[extropy-chat] Abortion (was: Famous author self destructs in public!Filmateleven.

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> AFAICT, Mr. Lorrey is claiming that *abortion* is murder. Once a
>> woman is pregnant she'd d*mn well better *stay* pregnant full term,
>>
> or
>
>> she's
>> a murderer.  I haven't seen much about the responsibility of the man
>> in all this, perhaps he has none? Only later The Law might make him
>> pay - which isn't right as it's the woman's fault, job,
>> responsibility
>> ... (no, he didn't actually say that, but his "tone of voice"
>> certainly implied that to me)
>>
>
> In complete ignorance of other 'tones' I've taken. Considering that  
> men
> are already convicted of murder and other homicide charges if they
> cause a woman to abort without her permission, it is quite clear that
> the men are being held to a far higher responsibility standard, and
> always have, than the women.
>

Until very very recently women had very few rights and precious  
little officially recognized control over their lives including  
especially over reproduction choices.    So somehow I don't think  
women have long been overly advantaged relative to men.   Causing to  
abort without permission would be a serious act of aggression, yes?   
Or did you mean something else?  BTW it is MB speaking above and not  
me.  I don't hold to all his views of your position so don't get  
confused about that.

> The stats support me: studies of domestic violence show that twice as
> many female partners as male believe striking their partner is okay,
> and have done so in the past, yet ten times as many males are  
> convicted
> of domestic violence. The disparity of responsibility is in the
> numbers, which cannot be disputed.
>

Yours is a seriously minority interpretation.  I don't have time to  
disentangle it right now.

>
>>
>> Our opinions are opposed and I do not expect either of us to change.
>> His posts have made me wonder what happened in his life. Maybe he is
>> a very devout Christian with deeply held beliefs about "the human
>> soul"?
>> Or perhaps he was involved with an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy that
>> was terminated without his knowledge or against his wishes?
>> Otherwise, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand where he's coming
>> from.
>>
>> What exactly makes a bundle of cells into "a person"? How much does
>> that interesting set of pictures of the embryo differ from those of a
>> dog or a cat or a monkey - or any other mammal?
>>
>
> If a fetus can survive outside the womb at 6 months (and many  
> thousands
> do every day in this country), then third trimester abortion should be
> murder. Even Roe v. Wade agrees with me on this point, so if  
> anybody is
> being extremist and hyperbolic, it is you, Samantha, and company, not
> me.

Actually it takes a lot of medical assistance to get a 6 month old  
fetus to survive.  That we can do so some of the time does not  
automatically support the idea that it is murder to abort at or  
beyond 6 months.   Roe vs Wade does not say it is murder.   But why  
are you addressing me when it was MB who wrote what you are  
responding to?  It seems you are still treating me as part of some  
imagined collective.

>
> No, I've not had any religious epiphanies of any sort, as much as  
> you'd
> like there to be one. What I have crossed is a threshold. I've been
> willing up until recently to tolerate the libertarian majority opinion
> (certainly not unanimous to any sort of degree) regarding abortion,  
> the
> war, and a few other issues which the vehement squeaky wheels have  
> been
> ranting for years that theirs is 'the only position' a libertarian can
> take.
>

I have known libertarians on both sides of the abortion issue for  
years.  I don't recall a position on it as part of a party plank.

> The problem is that this ranting left wing of the party has come to
> take for granted that their rhetoric is true. They denounce some of us
> as 'neo-libertarians', despite the fact that people of our persuation
> have been libertarians going back decades, we just haven't been in the
> shreiking wing.
>

Now those who disagree with you are part of the "left wing"   
libertarians eh?  You really seem to have difficulty thinking outside  
of collectives.

> Your opinion isn't on issues like this are NOT the default opinions  
> for
> libertarians. ANY time there is an issue of one persons rights versus
> anothers, libertarians should be very circumspect to examine all sides
> and seek to resolve conflicts, not just side orthodoxically with one
> party in the conflict.

Libertarians are about the most onerous and heterodox group of people  
around.  To a fault even.

- samantha