billroper | Bad Ideas

I generally like to believe that murder is a bad idea. And I admit that I'm not in favor of banning the death penalty, although I believe that it's probably used far more often than it should be and in cases where the hard evidence isn't strong enough for it to be considered. But I consider it to be a different category of thing than "murder", just as I do killing someone in war.

If we want to believe that we live in a civilized society -- and I do! -- then murder's almost always going to be an inappropriate response. I have to say "almost", because I could imagine and sympathize with a case where someone killed the person who murdered a member of their family but walked on a technicality. Yes, killing the bastard would be wrong, certainly in the legal sense of the word. But I'd understand it.

To use a phrase that's been sorely overused lately, the decision to murder someone because you think that's the right thing to do is "above your pay grade". That's true for an abortion doctor, or a corrupt politician, or your selected scumbag of choice. Whether anyone is a scumbag or not is a matter of personal opinion. Those vary a lot, I've noticed. Heck, one man's corrupt politician is another man's beloved civil servant.

What's legal is not necessarily what's moral. And what you believe to be moral may not be what the fellow sitting next to you believes to be moral. And if you think something is legal, but immoral, you've got every right to try to use persuasion to get a majority (or possibly a super-majority) on your side in order to get those laws changed. That's true whether the issue is abortion, or gay marriage, or executive compensation, or campaign contributions, or your hot button issue of choice.

What you're not entitled to do is to use tactics that you would object to if they were employed against you. So if you think that you shouldn't picket an abortion doctor's house (which I agree with -- you shouldn't), you should be equally incensed when community organizers gather up bus loads of people to go picket the houses of AIG employees who received bonuses that they were contractually entitled to.

You don't get to throw paint on people because you don't like what they're wearing, whether that's fur or a t-shirt that expresses some sentiment that you find offensive.

You don't even get to throw a pie in the face of Bill Gates because you're tired of working on Windows Vista. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Nor do you get to hop out of the stands at Wrigley Field and charge the mound after Randy Myers gives up another homer to the opposition. But you do get to boo. It's within the civilized norms of behavior.

Yes, I've started out with the deadly serious and moved down to the outright silly and stupid.

But they're all on the same continuum.

We can all get along.

As long as we behave in a civilized fashion.

Once we decide what that actually is.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

madfilkentist

But here's the difficult question: How can it ever be right for the government to do what is categorically wrong for the individual to do?

There are certain people, a very small number, that I would consider it quite proper to kill if I had the chance. You can probably guess some names. Whether I could make myself do it, even with them, is something I don't know, and the likelihood the situation would ever come up is vanishingly small. If I did kill them, I would have to let a jury decide whether I should live or not.

Now let's venture even deeper into trouble. The people I could justify killing are mass murderers. But what if you sincerely think that an abortion doctor is a mass murderer; in Randall Terry's words, "one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals." He's out of reach of the law. The only way to stop him from committing more "mass murder" is to kill him, so you decide to do so. Is there a moral equivalence between this person's decision and my claim that killing Osama Bin Laden would be justifiable?

I say that they aren't equivalent, because the moral stature of a person isn't merely a "matter of opinion." One man's mass murderer may be another man's messiah, but he is still a mass murderer. An abortion doctor isn't a mass-murdering Nazi, regardless of what a fanatic may believe. There is still room for saying that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed, but I hope we all agree it isn't in the same category as hunting down people and shooting them.

From:

bedlamhouse

The hair that is being split is that in an ideal representative government the definition of what is right for a government to do is part of the social contract that defines morality in a world of relative ethics.

Part of the definition is that vague (and all too often pushed aside) concept of "due process", which (again, in an ideal world) is meant to make certain that all aspects of legality and morality are explored before condemnation. In particular, the standards of proof escalate (and rightly should) as one moves from a result that would deprive a person of property to one that would deprive of liberty and ultimately to one which would deprive of life.

