Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

@Olivier5,

Quote:

By the way, Simone Veil, the mother of French abortion laws, passed away last week.

Okay.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

As minister of health in 1974, Veil steered a contentious bill through the National Assembly to legalize abortion, bearing the brunt of a visceral battle over abortion in a majority-Catholic country. Today, the "Veil Law," and the right to obtain an abortion, are considered a fundamental underpinning of women's rights in France.

Good for her!

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Quote:
French law places the cut-off point at one-third of pregnancy, somewhat conservatively (to err on the side of caution).

That is conservative based on what science says.

Science can shed light on the issue but ultimately it is not a scientific question. It's a moral and political question. The resolution has to be seen as fair for most people and thus there is (as often in such questions) an arbitration to make between the rights of the mother and those of the foetus.

I find despicable and unjustifiable the US practice of allowing very late abortions. It seems heartless to me. I also disapprove of male genital mutilation aka circumcision. So indeed our moral judgement is shaped by our culture.

2 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

She had the kind of strength that comes with moderation, thoughtfulness, hard work and an unflinching faith in the human race.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Science can shed light on the issue but ultimately it is not a scientific question. It's a moral and political question.

Actually, science did shed light on the issue. That's why I posted this:

In 2005 the Journal of the American Medical Association published available evidence from experts from the University of California, San Francisco, and elsewhere. They concluded that: “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."

The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception, and approximately 99% of abortions are performed before 21 weeks.

Quote:

It's a moral and political question. The resolution has to be seen as fair for most people

Once again, the fetus is part of a woman's body. What she does with her own bodily processes is not your business. You believe that any resolution has to be fair for most people. And who would those people be?

Quote:

I find despicable and unjustifiable the US practice of allowing very late abortions.

Did you miss this?

The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception, and approximately 99% of abortions are performed before 21 weeks.

Quote:

So indeed our moral judgement is shaped by our culture.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Science can shed light on the issue but ultimately it is not a scientific question.

Actually, science did shed light on the issue. That's why I posted this:

In 2005 the Journal of the American Medical Association published available evidence from experts from the University of California, San Francisco, and elsewhere. They concluded that: “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."

The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception, and approximately 99% of abortions are performed before 21 weeks.

Quote:

It's a moral and political question. The resolution has to be seen as fair for most people

Once again, the fetus is part of a woman's body. In this case, how she manages her own bodily processes is not your business. You believe that any resolution has to be fair for most people. And who would those people be?

Quote:

I find despicable and unjustifiable the US practice of allowing very late abortions.

Did you miss this?

The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception, and approximately 99% of abortions are performed before 21 weeks.

Quote:

So indeed our moral judgement is shaped by our culture.

In this case, moral judgment is shaped by emotion. If you've been keeping up with this thread, you've heard another poster claim that personhood begins at conception. He must therefore also believe that the use of spermicides and the morning-after-pill is murder.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

Once again, the fetus is part of a woman's body.

Why do you say so? Genetically it's a different individual. So what's the rationale?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Why do you say so?

Because it's true.

Quote:

Genetically it's a different individual.

An individual what? An individual fetus? There's no such thing. A fetus is not self-sustaining.

Quote:

So what's the rationale?

Probably something similar to the rationale you used when you said "the French law has it at 3 months after conception, which seems fair to me."

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Ollie, you should start an abortion thread and that way you can explain to women the difference between racism and a woman's right to make decisions about her reproductive health. Also, all the men who can't get pregnant, or experience complications during pregnancy or require hormone treatment when they are very young (you know, silly stuff like passing huge clots or suffering extreme hemorrhage or other imaginary quirks that seem to bedevil women) will have a chance to discuss how heinous it is to allow women to make such decisions all by themselves.

I doubt I'll join in, I find it pointless......but if anyone cares to discuss the reasons some folks hate or fear anything outside their circle, I'm all in.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

A fetus is not self-sustaining.

Except during the last month or two. By then, the fetus could potentially survive by itself, if born. So during that period, if it is taken out of the womb it shall live, and its life is protected by moral and the law, but the same fetus inside the womb can be killed, legally and morally, as per US law. I find it irrational and immoral.

We disagree on that point. And that's entirely fine: the point was precisely to show that moral codes are subjective.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Except during the last month or two. By then, the fetus could potentially survive by itself, if born. So during that period, if it is taken out of the womb it shall live, and its life is protected by moral and the law

The operative term there is if born. Like it or not, the reproductive processes of a woman belong to the woman, not to you, even if it offends your sensibilities and your concept of morality.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Except during the last month or two. By then, the fetus could potentially survive by itself, if born. So during that period, if it is taken out of the womb it shall live, and its life is protected by moral and the law

The operative term there is if born. Like it or not, the reproductive processes of a woman belong to the woman, not to you, even if it offends your sensibilities and your concept of morality.

Except there a body of laws concerning reproduction in my country and aiming to protect the dignity of the human being. It includes for instance a ban on abortion based on the sex of the foetus. It's illegal and considered immoral in my country to decide to terminate a pregrancy based on the foetus' sex as seen on an ultrasound or genetic test. That's because eugenic practices in general are banned, based on the Nazi experience, so you can't chose the color of the eyes of your kid using a combination of genetics and abortion, or anything like that.

