After Birth Abortion?

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Okay, take a look at the following news video:

I love situations which show the right and the left at their worst in one fell swoop. This has the political correctness of both sides stinking up the joint. I'll have to divide this up into two sections.

First, we have a woman who doctors tried to pressure into getting an abortion because her son was diagnosed with Downs syndrome. And she's not happy about it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the UK a system for socialized medicine? That means the state. It also means the left. Here in the USA we have the the state trying to pressure women not to get abortions. Her situation shows that the left can easily be just as disgusting as the right on this issue.

Well, in both cases...fuck the state. Hard. IN THE ASS. Trying to pressure a woman in either direction is just plain sick. I understand that doctors have to let a woman know the possible complications from an abortion, i.e. informed consent. But beyond that, it's not the state's business. "Our bodies, our choice" reigns supreme. No exceptions.

As for the debate that was sparked about "after birth abortion", here's where the political correctness comes in. Political correctness is about such things as using euphemistic language to make something sound more palatable than it is. It's also big on distorting what the other guy is trying to say or even telling him "omg! heresy! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!" It's not enough to say "Well, I think you are wrong. Here's why..." That sort of thing runs the risk of having sacred cows get run through the meat grinder and we can't have that now can we? :p

First, "After Birth Abortion" is nothing more than a euphemistic weasel term for infanticide. Just call it what it is, for fuck's sake: baby killin'. Anybody that's fooled by this deserves nothing but mocking laughter. But still, I didn't expect much else from the left.

Second, there's the right wing "outrage". Here we have the "omg you can't say that!" factor at play. Well, we human beings can say anything we damn well please. It's just words, after all. If we're not free to discuss the seemingly intolerable, we might as well go back to chittering like rhesus monkeys or grunting like cavemen. Because the seemingly intolerable is often what needs to be discussed the most. Get all that shit out into the light of day and take a hard look at it. Confront it. I can understand that people on the right(and who knows, maybe their were a ton of leftists angered by this too) would find the idea objectionable. But it's better to say "you're wrong and I'll tell you why". That requires thinking.

And there you have it.

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Interesting coincidence you write about this very topic.

Bill Maher had a great editorial Please stop apologizing!, printed in the New York Times last week (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/please-stop-apologizing.html?_r=2), and it was the theme of his closing remarks on his show Friday. Video below.

This week, Robert De Niro made a joke about first ladies, and Newt Gingrich said it was “inexcusable and the president should apologize for him.” Of course, if something is “inexcusable,” an apology doesn’t make any difference, but then again, neither does Newt Gingrich. Mr. De Niro was speaking at a fund-raiser with the first lady, Michelle Obama. Here’s the joke: “Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?” The first lady’s press secretary declared the joke “inappropriate,” and Mr. De Niro said his remarks were “not meant to offend.” So, as these things go, even if the terrible damage can never be undone, at least the healing can begin. And we can move on to the next time we choose sides and pretend to be outraged about nothing.

When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like? In the last year, we’ve been shocked and appalled by the unbelievable insensitivity of Nike shoes, the Fighting Sioux, Hank Williams Jr., Cee Lo Green, Ashton Kutcher, Tracy Morgan, Don Imus, Kirk Cameron, Gilbert Gottfried, the Super Bowl halftime show and the ESPN guys who used the wrong cliché for Jeremy Lin after everyone else used all the others. Who can keep up? [...] The right side of America is mad at President Obama because he hugged the late Derrick Bell, a law professor who believed we live in a racist country, 22 years ago; the left side of America is mad at Rush Limbaugh for seemingly proving him right. If it weren’t for throwing conniption fits, we wouldn’t get any exercise at all.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Is it just me, or does that glass of milk seem comparably extreme just by sitting next to Romney?

