If it's okay for the body to perform an automatic abortion why is it wrong for a brain to choose it?

[sibelian]

I know. I know it's a stupid question. I shouldn't be asking. And the answer is probably not entirely fathomable.

But I just ... can't... quite... see how they can think these things.... thoughts aren't accidents, they are caused by other thoughts...

[slackmaster]

1. That's exactly how I've always viewed the brain/uterus abortion decision dichotomy

[DonRedwood]

2. OMG.... stupid question? no! brilliant, really

you might need to become a philosopher

[phantom power]

3. couple reasons....

firstly, as you say, it's not about rationality. It's about the interaction with right wing religion and right wing patriarchy.

1) If "the body" does it, that essentially puts it in the realm of "God's Will." If a woman *chooses* it, that makes it a human decision, and these people don't think humans are supposed to make such choices.

2) The religious right is also deeply about patriarchy. Women don't *have* agency of choice, about much of anything. The patriarchy really, deeply, truly, mostly considers women *as* "bodies." Their main purpose is to subordinate their will to their patriarch, and be baby making devices for the Magic Patriarchal Sperm.

3) Part of this whole game is that Women Can't Ever Be Right. The fact that biology runs completely counter to this bogus belief about "stopping a pregnancy" makes it impossible for a woman to win this, because obviously they *do* get pregnant. This allows the religious right to effectively call these women sluts. Because obviously they *enjoyed* it. From the religious right's point of view, this catch-22 for women is a feature, not a bug.

[sibelian]

7. AAAAH!

1 and 2 made sense ... 3 made me feel cold...

[phantom power]

21. You would probably like...

Amanda Marcotte's blog posts on feminism, the religious right and patriarchy, for example this morning:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/22/clearly-the-phrase-pro-life-is-ironic/

[Zoeisright]

4. That's brilliant.

[reflection]

5. The answer

is that the body's automatic abortion was God's will, and the human decision to do so is usurping God's authority.

You see, I live in TN and speak fluent Batshit.

[sibelian]

8. So how come treating cancer isn't usurping God's Authority...?

or... is it...?

[reflection]

10. Shh.

We don't want cancer funding cut.

[cthulu2016]

6. Because the law pertains to willful actions.

I find that most folks trying to parse anti-choice arguments get hung up on the first step.

You have to assume that abortion is murder. If abortion is murder then a willful act of murder is very different from a non-willful natural occurrence.

All these questions will get back to the same point. Abortion is murder or it is not. All subsequent analysis flows from that distinction.

[sibelian]

9. But that still doesn't make any sense

How can the same thing be bad ONLY if it was brought about DELIBERATELY?

[cthulu2016]

13. Like the death of a parent?

Everyone's parents die. Nobody is allowed to smother them with a pillow.

It is not that one is saying that parents dying eventually is good, but that it is not due to a willful human act.

Similarly, a spontaneous abortion is not presumed (in the pro-life framework we are talking about) to be good, but it is beyond control and thus just the way of the world... like the fact that we all die. It is "okay," in the terms of the OP, meaning that it is not a crime.

The question raised is whether a spontaneous miscarriage should be illegal, and since there are no crimes without willful commission or omission of some act there is no willful act to criminalize.

A law against spontaneous abortion would not serve as a deterrent to God any more than a law against having your parents die would keep them alive.

[sibelian]

15. So why aren't they also advocating

medical intervention for sponteous abortion??? one would exect medical intervention for dying parents...

[cthulu2016]

18. They would if they could

If there was a medical technology that reduced spontaneous abortion there would be some calling for it to be mandatory. (And the number of children with profound birth defects would sky-rocket)

Fortunately that is beyond our technological reach.

But if there was a way to prevent the body from discarding a hopelessly ill-formed 48 hour old pre-fetus cell cluster that was never going to develop a nervous system some of these folks would be first in line to promote it.

[sibelian]

19. ... shudder ....

hydatiform moles and all...

[Zalatix]

11. That's not the most rational approach in the world.

Accidental versus elective, the two are not the same thing.

[108vcd]

12. how is a fetus "life", but not cancer?

[Old and In the Way]

14. Who's the #1 provider of sponteneous abortions?

God!
I like to always remind the religious fundies of that factoid when I happen into a conversation with them on the topic of abortion.

[sibelian]

16. So God's a murderer, then. This is one of the things I can't relate to at all...

Their standard of behaviour for God is LOWER than their own standard of behaviour for people.

[Ship of Fools]

20. Ah, but he works in mysterious ways! And *who are you*

to question Him?

[Cleita]

17. It's a really good question that our pro-life friends

can't answer because their beliefs come from a flawed premise.