontempst.livejournal.com]

NP, you should see the number of tabs I have open.

Egad, why didn't I do any work today?
ARGH.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone's already posted the voting record (people might also be interested in this (http://www.alranz.org/VotingrecordofMPs1990-2007.htm)), but the scary thing is how many National MPs voted for restrictions. Their 2005 intake reportedly isn't anywhere near as conservative and misogynistic as their 2002 rump, but they stil have far too many dinosaurs.

Menawhile, if you want to do anything about this, here's a suggestion: pick a female National MP (http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/Default.htm?pf=Party&sf=National+Party&lgc=0) ("firstname.lastname@parliament.govt.nz") or candidate (http://www.national.org.nz/) (use the dropdown; "firstname.lastname@national.org.nz") and send them an email about it asking whether they will support legislation or even bring a members' bill to preserve the practical status quo should it be necessary (you may want to check that ALRANZ voting record first to avoid wasting your time on Judith Collins). The fundies will be doing this; if we want sanity to prevail, then we need to lobby to.

(Why National? Because its their votes we'll need to get such legislation passed. And because prodding their MPs will hopefully get them to speak up about it in caucus when the issue comes up).

I/S

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

but the scary thing is how many National MPs voted for restrictions.

Agreed - I was around 16 in 2004 and I distinctly remember following these debates with great interest because of how directly they might affect me and my classmates. Oh well, perhaps Key really will modernise the party, sigh.

Thanks for the tips! :)

[(Anonymous)]

perhaps Key really will modernise the party, sigh.

I doubt it - he voted for it. Some "liberal".

I/S