If you believe that the wisdom of the many outweighs the wisdom of any random one (and it may very well be that this is no longer a supportable case, mob mentality is becoming far too common and the internet feeds prejudice more than education), then a procedure using the wisdom of the many and time to make a balanced decision is preferable to one man one gun one law.

I would not particularly agree that anyone, no matter who they are, should be summarily executed without such due process.

Disobeying that social contract has consequences - in this case, killing for your own somehow justifiable reason is murder, plain and simple, and should be punished as such. Should the social contract change, then the memory of the act will change. However, we must judge based on our current agreement with that contract.

To the original statement, in the specific case engendering this particular debate, I find it rather off-putting that the same people who would be appalled at casting all Muslims into the category of "terrorist" seem to be only too easily inclined to cast all pro-life/anti-abortion activists into the category of "doctor murderers". I understand why this is, but don't like it in either case.

From:

capplor.livejournal.com

and I would like to see some quotes as support if you think that's the "liberal view".
I CAN supply a few quotes (that condemn only certain conservatives) that sound to me like they would be actionable in a civil suit for Dr. Tiller's murder.

Politically pushing for your view is perfectly proper. Naming names on the public airways, and whipping up hysteria such that someone thinks he's pursuing the logical next step is NOT proper.

From:

scs-11.livejournal.com

What Bedlamhouse said. Seconded.

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

only too easily inclined to cast all pro-life/anti-abortion activists into the category of "doctor murderers". I understand why this is, but don't like it in either case.

If you're talking about Operation Rescue and the like, there is a good article about their tactics against Dr. Tiller here. Some of the tactics in question read as if they were designed, after much careful thought, to make murdering him easier and more convenient.

Now, to be fair, I expect that most of these tactics were designed with an eye to only making him reasonably *fear* being murdered, or having his spouse/children/coworkers/friends/ murdered, or their pets killed or their belongings vandalised or their children socially ostracized. Because Operation Rescue trades in fear.

However, I am willing to bet that despite their "butter-wouldn't-melt-in-their-mouths" repudiation of the murder, they will accept it as a gift from heaven. You will know that because they will continue their coincidentally murder-enabling tactics against their next victim, knowing full well that Tiller's murder makes their next victim's fear that much worse.

Any takers?

I accept there are people who oppose abortion without hating women. I will be able to recognize them by their vigorous support of making birth control widely available to every single fertile person. I'm keeping an eye out.

From:

billroper

You've seen Gretchen, then? I believe the phrase she used was something about "handing out free condoms on street corners"...

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

:-) Go Gretchen! Now *that* is useful. And the sort of thing where reasonable people on both sides of the issue can work together.

My own fantasy is, "a packeted condom in every hymnal, and the Sunday School classes tasked with replacing the ones that get taken every week."

Coupons for contraceptive foam would be good too, since I don't see how the bottles could be used as bookmarks. And two bookmarks isn't excessive for a hymnal; there are usually at least two hymns or meditations or whatever in a service.

From:

madfilkentist

The "social contract" is a pernicious fiction. I never signed it. One person, when I brought that point up to him, said, "Your parents signed it when the f***ed!" Then he corrected himself, trying to sound more scientific, and said "had sexual intercourse." But either way, having sex is not an agreement on behalf of one's potential offspring, nor could such an agreement be binding.

Even if everyone had agreed to it, it couldn't "define morality in a world of relative ethics." Without any prior principles, how could breaking a social contract be wrong?

The wisdom of the many doesn't outweigh the wisdom of the one. Popularity isn't a measure of truth or right. The notion of the social contract says that it is; if most people think that left-handed people are subhuman, then you're breaking the social contract by treating them as equals. If popular trends change, then right can become wrong and wrong right.

If the only moral principle is "go along with the crowd," there's no moral principle at all.

From:

scarfman

What you're not entitled to do is to use tactics that you would object to if they were employed against you.

