A Yale student told the press that she intentionally impregnated herself and aborted the fetuses for an art project.
This of course sparked much outrage, until she revealed it was a hoax. She's a performance artist, and the point was to get a rise out of people. It also sparked much debate, because everyone tended to agree that the idea was sick and wrong, and yet, many of them also supported reproductive rights.
My reaction, before I learned it was a hoax, was not quite the same as some-- I was concerned that she was mentally ill and should be detained in much the same way that a person is detained for attempting suicide, because she was taking dangerous herbal abortifacients without a doctor's supervision. Also, I was appalled that any school would allow the display of an "art" exhibit involving dead human tissue, which is a blatant violation of health codes. So yeah, naturally, I thought she should have been stopped, evaluated by a psychiatrist, and the display destroyed.
But at the same time, most people were claiming that it was unethical, yet declaring they were pro-choice. This confused me, because they clearly thought she was killing something that should not be killed, and yet, they had no problem if it was done for other reasons. Doing it for art was atrocious; doing it for personal reasons acceptable.
It would be atrocious because it would be disgusting and a violation of health codes, and because she would have been purposely hurting herself in the name of her "art." That's obvious. But let's pretend that she was doing it for some other, more acceptable reason, like she was a scientist who wanted test subjects and couldn't get them from a abortion clinic, or something. And then pretend that she wasn't endangering herself, and ignore that aspect. Let's focus primarily on the other argument brought up: that it was immoral.
If you think a blastocyst is a human being, of course you would consider this immoral. You should then think all blastocysts are human beings, and regardless of circumstances think abortions are immoral (or by the same token, IVF clinics disposing of blastocysts that are not needed are also immoral). I do not agree with this, but I can respect this view because it is consistent (of course, if you're one of those who thinks it's only okay when YOU do it, all respect disappears).
And the reverse, if you think it is NOT a human being, you should then consider this strange and disgusting, but not strictly immoral because she's simply expelling tissue she does not need, even if she then has a strange purpose for it. That was my general impression. Now, I don't think it would be the same if she had pretended to abort a 6-month-old fetus, but she was talking about blastocysts, which are basically a bunch of stem cells. I know when I personally think life begins, and I am a firm believer that barring a danger to the mother's life when there is a choice between saving the fetus or protecting the mother, after that point the mother should continue the pregnancy and chose adoption if she is unable to care for the child. For me, that point's somewhere when the fetus has brain activity and could theoretically survive a premature birth.
But many arguing it was immoral are pro-choice, or partially pro-choice (ie rape/incest abortions are okay). The truth is, I have trouble understanding that veiw. Either it's a person at the given stage of development and killing it is immoral, or it is not a person and killing it is not immoral. It's not more of a person because it was intentionally conceived for the purposes of aborting it. It's not less of a person because it's father was a rapist or also it's grandfather. Once a child is born, we don't make those distinctions; why do we make them regarding those in utero?
Of course, some people argue that it's a child, but it's okay to kill children before they are able to form attachments and shit. Like up until a few weeks after birth. I don't agree with that one either, but hey, if that's your moral belief, you are entitled to it. However, since it's fairly easy to adopt out newborns, I would find the idea strange and a bit disturbing that infanticide would be the first option barring serious deformities that cannot be repaired and would give the child a miserable, short life.
I just can't understand those who set standards based on situation. If a fetus is a human being, how is it immoral to kill them because you can't care for them but not immoral to kill them because you were raped? And at the same time, if it is NOT a human being, how is it immoral to create them with the intent of destroying them but not immoral to create them accidentally and then destroy them?
The mother's intent, some say. But by that token, if intentional creation and abortion is murder, accidental creation and abortion should be manslaughter. We punish people for that. You have to research and decide. Where do you, personally, beleive that life begins? At conception, when the genetic code is set? Implantation, when pregnancy begins? When the heart begins to beat? When they can survive outside the womb? But once we decide, we should stick to it, and consider all fetuses at the same age equal barring medical situations.
