I ran across this while looking for something else and I remembered that Health bill the church wants squashed. It is a video blog by American blogger Lindsay Campbell several months back. She talked about Abortion and the Right to Choose. Yes, she’s a feminist but listen to her argument. She makes a whole lot of sense.
Popularity: 1% [?]
So ok, she made a very good case for safe and legal abortions. Would she also fight for the freedom of choice for a medical practitioner to refuse to perform an abortion? Or would she have the state exercise its power to jail a medical practitioner for refusing on conscience to perform an abortion? IOW, is she really ‘pro-choice’ or is she only pro-choice to those who agree with her, and will sic the state on those that dont if it were up to her? She didnt say. That’s one ofmy objections to the RH bill before the house: too much power to the State.
Jeg
perhaps you should address your questions to Lindsay. Her blog’s at Moblogic.tv. that particular video blog is here.
i apologize. been screwing up putting the links. it was embedded on the post but wasn’t seen properly.
i’m confused actually :) after arguing both (several?)i sides of the issue, i think she says that women should be given the final right to choose, because of the uncertainty inherent in where life begins.
if so, i ask:
1) doesn’t uncertainty mean we should gather more information about a decision to make a good choice?
2) doesn’t uncertainty mean we have to skew conservatively? meaning, we favor a more conservative interpretation on when life begins? example, in legal trials, we need to meet a non-trivial standard of evidence before we limit freedoms. What more for the possibility for life?
3) when is the argument that says, “they will do it anyway, so we might as well help them” a moral and correct answer? if i tell you that i will murder my friend, and i will kill anyone who tries to stop me, is the correct course of action to allow me to kill my friend?
You can’t beat female logic. It’s the best.
GabbyD. Precisely when stuff is uncertain that two political dichotomies appear in plain sight: the conservative and the liberal. So answer, depende sa persuasion mo.
Lot of sense or nonsensee depending on one’s bias.
It is lot of nonsense to me.
If a woman does not want want a baby why engage in reckless fucking where condoms are everywhere?
In the case of incest and rape even the abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade would allow it because under this ruling the right of a woamn to abort a fetus during the first trimester is absolute.
During the second trimester, abortion can be regulated by the State. During the third trimester, abortion is prohibited unless abortion is justified because child-bearing endangers the life of the mother.
Viability of the fetus has already been established in Roe v. Wade and it is no longer a gray area contrary to Lindsay Campbell’s pseudo Aristotlean discourse in her youtube.
Here is the gist of the the Roe v. Wade:
“On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant’s arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman’s sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court’s decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”
xxxx
“In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.”
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the “compelling” point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this “compelling” point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”
@jcc
you said that “Viability of the fetus has already been established in Roe v. Wade and it is no longer a gray area contrary to Lindsay Campbell’s pseudo Aristotlean discourse in her youtube.”
from ur quoted passage:
” These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.””
these interests refer to the woman and the fetus.it seems to me that there is an imbalance in the weighing of interests here, initially in the favor of the mother, but then growing over time.
Here is my question:
Why aren’t the rights equal at the start? What is the philosophy/moral theory that states that the fetus doesn’t enjoy the same status as a woman?
why is viability the key concept here? why is viability in the first trimester?
even a baby that is born normally, is vulnerable, right? a baby needs certain conditions to grow into the next stage of human life (childhoond). Same for the fetus, right? it needs the correct conditions to continue to grow. in fact, SAME with adults. IF you leave me naked in the ocean without a boat, I WILL DIE. does that mean i’m not viable?
viability is a weird standard, because viability is ALWAYS context/stage of development specific.
If you can help me understand Roe V Wade, that would really help me. i’ve been trying to understand all of the best arguments in favor of abortion, and none of them pass muster.
@brianb
is it really all about political persuasion? di ba uncertainty should engender caution? when you drive a car and there is a stop sign, you stop. WHY? coz you MIGHT hit someone. you stop and check, and then go on your way.
WHEN we charge someone with a crime with a punishment that limits that person’s freedom. We make sure we pass a certain high standard.
another EXAMPLE: under capital punishment, there is a stringent standard of evidence needed before you can end life. But in abortion, where is the stringent standard?
i wanna add one more thing, a theory of mine that explains why abortion is legal, why the status of the fetus is below that of a person.
1) there are parallels between the blacks in the US in the past and fetuses. there was a time when racism was accepted and blacks were less than a full person.
It took decades to change attitudes, and even now, the effects of it can still be seen.
But how did it change? I submit it became a political movement, a civil rights issue. soon, blacks were soon considered to be a full person. They also fought for themselves, aka. there were black civil rights leaders. Other people fought for them as well.
fetuses? no such luck. they don’t look like a person. they can’t talk. we can read their minds. they don’t even have faces. they can’t fight for themselves.