A possible flaw I see in your argument is the assumption that Scott Roeder wouldn't want to be shot and killed if he were responsible for the same things George Tiller was responsible for.

From:

billroper

Yes, but my argument is that Scott Roeder would not want to be shot because someone else had decided that he had transgressed against that person's idea of moral behavior that was not shared by the society in general. And I think that's a safer place to be standing.

From:

scarfman

Gotcha.

From:

the-magician.livejournal.com

The problem is there are actual differences between minor assault (throwing paint on someone) and murder.

And then we get to the hypothetical "would you assassinate Hitler in 1943?" (or in 1941, or in 1937 ...) Apply it to governments now ... if you knew there were genocides going on in Rwanda, DR Congo or anywhere else ... would it be ok for you individually, or your government to say "I'm not getting involved, let them murder each other". If your government said, it's illegal for us to intervene, but you felt strongly about it, would you feel morally challenged if you could do something and let the law stop you?

I'm not saying this murder is right, I'm saying that the person who killed this doctor may have sincerely believed that dozens or hundreds of human beings were being killed in these clinics, and that the law allowed that to happen. And if it requires him to give up his liberty or his life in order to draw attention to this "mass murder" then he was/is prepared to do so. And I very strongly disagree with his method of protest (in case that wasn't totally clear!)

Using the usual rhetorical tool of pushing an analogy which doesn't quite fit ... if the majority of US people (and the majority is white) said that black people weren't fully human and it was ok to kill them in certain circumstance, then I think we can all (pretty much, KKK excluded) agree that's wrong. And when you start defining what is and what isn't human, you're into a slippery slope. Is it ok to kill premature births that require a ventilator to survive? Is it ok to kill a child in the first three months after birth? How about mentally challenged infants? Mentally challenged adults? If you fail an IQ test can they kill you there and then? Letting judges decide who is human and who isn't is the best solution we've got at the moment, but it's not perfect.

Do I think he did the right thing? No, of course not. Do I think abortion is murder? ... not in a strictly legal sense, as it's "lawful". But I also see we don't really value human life or dignity in this world so I'm not about to make too special a case for one group (the unborn) when we don't do a good enough job for lots of those who have been born.

In some very strange sense, we may not be human until someone loves us. A sort of a "tree falls in a forest" philosophical point. If the "potential" child (or new born) is unloved and killed, then it's easier to consider they are not human. This allows spontaneous miscarriages to count as an unborn human being (and deserving of burial, naming etc.) while at the same time allows the concept of abotion of a fetus ...

I say that there are no true universal human rights, just a UN Universal Convention on Human Rights and then national and religious layerings on top of that. Rights are things that societies agree on to either make the society work or to benefit members of that society. Whether is a social club saying membership gives you the right to attend the AGM, or it's the US government saying you have the right to free speech ... it's an agreement, not a universal truth. And Right to Life is the same. It can be an expectation and an aspiration, but it is not absolute, and you can have it taken away from you.

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

And when you start defining what is and what isn't human, you're into a slippery slope. Is it ok to kill premature births that require a ventilator to survive? Is it ok to kill a child in the first three months after birth? How about mentally challenged infants? Mentally challenged adults? If you fail an IQ test can they kill you there and then? Letting judges decide who is human and who isn't is the best solution we've got at the moment, but it's not perfect.

1) The anti-Choice crowd *is* trying to define what is and isn't human; don't forget that.

2) There is an obvious dividing line here. I think it is sometimes overlooked because some folks like to talk about fetuses as if they floated around in little spherical forcefields, and this assumption has crept into the discourse. In reality a fetus is drawing its nutrients from and depositing its wastes into its host's tissues, hijacking its host's metabolism. (No wonder she often feels tired and nauseated.)

I see a clearly obvious moral difference between an entity whose continued life involves intimately parasitizing a human host and and one whose continued life doesn't. I don't think there's any "partially parasitizing" category we need to worry about, and thus I don't see a "slippery slope" here but rather a nice bright line.

