September 26, 2005

I agree

with Jesse. This makes me happy.

One of my favourite bits:

So, in other words, women who procure abortions are committing first-degree murder—but should not be punished. (Enshrining this principle into criminal law would certainly have interesting consequences; if you want somebody killed, just pay somebody to do it, and as far as you're concerned it’s all nice and legal.) There are two possible explanations for this bizarre combination of policies. The first—which is the reason that abortion laws passed in the 19th century (including the Texas law struck down in Roe) applied only to doctors—is that Republicans do not consider women to be responsible rights-bearing subjects (unlike, say, the first-trimester fetus that inhabits a woman’s body.)


Colleen said...

Traditionally, women were considered victims of abortion as much as the baby was. That first generation of feminists, you know, the ones that hated abortion like Margaret Sanger, felt that abortion was the ultimate crime that men committed against women. They were right.

It is interesting to speculate whether things have changed to such an extent that the woman is no longer a victim. It is a much harder argument to make today but not impossible.

Like every other woman on the planet, I have known a fair number of women who have had abortions but the vast majority had them because the men in their lives did not want to marry them, which put the pressure on to abort. I know this is an unpopular bit of anecdotal evidence but it is nonetheless true.

Now, of course, there are plenty of women who no longer wish to marry or don't want to marry the father of the child. Therefore, it is hard for me to see them as victims, which would make their legal status in a future in which abortion is considered murder murky.(I doubt we will ever get to the day when it would be 1st degree murder; it would be far more likely to be considered manslaughter.) But I consider this scenario fear-mongering.

No political solution to the current slaughter of innocents is going to be possible, if women are going to be subject to some some sort of prosecution. No one wants that, whether it makes strict logical sense or not. Nor do I care, so long as abortion is outlawed (with the usual caveat except for medical necessity to save the life of the mother.) As I have noted many times, politics is the art of the possible. Perfect justice must be left up to God. (or not, pace Noumena.)

Noumena said...

Per my standards of relevance, I'm just going to pass over your first four paragraphs.

According to the Republican Party's platform, they want the 14th Amendment to cover developing foetuses. Now, not being a lawyer, I couldn't say for sure, but it doesn't seem like conspiring to destroy what is legally a full citizen can really be called 'manslaughter'. Refusing to do so is either a display of cognitive dissonance, a disgusting utilitarian 'pragmatism', or, as it appears to be with you, both.

Colleen said...

Ok, Noumena, have it your way. Per my standards of civility, I am weighing you in the balance and finding you wanting. No wonder almost no one responds to any of your posts. I am outta here. Have fun talking to yourself.

Noumena said...

Nonono, you're supposed to dismiss feminists by calling us 'shrill' before running away.

MosBen said...

Well, realistically we don't get much posting because we don't get lots of traffic. Good buddy Drew's blog is around three times larger than we are and he gets marginally more comments. I mean, just checking The Dawn Patrol, she usually gets a small handful of comments per post with occassionally large discussions. On the other hand she get's about 20X the traffic that we get and has been around about twice as long.

Anyway, I truly hope Colleen doesn't leave. I usually don't agree with her, and occassionally things she said riled me up a bit, but I certainly found her posts read-worthy.