Wunderkind Walker's Wisconsin Waffle

[djAdvocate]

250,000 jobs?

he is half way through, and 1/4 of the way there:

www.jsonline.com/business/wisconsin-added-24305-private-sector-jobs-in-12-months-ended-in-march-b99106575z1-225348792.html

so much for the Wisconsin Miracle.
this guy is purportedly aspiring to run for president.

would you vote for him?

i wouldn't.

but only because i think he is a radical social conservative, and i can't stand those positions.

[djAdvocate]

if you look at the job chart in the article, he did FINE for about six months.
since then, job growth in WI has been about 1/2 to 2/3 what it has been nationally = piss poor.

[Virgil Showlion]

The jobs numbers don't even mean anything even more. They're done their best to eliminate any distinction between part-time and full-time, high-paying and low-paying. California can't seem to get their numbers right. The NFP numbers are revised downwards 9 times out of 10, and drop for months after their initial release.

We can look at things like median wage and consumer debt, at least until they start faking those too.

Congress is looking to knock $5 trillion off the US federal debt by simply not counting it as debt. Just like that. Poof. Who knew it was so easy?

Maybe Gov. Walker's problem is that he's too honest.

[Deleted]

I loved him on Real World Boston! 

ETA: I know Sean is a Congressman, not the Governor.  

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 12, 2013 1:30:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The jobs numbers don't even mean anything even more. They're done their best to eliminate any distinction between part-time and full-time, high-paying and low-paying. California can't seem to get their numbers right. The NFP numbers are revised downwards 9 times out of 10, and drop for months after their initial release.

We can look at things like median wage and consumer debt, at least until they start faking those too.

Congress is looking to knock $5 trillion off the US federal debt by simply not counting it as debt. Just like that. Poof. Who knew it was so easy?

Maybe Gov. Walker's problem is that he's too honest.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 12, 2013 1:30:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The jobs numbers don't even mean anything even more.

i would argue that it was a hollow promise.  much like Obama's shovel ready nonsense.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 12, 2013 7:57:36 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I voted for him (twice) and would do it again in a heartbeat. 

are you past child bearing age?

[djAdvocate]

Nov 12, 2013 10:56:12 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Nov 12, 2013 10:51:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

are you past child bearing age?

meaning?

Walker is overly "womb oriented", imo.  i would be shocked if women of child bearing age liked that.

[happyhoix]

The jobs numbers don't even mean anything even more.

So, when a conservative governor's employment numbers are down, the numbers don't mean anything anymore, but when the federal job numbers are down, it's that F****** Obama's fault?

[bean29]

Nov 12, 2013 1:30:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The jobs numbers don't even mean anything even more. They're done their best to eliminate any distinction between part-time and full-time, high-paying and low-paying. California can't seem to get their numbers right. The NFP numbers are revised downwards 9 times out of 10, and drop for months after their initial release.

We can look at things like median wage and consumer debt, at least until they start faking those too.

Congress is looking to knock $5 trillion off the US federal debt by simply not counting it as debt. Just like that. Poof. Who knew it was so easy?

Maybe Gov. Walker's problem is that he's too honest.

No, Gov. Walker is not honest.  So that could not be his problem.

I liked him when he was county exec.  Now that he is govenor I think he is a slimy politician about as dishonest as they come.

[happyhoix]

C. I think a lot of issues shouldn't be political in the first place. Gay rights, abortion, Environment, most social issues, etc.

I agreed.

So when a candidate runs a campaign that focues on anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion policies, I don't vote for them.

I try to vote for the guy who will only focus on non-social issues like encouraging job growth and reducing the debt and virtually ignore the social agenda.

[Lizard King]

I love the way this thread is supposedly about job growth in Wisconsin, a state where several Senators fled their posts rather than vote on the Governor's proposal and yet one where he is blamed for a stalling of job growth - almost as if the massive disruption of the doomed effort to recall him were as economically counterproductive as it was politically - and yet the OP's only reason for not supporting him is his socially-conservative beliefs.

That this then specifically devolves to a reductive view of women-as-incubators as being defining of their experience in society (I harbor a suspicion that this reductionism is at least as common among the pro-choice cohort as among pro-lifers, many of whom focus mainly or entirely on the interests of the unborn child as being more needful of representation) is even more cute.

Can't we just start a thread that says Scott Walker hates women because he signed a law saying that they should get ultrasounds before abortions, and their abortionist should have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital? A law which, by the way, is in abeyance pending a likely reversal at least in part in a Federal court. 