Regarding the ventilator baby argument--many adults choose "no heroic measures" and "do not resesitate" orders for themselves. Are they allowed to choose them for their children? I have no idea, but if they were, I wouldn't see that as part of the abortion debate but rather as part of the "parental control over minors' medical treatment" and the "end of life" debates.

3) I thought Caucasians were about 40% of the US population? Hardly a majority?

From:

the-magician.livejournal.com

1) didn't forget, doesn't matter ... any and all groups have an opinion and the pro-choice and anti-choice both are defining what is human, it's just that they disagree.

2) sure, if you treat an unborn child as a parasite, it makes it much easier to argue it's not human. So you'd be ok with no abortions if we could decant the little floating thing into a jar or a host mother then?

I don't see a "moral" distinction, I see a semantic one and I see a practical one, but "parasite" is such an emotionally charged word, that once you start relying on it, I start to feel you're losing a logical battle. So you'd be fine with killing a fetus at 8.5 months then, as it's still a parasite and not a human? I don't expect you to say yes to that, I'm just pointing out that there isn't a bright shiny line.

3) If you are going to quote stats, probably best to spend 20 seconds and google before you get it wrong

The U.S. population's distribution by race and ethnicity in 2006 was as follows:[32][33]
* Total population: 299 million
* White alone: 74% or 221.3 million
o Not including the 23.2 million White Hispanic and Latino Americans: 66% or 198.1 million
* Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, of any race: 14.8% or about 44.3 million
* Black or African American alone: 13.4% or 40.9 million
* Some other race alone: 6.5% or 19 million
* Asian alone: 4.4% or 13.1 million
* Two or more races: 2.0% or 6.1 million
* American Indian or Alaska Native alone: 0.68% or 2.0 million
* Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone: 0.14% or 0.43 million

I have been lazy and quoted WikiPedia but have no reason to believe I'd find substantially different figures if I went to the US Census website.

Edited Date: 2009-06-03 02:07 pm (UTC)

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

1) if you are arguing that *both* sides are trying to define what is human then okay, but now that has been made clear, why did you bring it up, again?

2) "Parasite" is the correct biological term for an entity that lives within another entity, drawing its nutrients from, and depositing its wastes into its host's tissues. It is no more emotionally charged than "fetus" and considerably less emotionally charged than "baby" or "unborn child."

Whether a fetus is human is one of those mushy questions. I'm solid on it; I grew up on science fiction and as far as I'm concerned anything with a human-like mind has human rights and anything without, doesn't. Fetuses, for the vast majority of their development, do not have brains of sufficient complexity to support a human mind. So as far as I'm concerned they're not human.

However I recognize that people of good will can differ on this. My point is that even if you consider a mindless fetus to be a human being, it is not so supernaturally human as to be allowed to enslave another human to parasitize her to preserve its life. This is a right we do not accord born humans. I can see *equal* rights for fetuses, if you think they're human, but when we get to *special* rights for fetuses--in abrogation of the rights of their undeniably human hosts--I choke.

So you'd be fine with killing a fetus at 8.5 months then, as it's still a parasite and not a human? I don't expect you to say yes to that, I'm just pointing out that there isn't a bright shiny line.

First, I will point out that abortions after the first four months or so are vanishingly rare and usually due to developmental horrors that result in a fetus that won't live long, or serious complications of pregnancy that put the woman's life in immediate danger. That said, yes, I would be okay with such an abortion at 8.5 months. Just as you can withdraw consent for sex at any time, so you can withdraw consent for pregnancy at any time.

It's wrong to enslave women. Suggesting that we won't enslave them for nine months but only for four, or three, or one, does not strike me as moderate. Except in the way that "Jane wants to microwave 100 puppies; John doesn't want any puppies microwaved; I know--let's microwave 50 puppies!" could be said to be "moderate."

3) Okay, you're right; I was wrong, caucasians are a majority. Well done!

