tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post2053864510745109910..comments2023-12-23T19:04:18.739-05:00Comments on The Crow's Eye: Abortion PostJack Crowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-12186703538290786222011-04-18T13:17:42.246-04:002011-04-18T13:17:42.246-04:00*morphogenetics...(Sorry, thinking more quickly th...*morphogenetics...(Sorry, thinking more quickly than typing.)d.mantishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03817778296282926641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-80725495187660531332011-04-18T13:15:29.605-04:002011-04-18T13:15:29.605-04:00The snark and the straying from good faith argumen...The snark and the straying from good faith arguments aside, I value this discussion between u and Karl immensely. You are two bloggers out of the dwindling circle that i follow dogmatically.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Karl, biology, genetics, morphogenics and developmental biology are severly silent on the subject. They deal with chemical and cellular processes, not when and if "life" begins. So that argument is moot.<br /><br />There are theories for the emergence of complex neural networks developing naturally from the state of reaction within a chaotic set. However, this is far from an answer as to when the collection of cells responding to the local environment of a uterus crosses a threshold into a cognitively seperate entity.<br /><br />IMO therefore, the criminalization of abortion must then concentrate on intent. As the only actor in the 'crime', I have found discussions against abortion cneter on the woman's intent being always assumed to be flippant, negligent or downright insidious. <br /><br />This is what I find so sexist about the discussion.<br /><br />Let me again say that the discussion has been great!d.mantishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03817778296282926641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-54900137439244094942011-04-17T20:33:34.526-04:002011-04-17T20:33:34.526-04:00Can a crime against murder be enforced on an inval...Can a crime against murder be enforced on an invalid?<br /><br />No.Cüneythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09839492265797382364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-43968673738817166992011-04-16T08:23:47.898-04:002011-04-16T08:23:47.898-04:00Can an anti-abortion law be enforced on a man?
No...Can an anti-abortion law be enforced on a man?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />Therefore, they are woman-specific.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-62022113393749923092011-04-16T08:07:47.648-04:002011-04-16T08:07:47.648-04:00Mr. Crow, I agree with you practically, though on ...Mr. Crow, I agree with you practically, though on your principle I may disagree. Anti-abortion laws are not wrong because they target women rather than men because of uteri etc... I say that they are wrong because they limit a woman's choice, but they are no more woman-specific than speed limits are car-owner-specific or laws against abandonment are parent-and-guardian-specific.<br /><br />I agree that anti-abortion laws are often motivated by, or embody, misogyny etc., but anyway, that's my nitpick.Cüneythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09839492265797382364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-80159942589506187032011-04-15T12:44:47.866-04:002011-04-15T12:44:47.866-04:00I'll grant that it sounds like you knew more a...I'll grant that it sounds like you knew more about the situation of the guy than I took from the comment. I may have been distracted by the glee. <br /><br />What is interesting is that you so decisively reject any argument about the humanity of the unborn. In your world, where does authority come from if not from social convention, general humanity? And make no mistake, in your world there is authority. Right? Rape is still wrong. Wage slavery is wrong. Is your world governed by your personal preference? <br /><br />If you base your argument on the impossibility of inconveniencing both sexes equally with a law, your fight is not with anything man made but with biology. It is a mighty adversary you strive against, and I wish you well.Gabrielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-21075408774372701372011-04-15T12:29:44.986-04:002011-04-15T12:29:44.986-04:00What he objects to, rightly, is the implication th...<i>What he objects to, rightly, is the implication that we hold our opinion due to base motives.</i><br /><br />Nope. What you're doing is taking a comment about Christer lawmakers and acting as it applies to you.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-82186094952622940842011-04-15T12:21:39.796-04:002011-04-15T12:21:39.796-04:00Gabriel,
