Some Thoughts on Palin
Aug. 30th, 2008 10:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstill1) McCain talks a lot about the importance of experience. But down deep, in the place where actions come from, even *he* wants a change: fresh-faced youthful enthusiasm, unencumbered with political ties to beltway lobbyists and Washington insiders. Which is great; so do I, and we all know who to vote for to get that.
2) It's absolutely *wonderful* to see the Republican party nominating a woman for the Vice-Presidential spot. And only 20 years behind the Democrats--for Republicans that's excellent progress. Well done!
3) It is unfortunate that, despite being female, she's neither pro-woman nor woman friendly. I fully support her right to decline an abortion for herself--that's what choice is all about. That she would try to constrain any other woman in the country to scream her way through labor with yet another unwanted baby--that disturbs me a lot, and it should disturb everyone. In this far-right country, though, I'm very sorry to say that it's only to be expected of a Republican candidate. This is something anyone who doesn't believe in slavery might want to keep in mind.
4) It is also unfortunate that she promotes Creationism. That's understandable, because it turns out that McCain does too. When we are scrambling to retain our world leadership in science and technology, descending into teaching proven-untrue religious stories in place of science is obviously not going to be productive.
Regarding McCain's and to some extent Palin's stances on Creationism, Thoughts From Kansas has a good article. Regarding Palin herself, Afarensis has a good article that's more about Palin.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Social Implications of Artificial Uterii
Date: 2008-08-31 11:39 pm (UTC)That's good, it's good to be able to admit that someone has a good point. But it would improve your ethos if you were a bit more direct about it.
I'll repeat myself, since you took off on an unrelated tangent. We're not enthusiastic about abortion; we're enthusiastic about not being enslaved.
Nobody's talking about killing babies--well, nobody except you. Look, a baby is something that gurgles and coos and snuggles and nurses and opens big eyes wide with wonder on a brand new world. It's normal to feel warm and fuzzy about that entity. A fetus, on the other hand is an obligate parasite. At the stage when the vast majority of abortions are performed, it is a half inch long, worm shaped, obligate parasite, mindless, pulsing, and covered with slime. Not the same thing at all. And someone who calls a fetus a baby is deliberately trying to use that warm fuzzy feeling to persuade people to enslave women. Don't fall for it.
As for what may happen 25 years from now, Jordan--when you have an artificial uterus whipped up that can actually accept a partially developed fetus and bring it to term without deleterious effects, and a method of fetal transfer that is less dangerous to the woman involved than giving birth (I won't insist that it be less dangerous than abortion--I realize that's too high a bar, so I'm being generous), you come back and talk to me about it.
But it's not going to happen anytime soon. So it obviously has precisely zero effect on the present argument. So why even bring it up?
Re: Social Implications of Artificial Uterii
Date: 2008-09-01 12:31 am (UTC)Ok. As I said, that's an important distinction, and I agree with you that women should not be FORCED to biologically support fetuses.
And I agree that an early-term fetus is not a "baby" by any normal definition of the word.
Do you agree that a late-term fetus is, essentially, a "baby?"
As for what may happen 25 years from now, Jordan--when you have an artificial uterus whipped up that can actually accept a partially developed fetus and bring it to term without deleterious effects, and a method of fetal transfer that is less dangerous to the woman involved than giving birth (I won't insist that it be less dangerous than abortion--I realize that's too high a bar, so I'm being generous), you come back and talk to me about it.
By then it may be too late. The laws devised during the period when the technology did not exist, and when people who insisted on being "practical" avoided participating in the debate, may wind up mandating (or, conversely, prohibiting its use).
We're seeing this begin to happen right now regarding the UN Treaty of the Law of the Sea, which has the effect of rendering property rights dangerously vague regarding permanent installations outside national waters. This was irrelevant when the treaty was signed, as such installations were high-tech expensive affairs which only nation-states could afford: now, as the cost of the technology is dropping, all sorts of potentially-violent or econmically-disastrous situations are developing owing to legal uncertainities.
Or look at government censorship through the FCC, which was allowed at a time when stations could only broadcast on a very few channels in any given area. This has happened before: why do you assume it won't happen again?
But it's not going to happen anytime soon. So it obviously has precisely zero effect on the present argument. So why even bring it up?
It's almost certainly going to happen within a matter of decades -- within, in fact, the lifetime of some women who are alive now who may still be healthy enough to make use of the technology, and almost certainly within the lifetime of some women who are alive now whose daugthers will be healthy enough to use the technology. So I think it's relevant.
Re: Social Implications of Artificial Uterii
Date: 2008-09-01 01:39 pm (UTC)That's a good start. I just can't help but notice that, for someone who supports women's rights to control their bodies, you seem to be trotting out anti-choice accusations rather frequently. Perhaps I am getting confused, because you have posted so much to this thread, that it's hard to keep track, but I thought I saw you, for example, accuse women of using abortion as a means of birth control, a frequent anti-choice canard.
Do you agree that a late-term fetus is, essentially, a "baby?"
There is one *huge* obvious moral difference between a late term fetus and a baby. A baby is not drawing its nutrients from, or depositing its wastes into, anybody else's tissues. So, I don't agree that a late-term fetus, a parasite, is a baby.
And even if it were, the issue of not enslaving people would remain. A baby can be supported by any willing volunteer, making slavery on its behalf very unlikely. A late-term fetus can only be supported by one person, making slavery necessary if that one person isn't willing. I oppose slavery, even for the benefit of other human beings.
Regarding possible eventual artificial wombs, I am certainly not going to agree to enslavement in any form for the sake of some technology that might come along to relieve it, for women who are rich enough to be on the cutting edge, in 25 years.
The laws devised during the period when the technology did not exist, and when people who insisted on being "practical" avoided participating in the debate, may wind up mandating (or, conversely, prohibiting its use).
(puzzled blink) Why on earth would preserving a woman's right to choose affect artificial wombs in any way at all? That's like saying laws preserving the right to ride a bicycle on Sundays would end up forbidding deep space mining.
Re: Social Implications of Artificial Uterii
Date: 2008-09-01 04:31 pm (UTC)Some women do. Why would I find this incompatible with a woman's right to control her own body?
Does the fact that some rich people are rotten incompetent snobs imply that property rights should be abridged?
The right to control something implies that one has the right to use it in ways of which others might not approve.
Do you agree that a late-term fetus is, essentially, a "baby?"
There is one *huge* obvious moral difference between a late term fetus and a baby. A baby is not drawing its nutrients from, or depositing its wastes into, anybody else's tissues. So, I don't agree that a late-term fetus, a parasite, is a baby.
What if the late-term fetus was extracted without harming it, and treated as a premature birth?
If this can be done, should we do it in every case in which a woman in late term desires an abortion? This is a tricky question, because there are trade-offs -- a fetus within a few weeks of being born is not all that expensive to extract and care for as a preemie, while one two months from being born requires elaborate life support.
The laws devised during the period when the technology did not exist, and when people who insisted on being "practical" avoided participating in the debate, may wind up mandating (or, conversely, prohibiting its use).
(puzzled blink) Why on earth would preserving a woman's right to choose affect artificial wombs in any way at all? That's like saying laws preserving the right to ride a bicycle on Sundays would end up forbidding deep space mining.
I don't know why. But things like this have happened. The UN Law of Space was not intended to make it difficult to mine asteroids, but it has that effect.