From:

the-magician.livejournal.com

1) if you are arguing that *both* sides...
I'm not arguing, I'm surprised you thought I was.
Genetically it's a human, not a chicken or a virus, but so what? I said that the world doesn't seem to give born humans much value either. You're trying to create an argument in this point, and I don't get it. Fine.

2) "Parasite" is the correct biological term ... Absolutely, I think if you read what I wrote, I never denied that.
It is no more emotionally charged than "fetus"
LOL! Oh you must think I'm stupid.
Doctor: Mrs Smith, I have news. You have a parasite growing inside you, what would you like me to do?
(nope, can't see any emotional charge there!)
So as far as I'm concerned they're not human.
Ok. You have the perfect right to have your own beliefs and opinions. I fully support that (I deleted what I first replied as it was a flippant reply I made and I apologise for that).
it is not so supernaturally human as to be allowed to enslave another human to parasitize her to preserve its life.
Nope, no emotional charge there either. You are good at this :-)
but when we get to *special* rights for fetuses--in abrogation of the rights of their undeniably human hosts--I choke.
Oh I like it, introducing a new argument to rail against that was nowhere in my posting. I'm sure I had a list of rhetorical devices somewhere and that was in it.
NOTE: I'm not saying I disagree, just admiring the style of the argument you put forward.

First, I will point out that abortions after the first four months ...
What has that got to do with the parasite inside the woman enslaving her, sucking out her vital fluids etc? Kill it anyway.

It's wrong to enslave women.
and to kick puppies, set fire to old people, burn down orphanages ... sorry, was that meant to be something I was supposed to argue against?

Suggesting that we won't enslave them for nine months but only for four, or three, or one, does not strike me as moderate.
Which someone else may have said, why don't you go and tell them that. I didn't suggest that, so again you're putting up a rebuttal to a point I never made. Good rhetorical style though.

3) Okay, you're right; I was wrong, caucasians are a majority. Well done!
I bask in your admiration for my l33t data mining skilz. Thank you.

Edited Date: 2009-06-03 10:13 pm (UTC)

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

I started to answer, but then I read your whole comment.

Never mind.

From:

the-magician.livejournal.com

Grin!

That's fine. You have strong beliefs and that's good, and you're willing to stand up for them, which is excellent.

I don't think I'm the best person for you to spend your time trying to "convert" as I'm not stopping you doing whatever you want to do, I'm not claiming to be pro or anti anything, and I have little power to effect change in either direction.

I wish you well.

From:

weirdsister.livejournal.com

Hm. As a former fetus, I would just like to say that I stopped parasitizing my parents at age 18. *snerk* Come to think of it, some people never do. o_O

In all seriousness, I think this is where the two of us fundamentally differ. You see fetuses as alien and hostile parasites. I see them as the next you or me...potentially wonderful people of worth and value. I respect your right to your opinion, but I don't think I will ever really be able to understand it.

Edited Date: 2009-06-03 11:29 pm (UTC)

From:

robin-june.livejournal.com

Fetuses and embryos become parasites when a woman is pressured, shamed, and coerced into dying so that her ectopic pregnancy can live an extra two minutes after the time that it ruptures her and bleeds her to death. After all, "a baby is innocent, and deserves to live more than you do. No matter how short or painful that baby's life will be."

And yes, I really was on the receiving end of that sort of propaganda. I was too poor and incipiently homeless to rule out ectopic pregnancy myself, so I went to a "clinic," and the woman there lied to my face when I asked if they could help me in my circumstances. She just wanted me to listen to their brainwashing.

After the "sales pitch" was over, and I asked if they could give me a definitive blood test, she said no. When I asked if they could help me end an ectopic pregnancy, the answer was no.

"We've fed you our dogma; now just crawl away and die . . ."

If a woman wants to die so that her unborn child can live, that's her choice. (It's romanticized horribly out of proportion in books and movies, but that's another issue.) However, forcing her to die so that the progeny will also die, just slightly later? That's an insanity that is greatly to be feared.