The second of these is clearly tendentious, although the investigation of Dr. Kermit Gosnell illustrates that the risks are not entirely imaginary, especially in an environment where abortion clinics are viewed as sacred cows (statewide, Wisconsin boasts only four such establishments, and I don't think anybody suggests they're charnel houses like Gosnell's 'practice'). The first interests me - if the ultrasound is transvaginal, it's obviously more invasive than it should be (although possibly not more invasive than the abortion procedure itself), but otherwise one can only assume the opposition is to the pregnant woman being informed about the consequences of her actions ahead of time.

This is another of those situations where the argument seems to be: if she had all the facts, she'd make the 'wrong' decision - but how can a decision that is more informed be wrong? And how can wanting a woman to be fully informed about a very serious and personal decision be construed as infringing her liberties?

[djAdvocate]

Nov 12, 2013 11:14:02 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Nov 12, 2013 11:03:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Walker is overly "womb oriented", imo.  i would be shocked if women of child bearing age liked that.

A.  I am more than my uterus

well, at least i guessed your sex.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 12, 2013 12:46:36 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

I love the way this thread is supposedly about job growth in Wisconsin, a state where several Senators fled their posts rather than vote on the Governor's proposal and yet one where he is blamed for a stalling of job growth - almost as if the massive disruption of the doomed effort to recall him were as economically counterproductive as it was politically - and yet the OP's only reason for not supporting him is his socially-conservative beliefs.

no, i don't like him because he has utterly foolish objectives, as well.  sorry you didn't get that implication.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 12, 2013 12:46:36 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

This is another of those situations where the argument seems to be: if she had all the facts, she'd make the 'wrong' decision - but how can a decision that is more informed be wrong? And how can wanting a woman to be fully informed about a very serious and personal decision be construed as infringing her liberties?

actually, i am way more concerned about Walker's proposal which puts employers in charge of contraception of his/her employees. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 12, 2013 12:46:36 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

I love the way this thread is supposedly about job growth in Wisconsin, a state where several Senators fled their posts rather than vote on the Governor's proposal and yet one where he is blamed for a stalling of job growth - almost as if the massive disruption of the doomed effort to recall him were as economically counterproductive as it was politically - and yet the OP's only reason for not supporting him is his socially-conservative beliefs.

I've pretty much nailed down DJ's political beliefs as- partisan Democrat.  He tries to fancy talk his way out of it, and does a not terrible job of pretending to be libertarian- even conservative- at times, but NEVER supports libertarian, or conservative ideas in spite of the fact that they're demonstrably superior.

That this then specifically devolves to a reductive view of women-as-incubators as being defining of their experience in society (I harbor a suspicion that this reductionism is at least as common among the pro-choice cohort as among pro-lifers, many of whom focus mainly or entirely on the interests of the unborn child as being more needful of representation) is even more cute.

Can't we just start a thread that says Scott Walker hates women because he signed a law saying that they should get ultrasounds before abortions, and their abortionist should have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital? A law which, by the way, is in abeyance pending a likely reversal at least in part in a Federal court. 

The important point here is that Scott Walker- who got more votes in the failed recall effort than in his initial run- signed a law.  A bill must therefore have been passed with the majority of the Wisconsin legislature in agreement, and AFTER the ridiculous circus act of the recall election, correct?  So, I think it stands to reason that the measures enjoy majority support in Wisconsin- just as it did in Texas.  More on this after...

The second of these is clearly tendentious, although the investigation of Dr. Kermit Gosnell illustrates that the risks are not entirely imaginary, especially in an environment where abortion clinics are viewed as sacred cows (statewide, Wisconsin boasts only four such establishments, and I don't think anybody suggests they're charnel houses like Gosnell's 'practice'). The first interests me - if the ultrasound is transvaginal, it's obviously more invasive than it should be (although possibly not more invasive than the abortion procedure itself), but otherwise one can only assume the opposition is to the pregnant woman being informed about the consequences of her actions ahead of time.

Yes, the Gosnell slasher flick worthy house of horrors was the impetus for many of these laws, and the intent of pro-life politicians and the pro-life lobby is clearly to restrict abortion- both by restricting the supply of abortion providers, and providing deterrents for women seeking an abortion because they believe the unborn child is a human life worthy of the recognition of his or her natural rights and protection by the government.  Absent the legal authority to outright ban abortions, we have had some pretty wild machinations to the same end.  No different than liberals constant and unending end-runs around Constitutionality of countless measures- and in some ways just as ridiculous.  As an ardent pro-lifer, I'm not always happy with the political 'means to an end', but let's be honest- they're not alone.

This is another of those situations where the argument seems to be: if she had all the facts, she'd make the 'wrong' decision - but how can a decision that is more informed be wrong? And how can wanting a woman to be fully informed about a very serious and personal decision be construed as infringing her liberties?

