Choice (with an edit)
Feb. 23rd, 2006 08:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI am treading on delicate ice, so a few tips: I am not really looking to engage in a debate on the merits of abortion. My personal opinions on it,per se, are, immaterial. I happen to think it a right, and as such, like one's right to speak out in public on things I despise, practice a religion I think silly (or even damaging) and your right to marry whomever you want, and do with them in the bedroom anything the both of you agree to.
That's my position on the issue, and arguments that it's murder, or ought to be only for special circumstances, or that there comes a point where it's not justified don't hold with me. The choice is the woman's. Not mine, not the State's, not a church's, not anyone but hers.
So this ban of all abortions in S. Dakota which don't, "threaten the life," of the mother bothers me.
Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke said the time is right for the ban on abortion.
“In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children,” she said during the Senate's debate. “There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children.”
Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21.
“To require a woman who has been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota,” he said.
Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown objected.
Rape should be punished severely, he said, but the amendment is unfair to “some equally innocent souls who have no chance to stand and defend themselves.”
Now me, as I said above, rape isn't the issue for me, the woman's right is. This bill strips one of her rights. The governor of S. Dakota has said he'll sign it. It will be challenged, and we can be certain Samuel Alito will vote to uphold it.
This is what the vote for cloture did. It's what Lieberman, and all the rest of the asshats who voted yes, before they voted no; and voted that yes in a way which invalidated their no vote.... which is to say they voted yes, did, because this statute is almost exactly the same as the one struck down in Roe v. Wade. If this is upheld, Roe is, in fact, dead.
The fact of the matter is that while State Sen. Julie Bartling is right, "There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children." it's a minority. It's a vocal minority, and one which understands that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but that minority is trying to step on the rights of others, because the excercise of those rights offends them.
And it is about them being offended. Most of them have no problem with the death penalty, and they get sniffy when arguments are made against it, even when those arguments are based on the sanctity of human life (me, I disagree with the death penalty, not because of that sanctity, but because I don't trust the state to not make mistakes, and for the innocent to suffer is a greater wrong to me than any amount of revenge on the guilty might make up for).
The people who are for this, are also for other restrictions, on birth control, on privacy, on freedom of; and from, religion. Am I stereotyping them? Some. I don't think they are all Fred Phelps, but I do think the majority of those who are against choice in this matter, are against it in others.
They want a nanny-state, one in which personal freedoms are subsumed to the greater good of the State,and that state is made in the image of some paternalistic control of vast swathes of what we now count personal choice.
Elections are coming. Some, like Leiberman, are vulnerable. Turn the bums out.
Because to leave the weak-sisters in office is to see more authoritarians like Alito on the bench, more laws like this, and PATRIOT, passed, and less of what we think of as America.
That's my position on the issue, and arguments that it's murder, or ought to be only for special circumstances, or that there comes a point where it's not justified don't hold with me. The choice is the woman's. Not mine, not the State's, not a church's, not anyone but hers.
So this ban of all abortions in S. Dakota which don't, "threaten the life," of the mother bothers me.
Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke said the time is right for the ban on abortion.
“In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children,” she said during the Senate's debate. “There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children.”
Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21.
“To require a woman who has been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota,” he said.
Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown objected.
Rape should be punished severely, he said, but the amendment is unfair to “some equally innocent souls who have no chance to stand and defend themselves.”
Now me, as I said above, rape isn't the issue for me, the woman's right is. This bill strips one of her rights. The governor of S. Dakota has said he'll sign it. It will be challenged, and we can be certain Samuel Alito will vote to uphold it.
This is what the vote for cloture did. It's what Lieberman, and all the rest of the asshats who voted yes, before they voted no; and voted that yes in a way which invalidated their no vote.... which is to say they voted yes, did, because this statute is almost exactly the same as the one struck down in Roe v. Wade. If this is upheld, Roe is, in fact, dead.
The fact of the matter is that while State Sen. Julie Bartling is right, "There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children." it's a minority. It's a vocal minority, and one which understands that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but that minority is trying to step on the rights of others, because the excercise of those rights offends them.