Also, to clarify, in terms of law, I think that the law should allow abortion until the fetus could survive a premature birth with reasonable interference levels (so no partial-birth or late term). After that, only for medical concerns, and always the mother's life and health should come first. Because of the variety of opinions on when life begins, before the fetus can be removed from the body and given away the law should butt out.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
This concept of "wuv" confuses and enrages us
I know this is in Italy and I'm not supposed to be reading the news anyway, but this is ridiculous. A court in Italy decided to severely reduce a 34-year-old man's sentence for having sex with an underage (13 year old) girl because they decided there was "real love" between the pair.
First of all:
In Italy, the age of consent is 14, so this is like the equivalent of in the average US state (where consent is usually about 16) a 36 year old and a 15 year old. So sketchy, illegal technically, but don't think of it as quite the same thing legally as a 30 year old and a 13 year old in this country.
HOWEVER, the reason behind the sentence reduction was not "she was only a year away from being able to consent, so we'll reduce it on those grounds" but it was "they loved each other."
Here's the thing. The law says a 13 year old can't consent to sex, she can't consent to sex. Period. Well, she can, but it's invalid consent-- like if a completely plastered girl consents to sex, that's invalid (of course in that case, she may have had a standing consent with a guy that it was okay for him to have sex with her while she was drunk, like if they were dating. Someone who is underage could not have done that, since they have never previously been able to give valid consent). According to the laws of consent, when a person who is underage consents to sex, their words are essentially meaningless, and only affect whether or not the crime is "statutory rape" or just "rape."
And yet according to this Italian court, if the girl "loves" the man (maybe she did, doesn't matter) and he loves her, then her consent becomes valid. Despite the fact that nothing in her brain changes when she thinks she loves the man that makes her judgment better and makes her older.
Ultimately, though, what really bothers me is that this is a moral decision on the part of the judge. According to this judge, sex + love = okay, sex + no love = bad. And even though I personally agree, I don't think that that is a decision the courts should make. This is saying that a teenage girl who has sex with an older man because she thought he was hot and wanted to have sex was somehow coerced and unable to consent, but one who wanted to have sex with an older man because she felt she truly loved him was NOT coerced.
It's saying that women/girls would NEVER have sex willingly unless they loved the man and the man loved them (could also be saying the same for young men, but I doubt it; anyway, that's irrelevant). Which is not true and a moral judgment of women who have sex with people they do not love. If the judge feels that that is immoral, fine, but it shouldn't come into the courtroom. Judges should go by the law, not their own moral codes, if they live under a truly secular government, which Italy claims to have.
First of all:
In Italy, the age of consent is 14, so this is like the equivalent of in the average US state (where consent is usually about 16) a 36 year old and a 15 year old. So sketchy, illegal technically, but don't think of it as quite the same thing legally as a 30 year old and a 13 year old in this country.
HOWEVER, the reason behind the sentence reduction was not "she was only a year away from being able to consent, so we'll reduce it on those grounds" but it was "they loved each other."
Here's the thing. The law says a 13 year old can't consent to sex, she can't consent to sex. Period. Well, she can, but it's invalid consent-- like if a completely plastered girl consents to sex, that's invalid (of course in that case, she may have had a standing consent with a guy that it was okay for him to have sex with her while she was drunk, like if they were dating. Someone who is underage could not have done that, since they have never previously been able to give valid consent). According to the laws of consent, when a person who is underage consents to sex, their words are essentially meaningless, and only affect whether or not the crime is "statutory rape" or just "rape."
And yet according to this Italian court, if the girl "loves" the man (maybe she did, doesn't matter) and he loves her, then her consent becomes valid. Despite the fact that nothing in her brain changes when she thinks she loves the man that makes her judgment better and makes her older.
Ultimately, though, what really bothers me is that this is a moral decision on the part of the judge. According to this judge, sex + love = okay, sex + no love = bad. And even though I personally agree, I don't think that that is a decision the courts should make. This is saying that a teenage girl who has sex with an older man because she thought he was hot and wanted to have sex was somehow coerced and unable to consent, but one who wanted to have sex with an older man because she felt she truly loved him was NOT coerced.