"Would be father"? That's ...Gabriel,<br /><br />"Would be father"? That's what you got from that anecdote?<br /><br />The shitbum was beating his girlfriend. She didn't want to give birth to her own leash.<br /><br />That's not a caricature. That's a dude who punched his girlfriend in the face because she wouldn't give him a blowjob. What she should have done was stab him dead. Anything short of that was an act of generosity to which he was not entitled. Up to and most certainly including aborting "his kid."<br /><br />Your nausea has nothing to do with it. Nor does my statement about the absolute self-possession of a uterus make my (admittedly limited) opinions otherwise suspect.<br /><br />I will "gleefully" help any woman terminate any pregnancy for any reason, or no reason, on principle alone.<br /><br />If that nauseates or frustrates a man who thinks that an organ he does not have ought to be regulated for the sake of imaginary creatures and imaginary gods, all the better.<br /><br />As Mandos wrote, and aptly, treating the contents of the uterus as separate from the woman to whom that uterus belongs ignores the woman entirely.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-81375973770854229232011-04-15T12:02:44.532-04:002011-04-15T12:02:44.532-04:00Mr. Crow,
Like Mr. Ochstradt, I believe that a fet...Mr. Crow,<br />Like Mr. Ochstradt, I believe that a fetus has a right to live. I understand that not everyone in shares this opinion, and so there will be disagreement. What he objects to, rightly, is the implication that we hold our opinion due to base motives. <br /><br />I think he's off base equating support for abortion with militarism, not because I think abortion is less evil, but because of the accusation of inconsistency presumes shared beliefs about the unborn. <br /><br />However, your gleeful bragging about assisting women in getting abortions is nauseating, and your anecdote about the would be father whose unborn child you helped abort is in striking bad taste. The broad brush strokes used to paint a caricature of an individual that it sounds like you had one fleeting encounter with shows a smallness of mind and character that makes me question the sincerity behind some of the moving things I've read by you in the past. The lack of empathy betrayed by that comment shows volumes.<br /><br />I'm grateful for alot of the writing you and this little community does. Your work is important, and much of your message has value. But I believe you are wrong on this one.Gabrielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-75510413885407485372011-04-15T11:22:49.150-04:002011-04-15T11:22:49.150-04:00Karl Franz Ochstradt said...
"Thanks. Wh...<i>Karl Franz Ochstradt said...<br /><br /> "Thanks. What was your point, again?"<br /><br /> I bet that felt mighty superior.<br /><br /> Congratulations.</i><br /><br />No, Karl, I meant that I don't understand your point.<br /><br />If I had to guess: <br /><br /> There is some validity to focusing on ladyparts, if one were to assume that said abortion-hating focusers were not a pack of Christopath mysogynists or users of same.<br /><br />However, Karl will not make this assumption.<br /><br />That is why I asked, "What is your point?"<br />~ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©https://www.blogger.com/profile/06252371815131259831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-26707955781875935692011-04-15T05:45:55.822-04:002011-04-15T05:45:55.822-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.davidlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754707934311038544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-78184183456243537722011-04-15T01:38:09.841-04:002011-04-15T01:38:09.841-04:00Anonymous,
Post that again, and I will delete it ...Anonymous,<br /><br />Post that again, and I will delete it again. Which will make it only the second time I've ever deleted something from my blog that wasn't an advert for clothing or jewelry.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-76345951945933581412011-04-15T01:23:22.647-04:002011-04-15T01:23:22.647-04:00Since you are not a Christofascist elected to the ...Since you are not a Christofascist elected to the NH state house, I could not possibly have been referring to you.<br /><br />Nor did I argue that "every person who disagrees with abortion" = "Christofascist."<br /><br />I very clearly referenced people with the ability to make law. <br /><br />Please, Oxtrot, try to argue this in good faith. I've given you that benefit, from day one. <br /><br />*<br /><br />As for convenience and inconvenience, I don't care why a woman wants an abortion. I do think "convenient" or "inconvenient" have fuck all to do with it. She can have a different lover ever hour of the day for a whole week; or she can decide that she doesn't want to give birth because her husband was just diagnosed with potentially fatal cancer. The reason <b>does not matter</b>. <br /><br />In fact, the "convenience" argument smacks of sex shaming, as if lovers have any moral obligations to society beyond those they offer to each other.<br /><br />I don't believe they do, and it would follow then that I'm not likely to draw any conclusions about "convenience" as compared to the alleged rectitude of imaginary women and men who do the right thing because social mores compel them to be upright abstainers from reprobate ease and pleasure.<br /><br />As casual birth control or a painful decision, it does not matter to me.<br /><br />It matters that abortion law punishes the use of a uterus outside of proscribed limits, proscriptions almost exclusively written (in our age) by hypocritical Christer closet cases, cheaters, wife beaters and gropers.<br /><br />As it equally matters that this is what all law does - compel the constraining use of self to the advantage of those who run the show. Drug laws. Sex laws. Property laws. Marriage laws. Abortion laws.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-68615191199846887472011-04-15T01:08:20.617-04:002011-04-15T01:08:20.617-04:00PS: re astroturfing:
the equation of favoring pr...PS: re astroturfing:<br /><br />the equation of favoring prohibition on abortion with Christofascism...<br /><br />pure partisan pissery.<br /><br />Tony Podesta says thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-58214021673508864812011-04-15T01:05:32.681-04:002011-04-15T01:05:32.681-04:00Ah yes. So I'm a Christofascist, and the only...Ah yes. So I'm a Christofascist, and the only way to see a human fetus as a human being is to be a Christofascist.<br /><br />That's some nifty thinking right there.<br /><br />All life is sacred, unless the woman regrets the fuck and the pregnancy, in which case it's not a life... it's just a tumor that needs to be cut out.<br /><br />Right.<br /><br />Got it. <br /><br />Let's go kill some ragheads, because I want some fucking OIL, dude. They're expendable because they inconvenience me! That makes them NOT HUMAN!<br /><br /><i>Semper fidelis!</i><br /><br />(but fidelity to... what, exactly?)<br /><br />Abortion is a swell form of birth control. It almost makes it fun to skip the condom, spermicide, IUD, diaphragm, withdrawal, etc. Let's be spontaneous and skin-raw! We can always scrape the little bugger from the cave walls!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-85722803555005280142011-04-15T00:55:49.016-04:002011-04-15T00:55:49.016-04:00The whole line of argument is designed to separate...The whole line of argument is designed to separate the fetus from the context of the woman, but if it were so, it would not be a fetus...<br /><br />That line of argument against abortion is pretty ahistorical, for one thing.Mandoshttp://politblogo.typepad.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-45758075083907486142011-04-15T00:55:37.519-04:002011-04-15T00:55:37.519-04:00And astroturfing? Really? You think I'm being ...And astroturfing? Really? You think I'm being paid by some conglomerate of abortion providers?<br /><br />I don't have enough snark left in me, tonight, to properly dismiss "Attention Grabbing Woman Defender."<br /><br />I'm just pointing out that (a) abortion criminalizes uteri, not testicles and that (b) I think it is a moral right to break any and all abortion laws, especially in a climate of expanding Christer control of state legislatures.<br /><br />When I made good money, I was relatively well known as a person who would help poor or abused women get abortions. People knew where my store was and that I could be counted on to raise the money for women who could not afford abortions. I never asked why, because it was never my business to know why.<br /><br />I faced down one angry godfuck who, in a pique of ironic deliciosity, threatened to murder me where I stood because his punching bag wasn't going to be bringing into existence his future child support obligation, anymore.<br /><br />A good day, that. He lost his punching bag and his reason to stay in town. Sadly, some poor girl in Arizona or Utah probably fell for his guise and ended up bearing him a reason to blame her for his impotency and failure as a man.<br /><br />This has been what I believe and where I put my money for a very, very long time.<br /><br />If NH's Christer shitheads ever pass laws restricting abortion again, I will find a way to make it my mission once more.<br /><br />*<br /><br /><br />There's no right or wrong to personal opinions about abortion. If you don't like 'em, you never have to get one. That's not me being polite or wishy washy. That's me telling you what I feel, and with no particular urge or need to be a douche about it. <br /><br />If someone thinks abortion is evil, that someone never has to be involved in the process in any way, if he or she doesn't want to.<br /><br />It is wrong, on the other hand, to pass laws which force women to use their uteri under compulsion or threat of punishment. And I've been saying that for the entirety of this discussion.<br /><br />*<br /><br />I absolutely am at liberty to decide that I don't think a blastocyst is a person. I have the absolute freedom to decide for myself that a fetus is not a person. I'm not the arbiter of anything, nonetheless. I'm not swinging a gavel, sitting a bench, filing a brief, wielding a baton, making an arrest or writing legislation which will please shit bum Christofascist asshats.<br /><br />They're the arbiters.