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

Heh An argument like that kind of turns itself over on its own ear, though.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I don't understand that phrase "turns itself over on its own ear" means.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

Basically that he's complaining about complaints not unlike the very one he's making.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I thought he was editorializing on freedom of speech and not living in the bubble.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

I only read the blurb you posted, so sorry if I'm missing something. But what does people saying things about things other people say affect freedom of speech? Re: the living in a bubble bit... that's kind of what I'm talking about. He's cheesed off that other people get cheesed off at the things other people... "When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like?" He doesn't like hearing people say they don't like hearing certain things others say, etc. That's what I mean by his argument turning in on itself.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That's right, but he also said that's a lot different than making the person go away or try to get them off the air, Maher has come out against any efforts to have Limbaugh taken off the air. That's the difference.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I'll never understand why "free speech" of someone means we're required to do nothing to oppose their speech's content.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Off topic, but here is a 'read' on the 2nd day of Supreme Court hearings on the Health Care Reform Act.

Link here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/supreme-court-health-care_n_1373469.html)

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Some of this might be instructive, but I've heard too many SCOTUS oral arguments where the eventual winner gets torn to shreds. I'm of the opinion that if anything decides the justices, it's the briefs, not the oral argument.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

There is some hope then, but I remember Bush vs. Gore and a lot of the speculation from the oral arguments was pretty spot on: 5-4 decision.

[di-glossia.livejournal.com]

I thought one of the basic arguments of most abortionists is that birth is a huge, semi-magical dividing line between not-human and human? In that light, "After Birth Abortion" is hilarious, then, on all accounts. What on earth.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Great comment.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

In my state in Oz (Victoria) abortions are legal up til birth. 1st and 2nd trimester are fine, 3rd requires 2 docs to sign off that it is appropriate "based on the women's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstance".

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

That's how I take it as well. I wasn't trying to suggest that the law in this regard was based on wacky cosmic ethics (nice phrase btw :P) and I that's kind of the point I'm making elsewhere; that philosophical discussions like the one mentioned in the OP take something potentially arbitrary (or at least, not the defining point) such as birth out of the equation and discuss the ethics in a philosophically rigorous manner.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

(unlike the, wackos imo, who focus strictly on bodily autonomy).

:(

[dwer.livejournal.com]

ok.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Well I think there needs to clearly be a line somewhere. I can't say I agree with abortions of children that are conscious and feel pain, vs a zygote or fetus in it's very earliest stages of development. Also where do "after-birth" abortions end? Do they end when a child is able to speak and decide for themselves weather they want to live or not? Do they end when a child is an adult and able to make decisions without their parents?

Such discussions shouldn't be banned though, sometimes I think it's good to even discuss the very controversial and unthinkable so that we realize why we think it's so controversial or unthinkable.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

I'd like to add that such discussions often reveal that such issues aren't as cut and dried as people originally think once you dig beneath the surface.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Well, as you can imagine we've had this debate (somewhat) in Australia as well. Those who oppose the prospect of this procedure haven't considered anencephaly and, if that example isn't convincing enought, consider a case where an infant is suffering a birth defect so serious that has no chance of improvement and places the infant in enormous pain (for example, a near-lethal case of epidermolysis bullosa).

[patchworkstrike.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was a little bit surprised about this news story because the ethics of infanticide, especially in the case of severely disabled infants, has been debated for a while now. Peter Singer is the obvious name. It looks like in this case, the argument is that infanticide is permissible in general (though I believe Singer has also argued for this conclusion, and I haven't read the article.)

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

That's an important point you made there.

[the-s3ntinel.livejournal.com]

Those of us who honestly think there's not a lot wrong with "pre-birth abortion", and who are consistent, will cheerfully agree that infanticide isn't as large an evil as murder of a fully sentient human. Whatever the hell that means, but I do know there's a massive difference between a newborn and a 1-year old in terms of how much it seems like there's "somebody in there".

