Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktI’m wading a bit into rocky waters with these two articles, but perhaps we can have a good discussion on this topic. I’m particularly interested in Michi and Okie’s thoughts on an article in The Atlantic discussing rape exceptions for abortions. Given our past difficulties in discussing abortion maybe Michi and Okie can send me their thoughts via email, but even if there is no discussion, I thought it was an interesting take on the subject.
For those who are not inclined to read the article, the author argues that were abortion to be made illegal, a rape exception would not really provide women with control over their bodies. She argues that any reproductive freedom from a rape exception would only by illusory because eventually some bureaucrat (possibly, if not probably, male) would likely have ultimate say over whether a particular woman qualified for the exception.
I must admit that I found the argument compelling with respect to its take on the fact that a rape exception would probably only make it seem like women still had some control. However, the article does ignore the more practical aspect of the rape exception, namely that a woman may not have to carry a rapist’s baby to term. Even if the decision is not entirely her own, there is obviously a benefit to the woman. The other thing the article ignores is what were to happen if there were no exception. What if the woman went on a hunger strike? What if she tried to hurt herself and/or the baby? Would the government intervene and force her to eat and deliver the baby? Would a jury convict a woman of murder if she killed the baby? Would physicians be required to report a miscarriage that they thought was a self-induced abortion? So many troubling questions.
This article, also from The Atlantic, talks about where racists tweets came from following Obama’s re-election. The results are both not at all surprising and surprising.
All Things in Moderation 
A rape exception alone is insufficient to mollify strong pro-choice adherents and is an abomination to moment-of-conception pro-lifers. It’s primary value is in demonstrating the inhumaneness of the opposing side, no matter which one you are on.
LikeLike
Interesting that MT, SD, ID, and WY did not have any “hate-tweets” register on the map. I wonder if that is indicative of a lack of racists or twitter use. Either way, Big Sky Country just got a lot more beautiful. But they only found less than 400 tweets?
My wife an I were somewhat verbally accosted Friday night on our way to dinner (date night FTW), as a man shouted at basically every white person in range that “blacks run shit now.” He wasn’t homeless, but it is gentrifying neighborhood. I had to laugh under my breath, as he was berating us that we were powerless now. This, after we enjoyed an night out were getting into an executive sedan that I’d hailed using an iphone app.
Also, go Irish.
LikeLike
To make blatantly racist tweets requires a lack of awareness of the consequences of social media combined with a minimum level of technological competence, As with the 25-minute YouTube ramble, alcohol helps dissolve that barrier.
LikeLike
“lack of awareness of the consequences of social media ”
would love to know the age of the tweeters. i took me about 4 years to convince my sister-in-law (now 26) that the internet is not private
LikeLike
I somewhat skeptical of the sub 400 count because I saw another post elsewhere that seemed to have a ton of such tweets. That particular post seemed to show a lot of young faces next to the racist tweets which in hindsight should not have been surprising.
LikeLike
I haven’t read the article, but one aspect of the rape/incest exception that makes the whole idea unworkable to me is how do you prove that rape or incest occurred? Do you wait until a rape conviction, by which time the baby likely has been born? For incest, do you need genetic proof? Molecular techniques are getting good enough that you can do whole genome sequencing on fetal DNA from the mother’s blood at 8 weeks gestation, but it is costly.
LikeLike
The Atlantic article directly addresses that issue. There is no way to have a rape (and/or incest) exception as the only out unless there is some process to determine what is a ‘legitimate’ rape.
LikeLike
Seven comments in and we have the opinions of four men.
LikeLike
3 — i’m not touching the abortion topic. I’ve nothing insightful to say about it anyway.
LikeLike
My apologies, nova. Didn’t mean to besmirch you that way.
LikeLike
i’ll just vote present. but the crux of your concern is fair.
LikeLike
Well, since I’m one of those people who think that legislation and abortion are two things that don’t go together at all, I think the article makes a good point. And I’ve long wondered how people who would make abortion illegal justify prosecuting the doctors but not the mothers–it’s not like a doctor goes around offering to do abortions on unwilling women.
But I think I’m also far to the left of most of the folks around here on that particular subject.
LikeLike
I may as well wade in here, since I think my viewpoint is well known by now. Michi said it perfectly: “legislation and abortion are two things that don’t go together at all.”
I am opposed to carving out specific exemptions for allowing access to abortion, and especially in the case of rape. Way too much emotion on both issues. The practical aspects of applying such a policy (see discussion in first link) would be a nightmare IMO, and I think we would be right back to how it was before Roe v. Wade, i.e., abortion access restricted primarily for lower income women. Moreover, I think it also sets women back considerably on the rape issue regardless of consideration of resulting pregnancy/abortion (“she asked for it,” “it isn’t rape if it was by the husband or ex-husband,” etc.). More importantly, I think it distracts from the real issue of access to abortion for all women and would only prolong the national contest.