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-57789452313699245642011-04-15T00:43:48.119-04:002011-04-15T00:43:48.119-04:00I'm talking about consistency of moral positio...I'm talking about consistency of moral position, Jack. <br /><br />Not inconsistency in your position on abortion. <br /><br />Which suggests a new point here: If you never have held firm beliefs on both sides of the equation, on what ground do you hold the present (always) belief? What basis?<br /><br />On what ground do you say a human embryo is not human?<br /><br />Quibbling over personhood is escapism, which you know, I'm sure. You sound like Holmes in <i>Buck v Bell</i>. Who made you the arbiter of human personhood? Why are you empowered to define it? Why can't you yield to the possibility that is indicated, on all 4 corners from biology, genetics and other scientific evidence, that the fetus is a human person?<br /><br />What makes a person?<br /><br />I don't think you're talking about that. Not even close. You're assuming it's done, a done deal.<br /><br />I say you're wrong, and rather than show me you're right, you'll just say I'm wrong and you're right and we disagree.<br /><br />Which isn't impressive, nor persuasive. And in some ways, it's disingenuine... or timid.<br /><br />Because you know, there's no reason to be "polite" (euphemistic sense) with me. <br /><br />+++++++++++++<br /><br />The If Person,<br /><br />You should try reading this, before you go off assuming idiotic things again:<br /><br />http://pezcandy.blogspot.com/2009/06/its-not-murder-if-you-call-it-war.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-62286878224788234582011-04-15T00:39:02.123-04:002011-04-15T00:39:02.123-04:00I don't mind the animosity, Karl, but you are ...I don't mind the animosity, Karl, but you are wrong about my consistency of position. This has been my position for much longer than I've written and published for the four people who regularly read my blegh. And for as long as I've been writing it, it's been the argument I've always made. I quoted the argument I made a year ago. The same argument I'm making today.<br /><br />Abortion laws do not criminalize testicles. They criminalize uteri.<br /><br />And for clarity's sake - I did not make an argument about the genetic species of a fetus. I stated that I don't believe it is a <i>human <b>person</b></i>.<br /><br />When my very first girlfriend had a miscarriage, she certainly miscarried genetically human material. It just wasn't a <i>person</i>. When my first son's mother got an abortion* (after losing almost thirty pounds in her first three months of pregnancy) at almost the same stage of pregnancy, she did not end a <i>person's</i> existence in order to literally save her own life. She ended a pregnancy.<br /><br />* - at the abortion clinic Salvi shot up, just days before he shot it up.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-62298140712218841342011-04-15T00:30:03.568-04:002011-04-15T00:30:03.568-04:00Thanks. What was your point, again?
I bet that fe...<i>Thanks. What was your point, again?</i><br /><br />I bet that felt mighty superior.<br /><br />Congratulations.<br /><br />Although, if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion: You should be a bit more courageous, and stop using snarky implication. Try speaking plainly about what you really think regarding my position. Spell it out, the whole caricature you've created and dismissed with Superior Progressive Haughtiness... please, please, please do that for me.<br /><br />Please.<br /><br />+++++++++++++<br /><br />Jack,<br /><br />With all due respect -- which respect is withering to nil by this point, after reading your comments and original post -- you aren't making a single lick of sense.<br /><br />You sound like JRB. You sound like an Attention Grabbing Woman-Defender.<br /><br />And calling a human fetus not human, that's hilarious. What is it? A lizard? A bird? A dinosaur?<br /><br />The number of bloggers who have a consistency of position is shrinking to a very small handful. The number appearing lately to be astroturfers is growing daily.<br /><br />Nice work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-6770175076112186902011-04-15T00:06:36.061-04:002011-04-15T00:06:36.061-04:00Karl,
At the risk of opacity, I'm simply sugg...Karl,<br /><br />At the risk of opacity, I'm simply suggesting that abortion laws cannot be enforced against men because men don't have uteri. That seems fairly apparent to me. This doesn't have anything to do with apprehensions of sexism or your personally held conviction that abortion kills a human person (IIRC, that is what you elsewhere wrote. If I'm wrong, my apologies).<br /><br />Since I see no particular reason to believe that a fetus is a person, I have no obligation to accept any framing of the abortion debate as a contest between competing persons, and their allegedly conflicting interests. The woman with the uterus is the only integral, actual, existential person as far as I see it. <br /><br />I understand that others disagree, and they are at liberty to never, ever contract for abortion services.