2) at first glance, the situation with a fetus can be likened with animals/environmentalism. animals can’t defend themselves.
People, however, fight for animals. Now, its illegal to kill animals under certain circumstances, thanks to animal activists. no such protection for fetuses, despite the fact they will eventually become humans.
3) abortion is intimately related to the fact that there is an aggrieved party — the mother. when we have conflicting interests between humans and animals, we usually side with humans. for example, we wouldnt bat an eyelash if someone kills a cockroach. (except maybe a buddhist!)
even then, this is not always true for animals! i was watching a docu about wolves in montana. they come into conflict with human ranchers coz wolves eat livestock. before the conservation movement, ranchers would hunt wolves, almost making them extinct.
NOW, its different. the government bends over backwards to accomodate wolf populations, even forcing ranchers to take extra steps to wall-in their land. When wolves attack, the government rangers come in and tranq the wolves for relocation.
WHAT is striking is that this protection for wolves is NOT available for fetuses.
4) the different treatment between certain ‘favored animals’ and fetuses comes from the fact that we can help alleviate the conflict with animals by spending money. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY can separate a fetus and a mother.
I predict that once artificial wombs can be created, we will find that abortion will dissappear in rich countries, and they’d prefer to use this technoogy, in the same way as they would prefer to relocate wolves rather than kill them.
GabbyD,
The Roe V. Wade has laid out the rule:
First Trimester, the fetus is not viable. Woman Can abort.
Second Trimester, fetus may attain viability. the State can regulate abortion.
Trimester, Fetus can survive outside the womb. State prohibits abortion, unless child bearing endangers the life of the mother.
In arriving at these formula the Court was guided by medical and scientific studies on how a fetus is develop within the womb in 9 monhts.
You see, the fetus is not the property of the woman which she can dispose of at will. The fetus is treated as a full human being durng the trimester period and the State has the right to protect that humann being.
Please go read the entire decision.
But we are missing the issue behind this debate. If a woman does not want a baby why fuck in reckless abandon where condom is everywhere?
It’s you who’s missing the point. A premise of the issue is that UNWANTED pregnancy has already happened. It could be for a myriad of reasons — including (un)availability of condoms to poor women in this country. But we are not discussing the merits of the reasons here.
Your comment is also inherently sexist in the sense that it implies that commiting women to a lifelong responsibility of caring for an unplanned child is JUSTIFIED because they had it coming (having reckless sex without condom).
carlito,
you want sexual gratification without assuming full responsibility of your action. you can engage in “coitus interruptus” or fuck when your partner is safe.
but in the U.S. you are given a leeway in your reckless fucking by aborting your “unwanted baby” during the first trimester.
in RP its a no-no. tough luck, as bencard would say. :)
@ GabbyD
The Roe vs. Wade does promote the protection of the fetus as a human being.
Your beef is really that stage before the “compelling” point where the State has no right to intefere with the decision of the mother. You disagree with the decision where to put that “compelling” point in the period of pregnancy. I think you’re arguing similarly as Catholic teaching that concepton starts the moment a fertilized egg attaches itself on the mother’s womb.
And that precisely is where most opinion on the morality of abortion diverges. It is a question that is beyond the Roe vs. Wade decision. In fact it goes into the realm of ethics already. Depending on your moral persuasion, an embryo may or may not equal human life although most secular thinkers don’t think that an embryo equals human life. I believe that as well, that’s why I agree with Roe vs. Wade.
jcc
think of it this way: countries legalize divorce because people should have protection in law just in case things do not happen as they expected it to be. same with legalizing abortion to some extent.
the law is there not because so that you can engage in irresponsible sex or in marrying irresponsibly. it is there to give you protection in case you fuck up.
@jcc
why get pregnant when condoms are available? other than the unavailability issue, there’s preference too. thats the thing, lots of people don’t want contraception, but don’t want a baby either. lots of men chaff (!) at the use of condoms…
after researching this issue, if found this interesting quote from the guy who penned the decision:
“Blackmun said in his memo to the other justices that he had determined to set the cutoff at the first trimester, or first 13 weeks of pregnancy. “This is arbitrary,” he said, starkly acknowledging his problem. “But perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability (of the fetus), is equally arbitrary.”"
from: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/roe/woodward.html
i think it is arbitrary also.
moreover, it is said that the decision ‘created’ a right to abortions, regardless of trimester. as a lawyer, any opinion on this right?
@carlito
they don’t have to take care of the kid, they can give it away. but thats interesting:
is it better to live at all costs? or is it better to live only in a family environment.