You're not a very imaginative thinker if you can't imagine fates worse than death, and you aren't very good at statistics if you think your own experience as an American is normal.
You might have been conscripted, raped, and beaten into becoming a child soldier in the Congo, for instance. Throughout much of human (pre)history, you'd have had a fair chance of dying from infection from some wound inflicted by the villagers 5 miles away.
If you're addressing the immediately previous comment, then I'm at a total loss to understand your comment.
However, if your referring to the tone of the entire conversation, I can see what your saying (though I must say your interpretation is off). Many here (not just me) have only been talking about this in terms of outside pressures (money, social justice, violence, etc.,), as if the people involved were not active moral agents.
I think this was done so as to focus on what could be changed to better the situation for those who wish it were different; if someone would get an abortion no matter what, then there is probably little that increased assistance, etc., would do to change that.
Actually, now that I think about it, the article itself seemed to set the tone (that of lack of agency) for the resulting conversations; it makes it seem as if only the doctor could do anything to help those involved.
You seem convinced that having an abortion isn't the most moral thing that a parent could decide to do under these circumstances.
If you dislike abortions, and feel 'a little increased assistance' would have an impact, employ your own 'moral agency' to alleviate poverty.
Until you've defeated poverty, though, keep your trap shut about even -suggesting- this is an immoral decision without some evidence. Argument in the absence of evidence belies your claim to rationalism... especially when it is in line with your religious upbrining.
Meanwhile, your fellow anti-abortionists are still shooting doctors.
The idea of having society work together to keep abortions "safe, legal, and rare" is in the platform of the DNC; I assumed that since it represents a sizeable percentage of pro-abortion-choice Americans, it would not be associated with me personally.
As for the agency & moral choice part, I will attempt to re-phrase previous statements to be clearer: if people are in a situation where they feel that if they don't get an abortion, then they will suffer tremendously, we ought to do something as a society to help (i.e. I think we should be concerned that such apparently violent brothers are free to exercise such control over the sister and her boyfriend). As evidenced by earlier posts here, I would certainly agree that social justice dictates that alleviating poverty is a concern, and add that this is a top priority and most other issues will be difficult, if not impossible, to resolve until such is done.
That the DNC should waffle on such a key issue is no surprise to me. If you had me figured for a Democrat, you should note the icon ("CNT FAI" may help with googling.)
Nobody needs to "work to keep it rare", and supporting capitalism/business at one end and "reducing poverty" (if we're to take the most charitable interpretation of that poor choice of phrasing) is deeply hypocritical.
If real work to reduce poverty has the consequence that there are fewer abortions... and rest assured, rich white women have their share of abortions... so be it, but it should be an end unto itself.
As far as I'm concerned, so long as it has a brain less complex than a cat I need feel no more sorry for it than a stray cat which is put down in a shelter due to overcrowding. The conditions which might motivate one to have one's own pet (or child) put down for wont of the ability to care for it, on the other hand, is different.
Thank you for clarifying your P.O.V.; though I didn't figure you particularly were a Democrat, I did assume that others here might be (or at least be sympathetic to the position), so they may still find it appropriate.
I fear that my previous comments about why we may view the article in a certain way just confused the point I was trying to make (if so, please feel free to ignore previous comments and only consider the following). The point I want to make is this: According to the doctor's article, the reason the patient sought his services was due to the violent, economic, and emotional coercion of others (i.e. threats of the brothers killing the patent's boyfriend & the father disowning the patient). I thought that focus on this aspect of the story (feeling forced to undergo a medical procedure due to the threats of others) was not expressed and might concern others from a social justice P.O.V., regardless of one's positions on abortion.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Fetal Calculus
You might have been conscripted, raped, and beaten into becoming a child soldier in the Congo, for instance. Throughout much of human (pre)history, you'd have had a fair chance of dying from infection from some wound inflicted by the villagers 5 miles away.
Re: Fetal Calculus
Re: Fetal Calculus
Re: Moral Agency
However, if your referring to the tone of the entire conversation, I can see what your saying (though I must say your interpretation is off). Many here (not just me) have only been talking about this in terms of outside pressures (money, social justice, violence, etc.,), as if the people involved were not active moral agents.
I think this was done so as to focus on what could be changed to better the situation for those who wish it were different; if someone would get an abortion no matter what, then there is probably little that increased assistance, etc., would do to change that.
Re: Agency in the Story
Re: Agency in the Story
If you dislike abortions, and feel 'a little increased assistance' would have an impact, employ your own 'moral agency' to alleviate poverty.
Until you've defeated poverty, though, keep your trap shut about even -suggesting- this is an immoral decision without some evidence. Argument in the absence of evidence belies your claim to rationalism... especially when it is in line with your religious upbrining.
Meanwhile, your fellow anti-abortionists are still shooting doctors.
Re: Agency in the Story
As for the agency & moral choice part, I will attempt to re-phrase previous statements to be clearer: if people are in a situation where they feel that if they don't get an abortion, then they will suffer tremendously, we ought to do something as a society to help (i.e. I think we should be concerned that such apparently violent brothers are free to exercise such control over the sister and her boyfriend). As evidenced by earlier posts here, I would certainly agree that social justice dictates that alleviating poverty is a concern, and add that this is a top priority and most other issues will be difficult, if not impossible, to resolve until such is done.
Re: Agency in the Story
Nobody needs to "work to keep it rare", and supporting capitalism/business at one end and "reducing poverty" (if we're to take the most charitable interpretation of that poor choice of phrasing) is deeply hypocritical.
If real work to reduce poverty has the consequence that there are fewer abortions... and rest assured, rich white women have their share of abortions... so be it, but it should be an end unto itself.
As far as I'm concerned, so long as it has a brain less complex than a cat I need feel no more sorry for it than a stray cat which is put down in a shelter due to overcrowding. The conditions which might motivate one to have one's own pet (or child) put down for wont of the ability to care for it, on the other hand, is different.
Re: Agency in the Story
I fear that my previous comments about why we may view the article in a certain way just confused the point I was trying to make (if so, please feel free to ignore previous comments and only consider the following). The point I want to make is this:
According to the doctor's article, the reason the patient sought his services was due to the violent, economic, and emotional coercion of others (i.e. threats of the brothers killing the patent's boyfriend & the father disowning the patient). I thought that focus on this aspect of the story (feeling forced to undergo a medical procedure due to the threats of others) was not expressed and might concern others from a social justice P.O.V., regardless of one's positions on abortion.