From:

weirdsister.livejournal.com

We aren't acquainted with each other, so your comment feels out of context with my point of view, which I will attempt to clarify here. :)

Obviously, an ectopic pregnancy is a serious, life-threatening condition. Nobody in their right mind would advocate forcing anyone to continue such a pregnancy, and termination would necessary to save the live of the mother. Whoever advised you otherwise was a quack.

My objection was referencing the practice of late-term abortion of healthy babies simply because they are an "inconvenience" to the mother; clearly not the same thing as what you are describing.

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

I am a former fetus too.

I stopped parasitizing my mother (feeding off her tissues) when I was born, like anyone else. The important issue is that I had my mother's consent. It is perfectly okay with me that my mother could have aborted me if she didn't want to be pregnant. It gives me a great sense of security to know that she *wanted* me and a great sense of gratitude to know that she *chose* to nourish me from her very tissues.

My parents also supported me economically and I am grateful for that too. But I see that as something quite different from pregnancy. I agree that the origin of the word "parasite" referred to economic support, but I was using it in the biological sense.

I see fetuses as not human because they lack a human mind. I guess this could be described as "alien," though that is not precisely what I was thinking of. You are certainly free to differ with me about the importance of a human mind in defining humanity. However, I do not see fetuses as actively hostile, though I recognize they can endanger their hosts. If a fetus had a mind and was choosing to do what it does, it could be said to be self-interested, but I think "hostile" would be going too far.

I also see fetuses as potential people. But the key word here is "potential." An acorn is not a tree. It is a potential tree. We eat pecan pie without a passing thought to the forests of pecan trees we're sacrificing to our appetites. We make cakes without a thought of the chickens we're killing (if we use fertilized eggs). And that's perfectly appropriate. A *potential* entity is not the same as the entity.

But again, if a fetus somehow magically had a human mind and a human understanding so that I saw it as human, I don't understand why it should be entitled to such intimate trespass on someone else's body and someone else's metabolism without her consent.

If fetuses could be removed from women *without* killing them, I'd be fine with that. Well, not *fine*--I don't particularly like paying extra taxes, and you can bet the process will be expensive--but I'm quite *willing* to do that and accept the extra costs in order to have women's suffering not increased *and* the pro-Life people happy too.

But they can't. That's the "obligate" part of "obligate parasite." Which is a shame.

Hopefully we can all agree, while we're wrangling about women's rights and fetal rights, that the best option would be to prevent unwanted conceptions. Unfortunately, it sounds like that wouldn't have reduced Dr. Tiller's business much, as he mostly aborted fetuses who had been wanted, but whose development had gone drastically wrong and who were either dead, going to die shortly, or going to kill their mothers or some combination. But it *would* drastically curtail, in the best possible way, abortions that weren't medically necessary, and in the process *reduce* the suffering of women, rather than increasing it.

Really, if Operation Rescue had put as much effort into pushing birth control as they did into stalking Dr. Tiller and everyone around him, I wonder how many abortions they could have prevented?

From:

kizoku42.livejournal.com

One of the reasons that the government is allowed to do things that individual people are not is that due process and the rule of law keeps society from falling apart into anarchy. One person may feel that killing an abortion doctor is perfectly moral and right. Another person may feel that killing the first person in retaliation is perfectly right. Then if -they- are justified in killing each other then -I'm- justified in killing the person who fired me! Etc., etc. In my not so humble opinion, a law-abiding society is worth a few murderers getting off. Though I might not -do- that if the killing was close enough to me, it would still be wrong to go out and kill them personally.

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

That's true for an abortion doctor,

There is no such thing as an "abortion doctor" anymore than there is such a thing as an "appendectomy doctor."

Dr Tiller, like most Ob/Gyns, performed a variety of necessary medical procedures. The ones that weren't abortions (prenatal care, labor and delivery, etc) don't get much press because the people persecuting him wanted people to see him as a one-dimensional monster.