That doesn't mean laws should be changed - birth provides an excellent 'Schelling point' on which to attach a law that's simple and understandable by everyone. But neither am I "outraged" or "disgusted" - I merely think it's shortsighted to try to sneak infanticide under the radar by calling it something else. (Or perhaps these 'ethicists' just wanted to make the news somehow.)

I wrote this comment thinking I was disagreeing with you, but actually I can't find much to disagree with. The only bit I object to is the conflation of "the state" with "individual doctors whose salaries, if traced back sufficiently far, ultimately derive from taxation".

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

"That doesn't mean laws should be changed - birth provides an excellent 'Schelling point' on which to attach a law that's simple and understandable by everyone. But neither am I "outraged" or "disgusted" - I merely think it's shortsighted to try to sneak infanticide under the radar by calling it something else. (Or perhaps these 'ethicists' just wanted to make the news somehow.)"

I dunno. But I'm starting to lean more towards what anfalicious said below in his comment.

"The only bit I object to is the conflation of "the state" with "individual doctors whose salaries, if traced back sufficiently far, ultimately derive from taxation".

I'd have to put the state down as being at least partially responsible still, owing to the fact that said doctors are representatives of said state rather than a private entity.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The argument is a comment on abortion, so yeah, it kinda does need to be "after birth abortion", otherwise it misses the point. They're attempting to take certain pro-choice ideas to logical conclusions, and they wind up at infanticide a lot of the time. Calling it an after birth abortion actually de-emphaises birth as the Schelling point. If you dismiss birth as an obvious point around which you may frame an idea, the arguments change in nature. It increases the emphasis on things like consciousness and autonomy. Both of which don't significantly change during the moment of birth and as such, blurs the line between what is and isn't OK. I ultimately found the article more anti than pro abortion.

And yeah, they were trying to make the news, every single person whose career depends on getting published is always trying to make the news.

[the-s3ntinel.livejournal.com]

>The argument is a comment on abortion, so yeah, it kinda does need to be "after birth abortion", otherwise it misses the point.

I'm not convinced it does, if only for the simple reason that nothing 'needs' to be called anything.

>If you dismiss birth as an obvious point around which you may frame an idea, the arguments change in nature. It increases the emphasis on things like consciousness and autonomy. Both of which don't significantly change during the moment of birth and as such, blurs the line between what is and isn't OK.

I remember realizing that in high school. (Though I appreciate that you were providing background rather than trying to explain to me what's new and interesting about this paper.)

>And yeah, they were trying to make the news, every single person whose career depends on getting published is always trying to make the news.

Sure, but "generating a lot of loud, misleading news by (perhaps inadvertently) coining an outrage-inducing soundbite" != "making news by having advanced the debate".

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced it does, if only for the simple reason that nothing 'needs' to be called anything.


OK, it doesn't need to, but it does have a semantic use. It's not simple sensationalism. And yes, things do, in fact, need to be called something, it's how we communicate ideas. What they are called does change the way the concept is perceived. Otherwise we wouldn't have "enhanced interrogation techniques" and "collateral damage" when we have "torture" and "killing civilians".

I remember realizing that in high school.

OK... Not sure what your point is there. I wasn't suggesting this discussion was new. In fact one of the points of the paper as I read it is that this is a common sticking point in the ethics discussion.

Sure, but "generating a lot of loud, misleading news by (perhaps inadvertently) coining an outrage-inducing soundbite" != "making news by having advanced the debate".

If we're sitting here having a discussion about the role of language in the abortion debate, you can bet your arse that people who get published and quoted in the field are talking about it. You're not convinced and you don't see the point; doesn't mean you're right and there isn't one.

[the-s3ntinel.livejournal.com]

(By the way, some of my sentences may have come off as sarcastic, but I assure you that wasn't the intention. And to be clear, I have no reason to doubt that it is an interesting paper.)

