[Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and parenthood,
was: Immigration Reform Rally!
Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 9 10:34:09 CST 2009
Pure gibberish, of course, no matter who said it. You can make an ethical argument against abortion if you like, but the framers of the laws you cite clearly did not contemplate the interpretation being imagined here, nor is there any other legal reason to do so - when we set age limits, for example, we count age from BIRTH, not CONCEPTION; we do not attempt to bar pregnant women from seeing R-rated films (although some rightwinger may soon try it); the census does not count pregnant women as multiple people; police reports do not list embryos or fetuses separately when describing a scene; etc.
The rest of the argument is also complete bunk, like most of "Natural Law" theory at least as we studied in Biomedical Ethics. It sounds convincing only if you already believe it, or are really gullible. That's because the argument assumes what it purports to prove: in this case, a particular (and flawed) definition of humanity.
It isn't usually stated clearly anyway, as it isn't here. The definition of "a human being" can't be this simplistic DNA trait. If it were, a cancerous tumor or any severe mutation would count as "a human being," i.e. genetically different from the host but still genetically homo sapiens. What about the case of anencephaly, an apparent human baby born without a brain? Is this a "person" with equal rights? Clearly not. But WHY not? That is the relevant question here, in my opinion. And I think the answer is not so hard to figure out if we think about it clearly without too many preconceived notions.
An anencephalic "child" has no equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of land (wait, they changed that, right? happiness?) because he/she/it has no CAPACITY for such things. In the same way, I have no "right" to sprout wings and fly, because I cannot. Likewise, certain persons born with severe brain damage or underdevelopment CANNOT exercise certain rights - certain levels of independent living, decision-making, etc. - and therefore it is absurd to argue that they have a "right" to do so. Clearly, this situation can be abused, as can many others, so a high level of caution is important. In fact, it's hard to generalize this way, but just about any time we see unequal power - social, politic, economic, etc. - abuse usually follows close behind. It is certainly within a parent's rights - in fact, our duty - to curtail small children's freedom too move about by stopping them from running out into traffic, for example, but that does not
justify beating them bloody to disuade them or keeping them locked in a basement. And so on. So, regardless of the stickiness of the sometimes conflicting issues, there are clearly limits to the "rights" that genetically human individuals may reasonably claim.
The question is always what these limits are, or ethically ought to be, and we may disagree about that. Those of us who believe that abortion is ethically permissable may disagree about when and under what circumstances. Those who believe (wrongly) that abortion is somehow "murder" may also disagree about what to do about it. But I've alluded to a few good reasons that legal prohibitions are and would be wrong (responding to an anti-abortion argument that I notice has now shifted like the proverbial sands) - this leaves the ethics in the hands of those who have the capacity to make ethical decisions. And among these, the ethical, socioeconomic and other considerations of those affected most - i.e. the pregnant women actually facing the decision - ought to take precedence in general, by rights.
I claim, in fact, that the "personhood" arguments aren't even the final word. If I find myself inextricably connected to an unconscious adult, for example, circulation, etc, in some science-fictional way that disconnecting before a certain period of months necessarily leads to the unfortunate other person's death, but remaining connected means reduced mobility, increased health risks, and a constant drain from me (as a giant parasite would), then I may ELECT to continue, but I am under no ETHICAL OBLIGATION to stay connected. It is my RIGHT to disconnect, and the decision is really mine.
Anti-abortionists may argue that the situation isn't analogous unless I am connected by virtue of some action I took, perhaps recklessly or perhaps without full recognition of the consequences or preparedness, or perhaps playing the odds that the connection would not result or that my health would not be in danger and only later learning that my health has been compromised, etc. I accept such amendments and claim the argument still holds. What crime would I have to be guilty of to rightfully incur such a sentence? Can we think of even one? None that would be relevant to the question.
Ricky
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
--- On Tue, 12/8/09, E.Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
From: E.Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and parenthood,was: Immigration Reform Rally!
To: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>, "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
Cc: "AWARE peace discussion" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 8:20 AM
Our friend RJ Harris, congressional candidate from Oklahoma had this to say about abortion in a press release this morning:
According to the 5th and 14th Amendments, life, liberty or property can only be infringed after due process and equal protection under the law have been provided. Equal protection requires that the unborn have the same protection as the born. The born cannot have their lives infringed without having first committed a capital crime. Thus, the unborn, since they are incapable of committing a capital crime, may not have their lives infringed either. Moreover, since it is impossible for the unborn to have notice or an opportunity to be heard, there can be no process equal to the constitutional requirement of due process.