And it is about them being offended. Most of them have no problem with the death penalty, and they get sniffy when arguments are made against it, even when those arguments are based on the sanctity of human life (me, I disagree with the death penalty, not because of that sanctity, but because I don't trust the state to not make mistakes, and for the innocent to suffer is a greater wrong to me than any amount of revenge on the guilty might make up for).
The people who are for this, are also for other restrictions, on birth control, on privacy, on freedom of; and from, religion. Am I stereotyping them? Some. I don't think they are all Fred Phelps, but I do think the majority of those who are against choice in this matter, are against it in others.
They want a nanny-state, one in which personal freedoms are subsumed to the greater good of the State,and that state is made in the image of some paternalistic control of vast swathes of what we now count personal choice.
Elections are coming. Some, like Leiberman, are vulnerable. Turn the bums out.
Because to leave the weak-sisters in office is to see more authoritarians like Alito on the bench, more laws like this, and PATRIOT, passed, and less of what we think of as America.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 05:33 pm (UTC)What the rape exception says is that pregnancy is a punishment for sex, and that it's only okay to abort a pregnancy if the sex wasn't your idea.
Similarly, an incest exception is in theory based on the higher risk of birth defects -- but in fact there is no exception for actual, diagnosed birth defects.
So, if you are carrying a baby who cannot survive the pregnancy, you can't have an abortion. If you are carrying a pregnancy by an abusive man who has threatened you, carry to term. But if you had sex that conservatives find in some way either blameless or icky, go ahead and do the deed!
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 06:04 pm (UTC)It's inconsistent with the stated belief that the issue is murder. If it's murder, it's murder. The child concieved of rape is as blameless as the child conceived of a broken condom, so a claim of justification only works if the sins of the father attach to the children.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 06:26 pm (UTC)Anyone who claims abortion is murder but makes any exception except for saving the life of the woman is, IMHO, revealing that "prohibiting murder" is not their real agenda.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 10:51 pm (UTC)However, while the most vocal anti-abortion leaders might oppose other forms of birth control and sex education, not all do. Personally, I'd rather make abortion unneeded rather than illegal. Which functionally puts me alongside
many pro-choice folks I believe.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 12:53 am (UTC)If it isn't murder (the unlawful killing of a human being) then there's no reason to be against it.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 01:21 am (UTC)My sentiments exactly.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 04:34 pm (UTC)It's interesting that under the Clinton Administration (which fostered those things) abortions dropped.
Under Bush, who's administration is anti-abortion, and anti all the rest (taking the Saletan school of thought, i.e. make sex shamful and abortion harder to get; and with hurdles meant to increase the shame of having had sex; Bush, et al. also add the filip of making the risk of actually getting pregnant higher) abortions have gone up.
Which tells me they are after more than just abortion, but have a fundamentally different view of the social place of women.
It's a view I despise.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 06:34 pm (UTC)It's a view I despise.
Cannot agree more. They might as well revoke my citizenship if they have any say over who I am as a woman and what I do with my body.
Sex change operations are looking more attractive by the day. :P
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 03:17 am (UTC)I understand the sentiment of making abortion unneeded, but it sounds like avoidance of the issue. Birth sometimes control fails, teenagers (and people in their 20's, 30's, 40's) are sometimes foolish, and 2000 years ago a girl who had never even touched a man got pregnant. So don't tell me that abstinance is 100% effective either.
Seriously though, the legality of abortion is under fire now. The issue won't wait at the sidelines until new technology comes along in the future and new technology may never be 100% either. Look at "Star Wars," they can travel at the speed of light, but can't make an effective contraception (even The Force is powerless). If you want fewer abortions, then you're pro-choice. If you want no abortions, you're either dreaming or pro-life.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 06:38 pm (UTC)lol
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 02:15 pm (UTC)I don't. Adding nine months of the physical difficulties of even an uncomplicated healthy pregnancy culminating in labor is a further assault on the woman. A daily, unescapable physical assault that will last for the greater part of a year. If forcing women to go through that against their will isn't compounding the original violent crime, I can't imagine what else would be.