So what do you make of that?

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

.....but if anyone cares to discuss the reasons some folks hate or fear anything outside their circle

I care to discuss this, Glitterbag. That's what I have been trying to do for the entire thread. The post started with someone in the White educated liberal bubble deciding whether someone outside their circle should be called a "bigot" or a "racist".

It is much easier to question "some folks" in other circles than it is to question people in your own circle. It is much more productive and valid when you question your own beliefs.

That's really the point here. These long discussions on practices that "some folks" find barbaric (FGM and abortion) are just tangents. But they do illustrate the point nicely.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Except there a body of laws concerning reproduction in my country and aiming to protect the dignity of the human being. It includes for instance a ban on abortion based on the sex of the foetus. It's illegal and considered immoral in my country to decide to terminate a pregrancy based on the foetus' sex as seen on an ultrasound or genetic test. That's because eugenic practices in general are banned, based on the Nazi experience, so you can't chose the color of the eyes of your kid using a combination of genetics and abortion, or anything like that.

So what do you make of that?

I've already commented on that earlier in the thread. But for your benefit, I'll repost it:
To abort a fetus based on a preference for a particular gender reflects an ingrained discrimination toward one or the other. That is either immoral or indicative of a personal deficiency instilled by culture.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

These long discussions on practices that "some folks" find barbaric (FGM and abortion) are just tangents.

No, the long discussions on barbaric practices were the result of your defense of those practices. Your position on these practices is clearly contradictory. You condemn them, yet you support the rights of those who practice them.

It is also interesting that you characterize any challenge to your position of defending those who perform those practices as just tangents. That's a convenient assessment of the discussion. You get to make a claim, and if anyone engages you concerning that claim, you try to portray them as having gone off on a tangent.

If you don't want any challenges to your points of view, then you should either keep quiet, or at least inform participants that you'd prefer to not debate the issue.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Okay, so law and morality apply inside a womb.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Okay, so law and morality apply inside a womb.

No.

I will post the entirety of the exchange between maxdancona and myself regarding the morality of the situation.

maxdancona asked: I am asking that if a woman, of her own choice, chooses to abort any female fetuses so she can have a boy (the opposite is also possible). Is this a moral choice for this woman to make?

Glennn replied: It is her body; that hasn't changed. She has a right to do what she will concerning her own body. You are wanting to know what I think of a woman who, for reasons of coercion or reasons of personal choice, aborts her fetus based on gender. To abort a fetus based on a preference for a particular gender reflects an ingrained discrimination toward one or the other. That is either immoral or indicative of a personal deficiency instilled by culture. Which do you think it is? Perhaps this will help you to understand[/i]:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-pregnant-girls-pressured-abortions-india/story?id=15103950

The point I was making is that culture is the reason for the woman's choice in the case of gender discrimination. And if it isn't cultural influence that causes her to choose one gender over the other, the fact remains that she can do with her body what she will. The consequences are hers.

So now that you have the full context, you should understand that the question is whether or not culturally supported gender discrimination is immoral.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

In France, the womb is not something that can stop the law. It's not seen as magic or holy. Eugenism is considered dangerous for the human race, and therefore reproduction should be legislated to prevent eugenism. It's all rational and logical, and it goes way beyond sex-based abortion: you can't chose any other characteristics of your future kid using any technique.

For simular reasons (protection of human dignity), French law prohibits the sale of human organs. You can't sell your own kidney even if you wanted to, although you can give it. Also you can't rent your womb to another woman.

You can keep your confused and irrational opinions, for all I care.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

In France, the womb is not something that can stop the law. It's not seen as magic or holy. Eugenism is considered dangerous for the human race, and therefore reproduction should be legislated to prevent eugenism. It's all rational and logical, and it goes way beyond sex-based abortion: you can't chose any other characteristics of your future kid using any technique.

In the US, this has all gotten wrapped up in ideological feminism. Within certain circles, everything is interpreted in the lens of feminism; the narrative of confronting patriarchy trumps any other concern. That is why these contradictions in the rights of a fetus in the womb make perfect sense to Glennn.

The interesting topic on this thread was best articulated by Glitterbag; how people inside of an ideological circle "hate and fear" people on the outside.

This discussion, although a tangent, illustrates this point nicely.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I know nothing about American legal culture, but it seems to me the US needs a law on the issue, rather than a mere jurisprudence (Roe vs Wade). The current situation has a "all or nothing" dimension: abortion is allowed at all times during pregnancy, and pro-choice people fear that it must remain this way irrespective of any moral implications, because they fear that ANY change to the status quo would lead to a total ban on abortion, for instance if the supreme court one day decides to overturn Roe vs Wade.

On such a controversial issue, a law would permit a finer balancing of different view points, a search for consensus through legislative debate, leading to secure, well accepted rights and duties. You want society to move on, based on a balanced resolution of the issue.

0 Replies

Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know