It's saying that women/girls would NEVER have sex willingly unless they loved the man and the man loved them (could also be saying the same for young men, but I doubt it; anyway, that's irrelevant). Which is not true and a moral judgment of women who have sex with people they do not love. If the judge feels that that is immoral, fine, but it shouldn't come into the courtroom. Judges should go by the law, not their own moral codes, if they live under a truly secular government, which Italy claims to have.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Part 3 of the 2008 Politics Series
I'll do the last two Republican candidates together because there's no way I'd vote for either of them, and here's why.
-------------------------------------------------------
Mitt Romney:
1. He is very anti-abortion, though he may allow the states to decide. That's uncertain.
2. He supports No Child Left Behind, charter schools and vouchers. As stated before, I pretty much hate all those ideas.
3. He is pro-abstinence-only education, which is moronic. Abstinence-only education DOESN'T WORK. Duh.
4. His stance on environmental issues is basically "if it immediately hurts humans, stop it-- but if it doesn't, and we can get money off of it, then screw long-term effects!"
5. He opposes rights for homosexuals.
6. He would push to limit stem cell research, which could save millions of lives.
7. He opposes medical marijuana.
8. He approves of Guantanamo, and will not allow the prisoners there to have judicial review, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention and besides, it makes the US look like total hypocrites because we insist that everyone treat people in their countries a certain way and yet we don't do it ourselves.
9. He would increase troops in Iraq and continue that war.
10. He would refuse to meet with leaders of nations whom he disagreed with, or who are dictators. Now, I'm not saying we should appease every dictator who comes along, but there is a lot to be said for opening diplomatic relations with countries, even if we don't really like their methods.
I agree with his stance against censorship, against prayer in public schools, for encouraging tech research (well, it's better than other uses of the money),and that he opposes amnesty. None of those are strong enough to make me want to vote for him, ever. He's conservative on social issues AND he's a war hawk.
-------------------------------------------------------
As for the final Republican, John McCain:
1. He wants to continue the Iraq war, increasing troops, and wouldn't be opposed to invading Iran.
2. He is completely pro-Israel, and anti-Palestine. I'd rather we had a President who left Israel/Palestine alone, because there's too much emotion and religion wrapped up in that, and we don't need to be involved. Not that we should stop aiding Israel, but we should stop being so overt about it.
3. He would keep Guatanamo Bay as it is, like Romney would.
4. He is very pro-drug legislation, which means no medical marijuana and more of the "War on Drugs."
5. He supports school vouchers.
6. HE BELIEVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. Gah. *headdesk*
7. He wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and he is against birth control and contraceptives. He would push to redefine not just fetuses, but embryos as well (an embryo is what you call it between fertilization and the 8th week of gestation) as people. He also is a supporter of abstinence-only education, which means that not only can young women not abort the mistakes but they won't know how to prevent them in the first place.
8. He wants to ban flag desecration, which is just stupid.
9. He favors amnesty for illegals. I've always thought they should amend the law so that you are not a citizen if you are born in this country but your parents are here illegally, and make it easier to get work visas. Then continue deporting and more importantly protecting the borders. With the ability to deport whole families instead of just parents, and the fact that many illegal aliens come here to give birth so their children can live in this country, that would cut down on the number of illegals. Amnesty just says "Yeah... I know we said you can't come, but we'll let it slide this time. But in the future, YOU CAN'T COME." Any kid knows that when a parent talks like that you can get away with it any time you want.
In fairness, he does at least want to allow stem cell research (unlike Romney), though he would regulate it, and favors merit-pay for teachers (a strategy I like as long as they get MORE pay for doing well, not LESS pay for doing poorly). He also would leave the gay marriage question up to the states. He opposes drilling in Alaska and ethanol subsidies, which is good, and wants to reduce the deficit. But none of that can make me ignore the fact that he wants to attack science education AND sex education and make it illegal to even take a morning-after pill. He's religious right. No thanks.
Mitt Romney:
1. He is very anti-abortion, though he may allow the states to decide. That's uncertain.
2. He supports No Child Left Behind, charter schools and vouchers. As stated before, I pretty much hate all those ideas.
3. He is pro-abstinence-only education, which is moronic. Abstinence-only education DOESN'T WORK. Duh.
4. His stance on environmental issues is basically "if it immediately hurts humans, stop it-- but if it doesn't, and we can get money off of it, then screw long-term effects!"5. He opposes rights for homosexuals.