To clarify in case my viewpoint is not fully known, I am fine with a limit on how far along in the pregnancy abortion is allowed, with exceptions for late-arising medical issues, and I am fine with limited counseling and similar non-invasive requirements prior to the procedure.
Belated aside to ascot: Many thanks for the updated gravatar. What a cutie!
LikeLike
Thanks for both of your comments, michi and okie. As Okie pointed out, I think Michi said it best and I don’t really have anything to add to either of your comments. Maybe on some issues such as abortion, it’s simply best to hear what others have to say rather than carry on a debate. So thank you both.
As for mini-ashot, he is a walking fool now which should make his upcoming 1st birthday all the more fun.
LikeLike
Were I a state legislator, I would leave abortion definitions to the state medical association and the appropriateness of the procedure in each instance to the doctor and patient. Although I am religiously opposed to truly elective abortions and religiously in favor of abortions in the case of medical necessity and rape, incest, and adultery, I would simply butt out as a legislator. No one else has to be Jewish.
Had I been on the Roe court, I might have found no competing constitutional right in the unborn child at all, or no competing constitutional right until viability, but I first would have voted to deny cert. I only would have ruled if I had been forced to vote by my colleagues granting cert.
The short of the constitutional issue for me would in fact have been that the legal right to life does not attach to the unborn. The viability argument is a moving target, of course.
But the discussion is about legislation, not Court decisions.
LikeLike
Another female to the group here. Yes, abortion and legislation do not belong together. While I personally am not in favor of “convenience” abortions and am all for abortions being performed due to rape, incest and health reasons, I don’t think anyone has the right to tell another person whether they have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy or not, even if the pregnancy came from wanted sexual activity.
Having a baby is a HUGE responsibility and having an unwanted baby can place severe mental and emotional strain on the mother (and father if around) and I truly believe that most women who have “convenient” abortions don’t step into it lightly and never forget their decision to do so. There isn’t a single person among any of us, nationwide, who can honestly know what a woman considering an abortion goes through as each woman, each pregnancy, each decision is unique.
LikeLike
@noahockey: “as a man shouted at basically every white person in range that “blacks run shit now.”
David Axelrod is black? 😉
Well, I hope the thought made the fellow happy.
@michigoose: “since I’m one of those people who think that legislation and abortion are two things that don’t go together at all”
I think legislation is going to be required on most contentious issues, as either the objectionable behavior/procedure/whatever will be outlawed via legislation, or made explicitly legal by legislation. I don’t see a way in which one can just argue that legislation has no place here and make it magically go away. Otherwise, the IRS would have been gone a long time ago.
LikeLike
Exit polling from the election apparently showed that 59% of respondent thought that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
I’m a little surprised at that number.
LikeLike
Does anyone here know anything about the 400,000 + votes still to be counted in AZ? Does that leave the Senate race in doubt?
I am not surprised that a majority are OK with most abortions being legal.
LikeLike
Mark:
It’s been called for Flake, but evidently Carmona hasn’t conceded yet.
LikeLike
Oh, and Mark:
What’s up with this guy? You Texans sure do grow them crazy every once in a while!
LikeLike
Kelley, inevitably, TX will have a tight race for governor and be electing some statewide Ds again by 2018. You can call me on that if we are both still alive and well.
Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston have joined Austin and El Paso as voting reliably D. The growth in TX is mainly in the triangle the points of which are Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, with Austin on the D-SA side. There is no growth in 90%R Amarillo, Lubbock, Abilene, etc.
R growth is in the Austin, Dallas, and Houston ‘burbs, but their populations will be 55%R, not 90%R.
Hardin County has a population of maybe 60K, over on the LA border, behind the Pine Curtain, in the Deep South. A fool can rise to prominence locally there and have a stage. TX, with its 256 counties, has plenty of stages for these folks, and will continue to do so. But once TX turns purple like CO and FL, it will stay that way for years to follow. The Rs who come out of the ‘burbs are often local CoC types or business/bank lawyers and are easily recognizable as rational. The Morrisons will become curiousities.
LikeLike
Courtesy of shrink, I thought this was a fascinating read.
LikeLike
Michigoose: “Courtesy of shrink, I thought this was a fascinating read.”
When a fella who fancies himself Luke Skywalker can actually manage to get along with Darth Vader (a paycheck being attached to the exercise no doubt helps), then perhaps there’s still some hope for the world after all.
LikeLike