I would argue that this is akin to asserting that the development of a ‘safety’ for guns represents gun ownership unfettered from responsibility.
As for the cartoon, it ignores the ineluctable asymmetry between the way pregnancy affects the lives of the sperm donor vs the gravid woman. It’s like the old saw about the relationship between a bacon-and-eggs breakfast and the chicken and pig that contributed to it–the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. The point being, given the asymmetry between the sperm donor and the woman vis a vis the impact of a pregnancy, expectations regarding what their obligations are should differ dramatically.
Yes. I’m not arguing about the gravity for women, and the profound differences there.
All of this comes back to my statement about an imperfect world, full of imperfect people, and imperfect solutions. There’s no way to make some of these situations right or perfectly fair.
Yup. Peterson argued that every abortion is “wrong,” and we both disagreed with him. Rather, I would argue–and I think this might find some traction with you–that every abortion represents a failure of some sort, and a tragedy to at least some degree.
Absolutely. When he clarifies to say “you wouldn’t wish it on someone you love” I agreed with that sentiment. Start there. About the cartoon, I like that it shows that we have a human condition problem here. Yes, it’s tilted toward the female, but men are certainly effected. We’ve got a lot of bitter or broken people of both genders who have been beaten up out there. I do feel sympathy for the men too. Being armed with the pill doesn’t protect you from getting your heart broken, or from being abandoned. Marriage doesn’t always do that either, but it can be a good answer if people can get it right.
FYI, the ham and eggs analogy doesn’t work for me. At all. Well, let’s just say we agree that women bear more weight in the situation, but that’s where it ends for me. To be bacon, the woman would have to die in childbirth, which fortunately is very rare these days. And it applies to the reality of 9 months of gestation, by the female. The cartoon is addressing the societal expectations and responsibilities of parenthood, also a reality and born by both genders. Not 9 months, think 22 plus years. I don’t like arguments that completely ignore men in it, and I think that’s often a thread in the feminist position. If the cartoon ignores something, then so does your bacon and eggs analogy.
Well, in fairness, the bacon-and-eggs aphorism is almost always applied to situations in which one party doesn’t literally die. (If it was only applied in life-and-death situations, it would be of extremely limited applicability/usefulness.) I used it because the impact of a pregnancy on the woman is vastly different–deeper, permanent, more profound–than is its impact on the sperm donor.
For me, the point is not that the argument ignores men, rather, it’s the converse–it’s that men have the option of being able to completely ignore a pregnancy. A women enjoys no such option; she will carry the scars (literally and figuratively; physically and psychically) of a pregnancy for the rest of her life.
In this regard, the sperm donor is akin to the chicken, whereas the woman has far more in common with the pig.
It’s cute. And catchy. And although I’m not attracted to women, I’ll agree that bacon is delicious. Orders of magnitude better than eggs. Come on. I agreed with the point, and I’m pro-choice in terms of public policy. It breaks down for me because it’s extreme and reductionist. We all know that AFTER 9 months…
Pregnancy is not Parenthood. Men are effected by Parenthood. It’s another side to this imperfect situation. That’s what the cartoon is about. Why not acknowledge that? Seriously. It’s like you enjoy vexing me.
And don’t try to argue with me about how you’re a sperm donor who could walk away from your kids after they were born. I know too much about how you felt when they left for college.
I’ve said this many times on this forum but I guess I will again. Instead of marching against abortion, wanting to defund planned parenthood, trying to guilt women who have abortions, etc what if the pro lifers focused on the root?
Every abortion (except mothers health) is an unwanted pregnancy. Why not put a laser focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies? Increased education and contraceptive use. Moving away from abstinence only education. The pro life crowd protests the act but what if they worked really hard to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?
Also it’s always been weird that those who are the most anti abortion also typically fight against spending for mothers and children. I call it pro birth. Every baby should be born but once they are here definitely don’t use my tax dollars to help
PP, I sincerely didn’t mean to embarrass or offend you, both of which I’ve obviously done. I was trying to lighten the mood in a playful manner, and apparently missed the mark badly. I am going to withdraw the offending post. Please accept my apology.
In as much as you think the killing of an innocent human life is wrong, so goes abortion for it is the taking of an innocent human life. It’s scientifically and philosophically indisputable.
If it were only rare. Unfortunately, though the numbers have dropped some, for which I am grateful, 1 million is far from rare. My goal is to minimize/ eliminate the practice save for the rare occasion where the mothers life cannot otherwise be saved.
1 million human lives taken for the hell of it, is still holocaust levels of death. To get me to shut up about it, we need it down to less than a thousand per year. Then it would not be the detrimental issue it is…
I really don’t see how anybody can justify abortion as ‘good’.
Your whole argument is a red herring. It’s irrelevant in speaking to what abortion is, your speaking about what you think leads people to the table to have their child killed and removed. And you may or may not be right on some of the causes, but the causes vary wildly. Contraception has never been as well known and available as it is today and we are still around 1 million abortions per year. Just because people know better, does not mean they do better.
If any work was ever going to be done the 90 days would have long been expired by now, making the ban useless.
As they’ve had far more than 90 days at this point, they were clearly never planning on actually revamping the process, and the need for a temporary ban is rendered indefensible.
More precisely, in as much as you think abortion involves the killing of a human life (which I do not, at least up to a point).
I note that innocence is now figuring prominently in your position. I infer that means the taking of non-innocent life is OK, then?
You have no idea if those abortions were “for the hell of it.” I for one rather doubt that they were. People ride roller coasters for the hell of it; they don’t have abortions.
Tell it the the 13 year-old who is pregnant after being raped by her father.
You infer incorrectly. Don’t put words in my mouth. The innocent part simply means the child had no chance of of being an enemy to anybody. So nobody has a reason to kill him\ her.
Less than one percent of abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s welfare. Therefore, any reason short of major conditions are performed for reasons not worthy of the destruction of human life.
[quote]
That makes it good? Sounds tragic to me, all the way around.
True, save by the order of things was supposed to be ban, then reform. Using the ban as a point of reference for how to vet. That’s how I understood it anyway.