6. He would push to limit stem cell research, which could save millions of lives.
7. He opposes medical marijuana.
8. He approves of Guantanamo, and will not allow the prisoners there to have judicial review, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention and besides, it makes the US look like total hypocrites because we insist that everyone treat people in their countries a certain way and yet we don't do it ourselves.
9. He would increase troops in Iraq and continue that war.
10. He would refuse to meet with leaders of nations whom he disagreed with, or who are dictators. Now, I'm not saying we should appease every dictator who comes along, but there is a lot to be said for opening diplomatic relations with countries, even if we don't really like their methods.
I agree with his stance against censorship, against prayer in public schools, for encouraging tech research (well, it's better than other uses of the money),and that he opposes amnesty. None of those are strong enough to make me want to vote for him, ever. He's conservative on social issues AND he's a war hawk.
As for the final Republican, John McCain:
1. He wants to continue the Iraq war, increasing troops, and wouldn't be opposed to invading Iran.
2. He is completely pro-Israel, and anti-Palestine. I'd rather we had a President who left Israel/Palestine alone, because there's too much emotion and religion wrapped up in that, and we don't need to be involved. Not that we should stop aiding Israel, but we should stop being so overt about it.3. He would keep Guatanamo Bay as it is, like Romney would.
4. He is very pro-drug legislation, which means no medical marijuana and more of the "War on Drugs."
5. He supports school vouchers.
6. HE BELIEVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. Gah. *headdesk*
7. He wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and he is against birth control and contraceptives. He would push to redefine not just fetuses, but embryos as well (an embryo is what you call it between fertilization and the 8th week of gestation) as people. He also is a supporter of abstinence-only education, which means that not only can young women not abort the mistakes but they won't know how to prevent them in the first place.
8. He wants to ban flag desecration, which is just stupid.
9. He favors amnesty for illegals. I've always thought they should amend the law so that you are not a citizen if you are born in this country but your parents are here illegally, and make it easier to get work visas. Then continue deporting and more importantly protecting the borders. With the ability to deport whole families instead of just parents, and the fact that many illegal aliens come here to give birth so their children can live in this country, that would cut down on the number of illegals. Amnesty just says "Yeah... I know we said you can't come, but we'll let it slide this time. But in the future, YOU CAN'T COME." Any kid knows that when a parent talks like that you can get away with it any time you want.In fairness, he does at least want to allow stem cell research (unlike Romney), though he would regulate it, and favors merit-pay for teachers (a strategy I like as long as they get MORE pay for doing well, not LESS pay for doing poorly). He also would leave the gay marriage question up to the states. He opposes drilling in Alaska and ethanol subsidies, which is good, and wants to reduce the deficit. But none of that can make me ignore the fact that he wants to attack science education AND sex education and make it illegal to even take a morning-after pill. He's religious right. No thanks.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Cheating
Every once in a while on Fark there will be an article about someone who cheated on their spouse and got some terrible and disturbingly humorous retribution, or whose infidelity was discovered in an interesting way. A while ago-- a long while-- there was one on how the US is the country that most disapproves of infidelity. Other cultures, particularly in Europe, take a "don't ask, don't tell" approach, or consider it people's private business, but in the US, several states still have adultery laws and infidelity is considered to be the WORST thing you could do to a significant other with the possible exception of certain bedroom behaviors a lady doesn't share in her online blog.
In fact, statistics say that 22% of married men and 14% of married women in the US have had extramarital affairs, and yet 90% of us believe, at least in public, that it's morally wrong. Keep in mind that all those statistics need to be adjusted for the inherent secrecy of infidelity. And couples counselors estimate that 50% of male clients and 40% of female clients cheat, according to Newsweek.
This harks back to our Puritan days. We are a comparatively very conservative nation. But at the same time, those who disapprove of infidelity aren't just the diehard Christians. You can be an American atheist and be furious to learn that someone you know is cheating or is being cheated on. It's not just a religious taboo, it's a cultural, social taboo.