What the rape exception says is that pregnancy is a punishment for sex
Bingo! Look again at most of these anti-abortion laws. They exist not to "Spare the innocent child" (which stands an excellent excuse to being abandoned to poverty and/or abuse & neglect) but to punish women for having sexual relations. Some of the more religious groups don't even hide it, referring to pregnancy as "punishment" for "choosing" to have sex.
However, in the cases of rape and incest, it's impossible for even the most righteous person to claim that the victim "chose" to have sex. So that kind of blows the original argument of blaming the women for careless sex.
Wherefore the shiny new argument that it's all for the innocent unborn babies. Who are somehow more important than the innocent born victims of sexual assault.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 04:37 pm (UTC)As I said, if you believe abortion is murder, then there can be no exceptions which aren't for the life of the mother.
Part of the creepy part of rape is that it harken back to the idea that the chastity of the woman is an item which reflects her intrinsic worth. We have decided (unlike some cultures) that rape doesn't really count as a claim against chastity, so we can discard the, visible, effects.
That's creepy.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 06:46 pm (UTC)Not in Italy, apparently. The Italian Supreme court just made a ruling that put partial blame on the rape victim, because she wasn't a virgin.
CNN article here
I weep for the future.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 05:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 06:05 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 06:30 pm (UTC)That, as you say, will make for some interesting legal interpretations.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 09:20 pm (UTC)1: A doctor who performs an abortion which doesn't threaten the life is facing loss of license, and five years in prison (with all the attendant hassles which go with being a felon afterwards). That's a hefty thing to risk, on principle.
2: If he doesn't perform the abortion, and there are significant complications, which result in the death of the mother, he faces a malpractice suit.
3: If those complications risk her life, but don't lead to her death, he still faces a malpractice suit, but probably has an affirmitive defense in that he can point out that, since she didn't die, he was prohibited, by law, from performing the abortion.
None of this is, of course, relevant to the main thrust of the legislation... making abortion illegal. The hurdles to making it, even under the auspices the purport to allow, are not bugs, they are features.
It's interesting that the people trying to make it closer to what the, "abortion is icky, but legal, and to be resorted to as a least of all possible evils" excuse, aren't the Dems in S. Dakota, but the Republicans.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 06:28 pm (UTC)I don't think so. I think they want a church-state, one in which personal freedoms are subsumed to what they see as the will of God, and that state is made in the image of their own chosen religion, whatever it may be.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 07:28 pm (UTC)If it were a church state, then they are subject to the law as well. They just want everyone *else* to be watched over and policed.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 08:24 pm (UTC)1: The majority of those who are vocally opposed to all aspects of abortion are of such an opinion as the result of religious belief.
2: A large subset of that population would like to see more of their religious beliefs either used as the overt basis for how the rest of the nation lives its life (viz. Fred Phelps who thanks God for the death of soldiers because it shows how much we have strayed and are being punished by a just God for our tolerance of homosexuals, apparently if we start killing homosexuals roadside bombs will fail and bullets will miss the target and all the world will be swept before us as the Amekelites and Midianites were before the hosts of Isreal under Joshua).
3: Everyone who fantasizes a "new world", where they are no longer oppressed also believes they will be in the catbird seat (viz. the survivialists of the late '70s and '80s, who wanted a distaster, social collapse, nuclear war. All of them assumed they would be the ones in charge when they crawled out of the bunker. Anarchy wouldn't be a problem, because... well just because. Everyone would see they were the best ones to run things after the collapse).
Bible-thumping fantasists are no different in this regard. They think they will be part of the new Sanhedrin, and so will not be accountable (and they won't want to do wrong). Or they have so internalised the notion of the elect that they believe they are incapable of sin.
In either case they can't see that the whip they plan to use on others could possibly be used on them.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-23 11:34 pm (UTC)This is at the heart of most of my political and social philosophy.