Of course those that want to continue killing children in the name of convenience will immediately argue that unborn children are not persons.
According to the European slave traders, the Africans they sold were not people either.
According to the plantation owners in the Caribbean and the Americas, their slaves were not people either. According to the Taney Supreme Court of 1857, Dred Scott, a slave suing for his freedom, was not a person either. According to Hitler, the Jews were not people either. According to the Hutus, the Tutsis were not people either. According to the Janjaweed Militia the Darfurian Civilians were not people either.
Challenging the personhood of a human life IS the losing argument. If a human embryo was found on Mars in a stasis jar would NASA report the finding of mere life…or would NASA report the finding of HUMAN life?
----- Original Message -----
From: E. Wayne Johnson
To: Ricky Baldwin
Cc: AWARE peace discussion
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and parenthood,was: Immigration Reform Rally!
Immigration and abortion do both have a large racist component. We have discussed that relative to abortion. Racism is the implicit operative of immigration law... we exclude those who we don't like or are not like us.
Abortion terminates a human life. How you dismiss that is an important point. Murder always has a motive. One is saved, rescued, and liberated perhaps, and the other gets the physical equivalent of death in a Waring blender.
I am constantly taken aback by how authoritarian "liberals" are. I should learn to get used to it but it still has shock value for me. I am glad to see that at least you would not force income-synchronous limits on family size nor dictate dietary policy, however there are those who would love to.
Some libertarians make an argument against immigration based upon property rights. They commit an serious error in that it is assumed that all property is held personally and privately, which is absurd.
On 12/7/2009 2:11 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
Karen asks a good question - how we got from immigration to abortion. The answer is, Wayne sees them as related as issues of population control, a view I find simplistic but not totally non sequitur (in that some people do relate them this way - but nobody we're talking to currently, so I'm not sure of the significance here).
For what it's worth, I agree that abortion affects different populations differently, as do so many other things - including childbirth. As usual the poor and otherwise underprivileged get the worst hit. By that I do not mean that abortion is always the horror that some anti-abortion ideologues suggest, or that childbirth is always a horror, although it can be. Abortion can be a kind of salvation, rescue, liberation. Parenthood can open up a new and amazing world. But that isn't the case for all. Economic and other social pressures can coerce people into excruciatingly painful decisions of the most personal nature imaginable. It is entirely correct to observe that this is not in any meaningful sense a free choice.
Yet to remove the option is not to empower.
When we observe that people are forced into bad food choices, for example, we do not outlaw cheap food - although some liberals would. Nowadays women actually keep up with men pretty well in earnings - until they hit the childbearing years, when they fall behind and never catch up again, statistically. Individually having children or having more children can be devastating to a family's financial well-being. But none of us would propose that, therefore, there should be income-synchronous limits on family size. It just isn't the right way to respond. Being raise in a single-parent household hits a poor kid hard; a rich kid, not so much.
It is very bad for a person's health to sit hours on end in front of a TV or computer and skip vital exercise - and it can affect us all by driving up health care costs, etc. Yet we do not think it reasonable to make such choices illegal. It's unclear to me how this last risk distributes over demographics :-) - but in the case of abortion and parenthood and so many other things that track unfortunately along with poverty and powerlessness, it is the poverty and powerlessness that are the problem. These are the evils we must address.
My 2c.
Ricky
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
--- On Mon, 12/7/09, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform Rally!
To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "AWARE peace discussion" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 12:15 PM
I dont suppose I have used the expression "welfare queen" but you undoubtably have touched on the pro-abortion argument that its is cheaper for the gov't to fund abortions than to support the children.
The CDC reports data from 2006:
Black women make up about 12.3% of the population but account for 35% of all abortions. Hispanics make up 22% of all abortions but only 12.5% of the female population. Non-hispanic white women make up 62.6% of the population but only 34% of the abortions.
The abortion ratio in the USA was 236 abortions per 1,000 live births but among blacks the abortion ratio was 459 per 1000 live births.
On 12/7/2009 10:47 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
Gee Wayne, all the folks I know who've ended pregnancies are middle- or upper-middle class... and then there are all those folks on welfare who have 8+ kids... Lessee, what do you call them?? Oh yeah, Welfare Queens.
--Jenifer
--- On Sun, 12/6/09, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform Rally!
To: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
Cc: "AWARE peace discussion" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 3:59 PM
I didnt mean you personally but noted late, too late, it could be most easily taken that way.
I just wanted to point out the elitist overtones.