I mean, no one wants to be cheated on, ever. But the WORST thing? Women will support their spouses while they sit in jail but if they cheat, it's over. I think I would prefer to find out my husband had a mistress to finding out he was a murderer, or only married to me for tax reasons, or poking holes in the condoms. Admittedly, there are serious health problems that can result from infidelity-- monogamous relationships don't pass on STDs. But that's not what people think when they first find out they've been cheated on. They think, I've been wronged.
What's even more interesting than our powerful cultural reaction to infidelity, however, is that it happens anyway. You'd think that with that much of a taboo stacked against us, cheating would be out of the question. But it isn't. Cheating happens all the time. Is it just a biological imperative to diversify the gene pool? But such liaisons don't usually produce children. You would think that the power of our collective morality would be more of a deterrent.
The other factor is, no one wants to be cheated on, and yet many people cheat-- why? Why do people think, It's okay that I cheat, but if my significant other did, then it's over? Some people claim it's justified-- He's busy at work, she's always too tired-- but in the end, no justification is enough if they are the abandoned one.
I wonder about this because the thought of cheating, for me, is unfathomable. I really can't imagine a situation where I would. Finding a date is HARD, why would I go back to it once I had someone? If I was truly unhappy in a marriage, I would divorce, after much counseling had failed. And yet, the first thought I would have if I found out my spouse had been cheating would more likely be, Oh, shit, did I get some disease? followed by Oh, shit, did he have a KID? followed by Why did he cheat, what have I been doing wrong, why didn't he tell me if he was unhappy, and oh god, what if he wants to leave me for her? It wouldn't be, He betrayed me-- he deserves to die, or at least lose as much of his money as possible in a messy divorce.
It's interesting.
In fact, statistics say that 22% of married men and 14% of married women in the US have had extramarital affairs, and yet 90% of us believe, at least in public, that it's morally wrong. Keep in mind that all those statistics need to be adjusted for the inherent secrecy of infidelity. And couples counselors estimate that 50% of male clients and 40% of female clients cheat, according to Newsweek.This harks back to our Puritan days. We are a comparatively very conservative nation. But at the same time, those who disapprove of infidelity aren't just the diehard Christians. You can be an American atheist and be furious to learn that someone you know is cheating or is being cheated on. It's not just a religious taboo, it's a cultural, social taboo.
I mean, no one wants to be cheated on, ever. But the WORST thing? Women will support their spouses while they sit in jail but if they cheat, it's over. I think I would prefer to find out my husband had a mistress to finding out he was a murderer, or only married to me for tax reasons, or poking holes in the condoms. Admittedly, there are serious health problems that can result from infidelity-- monogamous relationships don't pass on STDs. But that's not what people think when they first find out they've been cheated on. They think, I've been wronged.What's even more interesting than our powerful cultural reaction to infidelity, however, is that it happens anyway. You'd think that with that much of a taboo stacked against us, cheating would be out of the question. But it isn't. Cheating happens all the time. Is it just a biological imperative to diversify the gene pool? But such liaisons don't usually produce children. You would think that the power of our collective morality would be more of a deterrent.
The other factor is, no one wants to be cheated on, and yet many people cheat-- why? Why do people think, It's okay that I cheat, but if my significant other did, then it's over? Some people claim it's justified-- He's busy at work, she's always too tired-- but in the end, no justification is enough if they are the abandoned one.I wonder about this because the thought of cheating, for me, is unfathomable. I really can't imagine a situation where I would. Finding a date is HARD, why would I go back to it once I had someone? If I was truly unhappy in a marriage, I would divorce, after much counseling had failed. And yet, the first thought I would have if I found out my spouse had been cheating would more likely be, Oh, shit, did I get some disease? followed by Oh, shit, did he have a KID? followed by Why did he cheat, what have I been doing wrong, why didn't he tell me if he was unhappy, and oh god, what if he wants to leave me for her? It wouldn't be, He betrayed me-- he deserves to die, or at least lose as much of his money as possible in a messy divorce.
It's interesting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