<br /><br />Where they go wrong, in my humble opinion, is in inviting the state to pass laws which can only be enforced against women because only women have the ability to have the medical procedure in question. <br /><br />Seen another way, if vasectomies were criminalized, out of some Restorationist Christer urge to beget more angry White Christians, then the enforcement of the related laws could only be applied to men, and would be in their construction and application utterly sexist.<br /><br />The law which penalizes a woman for an abortion, or seeks to prevent or limit her ability to get one, discriminates exclusively upon the (criminalized) use of an organ <i>men do not possess.</i><br /><br />This has no analog with rape, or laws which prohibit or punish rape, because rape is a sexual act which does not require any specific gender or generative organ in order for it to be criminalized. A woman can rape another woman, a child, or a man - and be charged and prosecuted accordingly.<br /><br />And while I don't believe law or prosecution are solutions, in the short or long terms, because of the consequences of the monopolization of punishment, there are nonetheless qualitative differences between laws which penalize rape and laws which penalize abortion, <i>because laws which punish or limit abortion are written and constructed around the disposition of a particularly and exclusively female organ, <b>the uterus</b>.</i>Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-33508206460941836512011-04-14T22:50:16.022-04:002011-04-14T22:50:16.022-04:00Did I say there is a SPECIFIC ABORTION LAW that ha...<i>Did I say there is a SPECIFIC ABORTION LAW that has "legitimate intent"?<br /><br />No.</i><br /><br />Thanks. What was your point, again?<br />~ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©https://www.blogger.com/profile/06252371815131259831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-10432695863333824902011-04-14T22:47:31.746-04:002011-04-14T22:47:31.746-04:00clarifying one of the points above:
* If a law ai...clarifying one of the points above:<br /><br />* If a law aims to prevent abortions <i>because it is trying to protect the developing human embryo/fetus</i>, then it must focus on the woman who would get the abortion. <br /><br />............<br /><br />Alternatively one could imagine a law that makes performing abortions, or participating in such procedures indirectly (assisting, enabling), a crime. Or in some really bizarre twist on (or perhaps inevitable outgrowth of) capitalism, a civil wrong that is somehow compensable with monetary damages.<br /><br />Such a law would not be about protecting the fetal/embryonic human, but instead would be about the procedure.<br /><br />..............<br /><br />Imagine a culture where female genitalia mutilation happens regularly because the men in the society want it to happen. The society changes to the point where a majority agree, women should not be subjected to genital mutilation.<br /><br />If addressed by law or regulation, the law or regulation would have to focus on the woman's genitals in some way, at least as the object protected, if nothing else.<br /><br />Would that be a "sexist" matter?<br /><br />Would it be unfair gender discrimination?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-55386751210859794272011-04-14T22:39:25.621-04:002011-04-14T22:39:25.621-04:00Let me be more clear, for those who are inclined t...Let me be more clear, for those who are inclined to use their preconceptions and inherent bias to wrongly read my posts.<br /><br />* There is legitimate intent to make a gender-based distinction, statutorily, when the gender is a real dividing point. This is a GENERAL STATEMENT about jurisprudence, and not a specific approval of any particular gender-oriented law or regulation.<br /><br />* In the case of laws which aim to protect a fetus or developing human embryo, it makes sense to focus on the woman's uterus because THAT IS WHERE THE DEVELOPING EMBRYO IS LOCATED. Where else would you focus? On the garbage collector's discarded condom? The auto mechanic's underwear? The undertaker's kid gloves? <br /><br />* If a law aims to prevent abortions then it must focus on the woman who would get the abortion. <br /><br />* If one doesn't want laws then obviously the whole situation is moot. A fully voluntary society with no laws or regulations would never have this issue. It may, however, have a pile of fetal corpses that stink mightily.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102937856333775840.post-9065812372369967932011-04-14T22:31:15.295-04:002011-04-14T22:31:15.295-04:00Oh great. Now I'm being accused of saying wha...Oh great. Now I'm being accused of saying what YOU wanted me to say, rather than what I said.<br /><br />Did I say there is a SPECIFIC ABORTION LAW that has "legitimate intent"?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />Please read clearly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com