I would contend that were it not for the outright murder of ~50 million American citizens via abortion, there would be no dysfunction of population equilibrium that is the real force driving the wave of net immigration...
Abortion would not be legal if not for its eugenic effect.
(Of course I am strongly opposed to abortion, be it early, late, preemptive, or retroactive.)
When people tell me what they think about abortion they just tell me what they think about murder.
Why kill the child before birth? What not wait some time after birth and decide whether you like the baby or not?
Doesnt that make more sense then getting rid of the kid before ya know if its any good or not?
You could take the child back to the hospital for "recycling". I understand that there is a high demand for not-quite-fully-differentiated cells for the "spare parts" and "good used parts" market.
Of course I write foolishness here, but really, what is the difference?
On 12/6/2009 3:28 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
No such thing, Wayne. This event is being organized by a student group, hence the focus. La Colectiva Latina actually works on immigration issues generally, and does some excellent work among the very population you mention here locally - at Shadowwood, etc
If you mean me, I've actually done solidarity work with farmworkers standing up for their rights, in ways that they chose, for quite a few years. If you want to make this about me, I'm surprised you hadn't noticed the postings on those issues. I happen to think that the right approach to immigration "problems" is to guarantee the same rights, at work and so on, to everybody - then there's no incentive for unscrupulous employers to hire coyotes to scam desperate victims of our imperialist policies into slavery and near-slavery here - and to stop supporting repressive regimes abroad that create waves of immigration, etc.
To clarify, abortion ought to be freely available for anyone who wants it - regardless of anyone's paranoia about that. But I'm only in favor of euthanasia for so-called "Libertarians" who are opposed to other people's rights ;-)
By the way, thanks, Stuart. That's what I hear, too. Wayne is engaging in groundless speculation again, I believe. I won't speculate about the basis of his speculation.
Ricky
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
--- On Sun, 12/6/09, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform Rally!
To: "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Cc: "AWARE peace discussion" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 2:53 PM
Why special favours for those fortunate ones who attend universities and not for those who pick fruit, sort and pack vegetables, work in in meatpacking establishments, and clean our homes and buildings?
On 12/6/2009 2:27 PM, Stuart Levy wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 12:40:26PM -0600, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
Ricky,
You really are all about Eugenics, aren't you?
Abortion for the human weeds.
Import the best and brightest.
What do you propose for the "Culls"? Detention? Euthanasia?
Wayne
Wayne,
What on earth? This event is to promote a humane US immigration policy.
Plyler v. Doe for example says that states have to offer public education
to everybody, without screening by immigrant status.
I do hear eugenics-like language being used in the debate at times,
but coming from people opposed to such a policy. They talk about
impure stock coming across the borders, and not wanting them to mix with
the good american stock. Things like that. Much as many people did in the
late 19th/early 20th century when the impure stock were coming from
southern and eastern europe, like my father's parents.
I don't hear that kind of thing coming from people supporting things
like the DREAM act, do you?
On 12/5/2009 12:43 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
From: Celeste Larkin <celeste.larkin at gmail.com>
Subject: [PeoplesPotluck] Immigration Reform Rally!
To: peoplespotluck at lists.chambana.net
Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 9:37 PM
Wednesday, December 9th at 6:30 PM, in the Foellinger Auditorium,
the IDream Coalition will be hosting the *D.R.E.A.M.
Act/Immigration Reform Rally*! At the rally, we will be calling
upon our legislators, community and university to support
Immigration Reform that helps undocumented students gain
citizenship through higher education.
*_So what's the
rally all about?_ *
-Come to *learn* about past and present immigration legislation
such as:
* Plyer v. Doe
* Gutierrez/Immigration Bill
* HB 60
* DREAM Act
Inform yourself about our country's immigration laws!
-Come to see different U of I student organizations speaking about
how the immigration debate relates to them and *why we should
*/*ALL*/* care!*
-Come to witness testimonials from undocumented students who have
*shared their struggle* and personal immigration stories.
-Come to find out how you can *get involved* in future movements
for human rights and immigration reform.
So come, learn, witness, and show your support for those thousands
of undocumented students--because a few minutes of your time could
change someone's life forever!
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
PeoplesPotluck mailing list
PeoplesPotluck at lists.chambana.net
</mc/compose?to=PeoplesPotluck at lists.chambana.net>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peoplespotluck
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Prairiegreens mailing list
Prairiegreens at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/prairiegreens
http://www.prairienet.org/greens/
_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091209/dae57625/attachment.html
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list