He even helped those of his patients who wanted to give babies up for adoption.

From:

billroper

I'm not sure that getting into a terminology argument is necessarily helpful, to be honest. I picked "abortion doctor" as a shorthand for "doctor whose practice is, at least, best known for performing abortions" as being less loaded than "abortionist". Exactly how heavily he specialized is something that I don't have first-hand data about, not having access to his office records.

And while we might not have a doctor who specializes in appendectomies, we certainly have -- for example -- brain surgeons. They could cut into some other part of the body and are probably licensed to do so, but it's not their normal practice.

I mean, if we want to get into terminology arguments, I'll point out that having to carry a baby to term isn't "slavery" in any normal usage of the word. It would be, at worst, "indentured servitude", in that there's a limit to the term of service and you get something as a result. And if you argue that there are people who want to keep the mother "enslaved" to the baby for 18 years plus 9 months (which I believe I saw you do elsewhere -- if I've misremembered, I apologize), that's certainly no less true of the father who has no say in the process under our law, but can certainly be compelled by the courts to labor to support the child for that 18+ year term.

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

Being impregnated against your will isn't entered into voluntarily, in the same way slavery--being forced to labor for the good of another without recompense--isn't entered into voluntarily. Indentured servitude, on the other hand, *is* entered into voluntarily.

And regarding "getting something as a result" I don't consider a human being to be something you can "get"--i.e. "own"--in any normal sense of the word. So I guess you mean you "get" responsibility for providing food, shelter, clothing, education, medical treatment and emotional support for a baby you didn't want in the first place. But if you didn't want a baby, that's not a payment--that's a *debit* and a pretty stiff one too.

The 18 years plus 9 months comment was someone else. It's okay that you bring it up here, though. I agree that financial responsibility for accidentally impregnating someone is onerous. I agree that a moment's carelessness in controlling ones fertility can lead to results out of one's control, and that is not fair. The financial responsiblity is, of course, shared by the woman involved, so she suffers just as much as he does from it. In the meantime, nothing is excreting into his bloodstream, and no hospital has (as far as I know) ever lost a man in labor.

From:

billroper

Well, let's set aside the issue of non-consensual sex for a moment, as it's a different case. In the case of someone who has engaged in consensual heterosexual sex, they're received something. (Pleasure, one would hope.) They've also taken some non-zero chance (assuming that they're both fertile and either using or not using birth control measures of varying degrees of effectiveness) a risk that the female partner in the act will become pregnant.

Fundamentally then, this is analogous to a case where a rich person might offer someone $10,000 in exchange for a 1 in 100 chance that they must work for them as an indentured servant for nine months. The chance of ending up on an unwanted nine month contract is relatively slim.

But sometimes you roll the 00.

I'm not trying to be flip, but I do think that there's a certain degree of voluntary activity involved in most pregnancies. It may be stupid or uninformed voluntary activity...

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

In my point of view, consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy.

Any more than consenting to get in a car is "consenting" to be maimed in a car accident.

Everyone sees that people maimed in car accidents are entitled to as much medical help as they can purchase and then some, and nobody suggests they "consented" and should be left to bleed beside the road.

Hell, even stunt drivers, who *did* consent to have a car accident, are allowed to purchase medical help.

So in the same way, being impregnated against your will, while a risk of having sex while female, does not mean you should be denied the opportunity to purchase medical help.

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

Oh, regarding the "abortion doctor" thing.

I agree that terminology is sometimes unimportant. I don't think this is one of those times, because I think the anti-abortion movement is very focussed on controlling the terms of the debate by controlling the terminology. Some of it is obvious, like "baby-killer" as if doctors ran through day care centers with chainsaws, mowing down babies right and left. Some of it is subtle, like "abortionist" as though that was all Dr. Tiller ever did. Yes, he was a doctor who performed late term abortions. But calling him an "abortionist" is presenting him to the world as a cardboard caricature. If you oppose abortion he's a monster with no redeeming features (and never mind the impoverished women who got free prenatal care from him, or the couples he helped adopt) and even if you don't oppose abortion but think blood and amputations are kind of squicky, he's ...kind of squicky.