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between "pressuring" an abortion and writing laws that forbid it or make it a huge unnecessary pain in the ass. If the social conservatives were completely in charge, they would ban it outright.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Oh, there's a difference. But it's a small one. it's still a form of interference and no doctor has any business doing it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Um, I wouldn't consider a doctor's professional opinion to be interference, sorry.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

I would when the mother in question says the doctors treated her like she was "stupid".

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

So they were being blunt with their professional opinion. Usually, they say the same thing in a nicer way.

Still not the same as making it illegal.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

After all the chatter I get about how the US left is incomparable to Europe's left...

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

"I got to "but isn't the UK a system for socialized medicine? That means the state. It also means the left." and had to stop because if you failed so much at logic so fast, I didn't need to read the rest of what you said.

Oh yeah, silly me. It's clear that these doctors were right wing religious nuts, amirite?

*rolleyes*

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Let's see: Doctors trying to get a mother to abort. Socialized medicine.

I'm sorry, guy. Pretty much the domain of the left. Unless of course, you can suggest who else that part might belong to.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

"After Birth Abortion" is nothing more than a euphemistic weasel term for infanticide.

You know that the authors are very aware of this and that it is and that the purpose of it was as a philosophical thought experiment. The real weasel words were from the piece: "Oxford Educated Professors", i.e. "elitists"; the presenter almost spits the word out in this neat little example of class warfare*. "Published in a leading medical journal" is another example. It's the Journal of Medical Ethics. I.e. a Philosophy journal. The professors in question are philosophers, not doctors. This is an attempt to undermine the scientific community, because they probably shouldn't be putting forward ideas such as infanticide, they operate in the real world. Philosophers aren't constrained by that and nor should they be. Philosophers talk about a whole raft of things that are repulsive to polite society, but it is necessary to do so to truly understand the human condition. It's like asking a medical scientist not to research an AIDS vaccine because it mainly effects prostitutes, gay men and IV drug users.

I realise that your point is that we shouldn't be outraged by words, but you're saying that "After Birth Abortion" is a weasel word. It's really not, it's essential to the epistemology of the entire argument. You're perhaps just a bit out of your depth with it, but that's OK, so are most people and that's why it was published in a philosophy journal, where, assumedly, people would have the requite skills and knowledge to parse that.

This is why journalists shouldn't report on things they find in journals unless they have a degree in that field. It's irresponsible.


*It's interesting that the capitalists have managed to co-opt the uneducated poor against the educated middle class, much like the revolutions of '48.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Oh, that was informative. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Not sure if srs :P

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm srs. It shed new light.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Executions have also been referred to as retroactive abortion.

Humans are capable of holding complex but mutually exclusive ideas concurrently. Thus pro-life, pro death penalty; anti death penalty, pro choice. This is because we weigh other factors when forming an opinion. Since there is no obvious dividing line as to when a fetus becomes human but a sharp division when an abortion occurs, we are stuck with having to defend a rather nebulous deadline. OTOH it also does not work to say life begins at conception because as we know now, every cell in one's body is capable of producing another human. It can be argued that removing a fetus isn't much different than removing ones gall bladder, or fixing the situation of conjoined twins results in murder. Whether one is pro choice or pro-life, a sub-optimal decision has to be lived with, knowing that it is somewhat arbitrary.

Academics discuss these things all the time, it's their job. The outrage comes largely from people who don't understand what is going on. These reporters know or should know this because that is supposed to be *their* job.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

One of my favorite bits of humor involves the contention that a fertilized ovum reaches human development when rational thought is first experienced. This implies that right-to-lifers may someday achieve human status when they start to think rationally.

I personally took the article to be a tongue-in-cheek argument against abortion. The reaction of people like the mother in the video may be a bit naive.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Didn't we just do this, about this exact article, a couple of weeks ago?

At the time, I recall pointing out that while I still think it's awful and heartbreaking, I do think there's an argument to be made that neonaticide is qualitatively different from infanticide - they happen for different reasons and under different circumstances. I recommended the work of Sarah Hrdy on the subject at the time and I do so again now.