You're right that "abortion doctor" is less loaded than "abortionist." But it's still doing the cardboard thing. An Ob/Gyn does a great deal more than abortions. It's all Operation Rescue cares about, so it's all they want us to care about. But we don't have to play into their hands.

From:

weirdsister.livejournal.com

What you're not entitled to do is to use tactics that you would object to if they were employed against you. So if you think that you shouldn't picket an abortion doctor's house (which I agree with -- you shouldn't), you should be equally incensed when community organizers gather up bus loads of people to go picket the houses of AIG employees who received bonuses that they were contractually entitled to.

*applauds* Thank you for pointing this out! Intimidation and harassment are unacceptable tactics, whether they are being done by Operation Rescue, The Black Panthers, or our own government.

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

(puzzled frown) I'm pretty sure our own government had absolutely *nothing* to do with the buses to AIG employees neighborhoods.

It's fine to be outraged by it, and I do understand the outrage better now that I have read how that tactic has been directed (for decades) at people I admire. But let's direct the outrage at the correct entity.

From:

the-magician.livejournal.com

You're pretty much right ... though some reports say that the buses were funded, in part or in full, by ACORN which may be 40% funded by taxpayer dollars. So in that respect, the government had *something* to do with the buses, but I'm sure would have stepped in and stopped them or at least demanded an accounting showing that the money ACORN spent (if indeed they spent any) was ringfenced from the 60% not from taxpayers (the money ACORN gets from the government is for specific purposes and may not be used for things like hiring buses)

But there are so many contradictory websites out there, it could all be lies. And the articles I find about the "buses to houses of AIG employees", well, I found one article that said that having failed at the AIG headquarters, polite protesters dropped off letters at the houses of two AIG executives.

Again, what the truth of the stories is is hard to say.

Edited Date: 2009-06-03 10:32 pm (UTC)

From:

weirdsister.livejournal.com

The NY Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, implied that the names of AIG employees would be publicly released if they refused to return their contractually earned bonuses. You can read more about it here http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/aig_gives_names_of_bonus_recipients_to_cuomo.php and here
http://www.businessinsider.com/cuomo-to-aig-give-back-the-money-or-ill-make-you-public-enemy-no-1-2009-3

Here's another instance, as reported in a Welsh newspaper:
Representative Barney Frank, the Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, pressed Liddy to release the names of those who received bonuses and said he intended to subpoena the information. Here's the link: http://www.welt.de/english-news/article3403674/AIG-head-defends-165-million-dollars-of-bonuses.html

These are just a few examples that qualify as government intimidation and harassment. Whatever you think of AIG executives (and there are always three sides to every story), this amounted to (at the very least) a tacit invitation for public lynching by the Acorn nutballs and other agitators.

From:

catsittingstill.livejournal.com

I agree that threatening to expose the names of AIG employees who got bonuses was wrong. And looking back on it, I think the outrage, while quite understandable at the time, may have been somewhat uncalled for. The buses seemed reasonable to me at the time--why shouldn't people see, not the exact dollar value, but the approximate order of wealth, of people running these big companies that jacked up mortgage rates and then started sucking money out of government coffers? The amounts of the bonuses were certainly an eye-opener for me; I knew these people were wealthy but I had I had *no* idea "wealthy" was spelled with so many 0s.

But I can see that this was a serious unfairness to the victims, who I have learned were often not even involved in the original wrongdoing. It was a bad idea, and it could have resulted in tragedy. Fortunately it didn't last for years or decades, the way similar campaigns of intimidation against doctors and clinic employees have.

So, now that you've thought about it, I'd be interested in hearing what you think of Operation Rescue's tactics.