And there it is.  The liberal argument in a nutshell. But more than this- liberals are very threatened by any restrictions whatsoever on abortions.  They want unregulated, taxpayer funded, abortion on demand at all costs.  They couch it women's rights but it's really fringe racist / statist population control ideology that drives them on this issue.  If that fact ever became transparent- the left and the Democratic Party exposed for the kooks they really are- they'd be finished as a meaningful political force forever and we could have the libertarian v. conservative debate this country is really itching to have.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 12, 2013 17:01:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Nov 12, 2013 12:46:36 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

I love the way this thread is supposedly about job growth in Wisconsin, a state where several Senators fled their posts rather than vote on the Governor's proposal and yet one where he is blamed for a stalling of job growth - almost as if the massive disruption of the doomed effort to recall him were as economically counterproductive as it was politically - and yet the OP's only reason for not supporting him is his socially-conservative beliefs.

I've pretty much nailed down DJ's political beliefs as- partisan Democrat. 

i am a non-partisan non-Democrat, actually.  if you think otherwise, like i say- put your money up.  name your stakes.  i will provide my voter registration card to you**, but i won't do it for less than $500.  i have not voted Democrat or Republican in a national election since 1996.  i have not voted Democrat in a statewide race for almost as long.  i have voted Republican in the primaries most of that time.

the truth of the matter is that you don't really know me at all, Paul.  you just think you do.  but you are hardly alone.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 12, 2013 17:01:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Nov 12, 2013 12:46:36 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

He tries to fancy talk his way out of it, and does a not terrible job of pretending to be libertarian-

that is precisely what i am, Paul.  a small "l" libertarian.


 even conservative- at times,

like....NEVER?  i have never claimed to be a conservative.  EVER.

but NEVER supports libertarian,

see, you really don't pay attention, do you?

 or conservative ideas in spite of the fact that they're demonstrably superior.

i am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.  the GOP is fiscally liberal and socially conservative.  i can't imagine them ever fielding a candidate (and getting behind one) that i could vote for at this point.  the Democratic party is fiscally liberal and socially liberal.  i CAN imagine voting for a Democrat, if they put fiscal policy and non-interventionism at the top of their policy positions- something that NEITHER party has done with any regularity.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 12, 2013 17:01:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Nov 12, 2013 12:46:36 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

This is another of those situations where the argument seems to be: if she had all the facts, she'd make the 'wrong' decision - but how can a decision that is more informed be wrong? And how can wanting a woman to be fully informed about a very serious and personal decision be construed as infringing her liberties?

And there it is.  The liberal argument in a nutshell. But more than this- liberals are very threatened by any restrictions whatsoever on abortions. 

this liberal would have no problem with banning third trimester abortions except when the life of the mother is in danger.  but i really don't consider it to be a man's issue, fundamentally- so i tend to stay out of the debate.

They want unregulated, taxpayer funded, abortion on demand at all costs. 

there is no federal funding for abortions now, and i am ok with that.

They couch it women's rights but it's really fringe racist / statist population control ideology that drives them on this issue.  If that fact ever became transparent- the left and the Democratic Party exposed for the kooks they really are- they'd be finished as a meaningful political force forever and we could have the libertarian v. conservative debate this country is really itching to have.

you are drowning in talking points, Paul.  there is hardly a breath of truth in them.  and i would be happy if libertarians and conservatives faced off.  libertarians would kick the ever loving crap out of conservatives. 

[Lizard King]

Ironically, the unborn child is, using an admittedly out-of-favor definition, the "man's issue."

It's certainly the case that there are considerably greater implications for the female parent, biologically and - this being the crucial point, and the most contemptible aspect of the pro-choice movement is its tacit defense of this - economically. The vast majority of abortions are sought by non-coerced women in their twenties and thirties who feel that they could not provide for another child and so decide to terminate the pregnancy. We make determined efforts to avoid equating that to the post-natal execution of an infant who's financially burdensome, because none of us have a problem demonizing Casey Anthony.

But the truth is that more than a million American women a year are forced to terminate pregnancies because they are wage slaves and they - I mean, of course, their owners - can't afford the productivity loss of childbirth and childrearing. It is a disgrace, but it's a disgrace that the pro-choice movement is (often unwittingly) endorsing; compared to that, the mere disregard for the interests of the unborn child and the father is a side-issue.

This is not to say there is no merit in the argument that a woman has rights over her own body; as a strong libertarian, I'm acutely conscious of this point. It is odious to suggest that a prospective father should be able to compel a woman to act as incubator to his progeny against her will - this is why rape and incest exceptions attract considerable support even among pro-lifers. It is equally odious to require a mother to risk her life for that of her unborn child - those rare situations where this is the case are heartwrenching for all involved, but nobody sensible can claim the decision is not properly, finally, painfully, the mother's, and nobody can judge her personal choice. Nobody can judge the choice of a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant and determines that the pregnancy and its aftermath are unaffordable for her - but I think positively enabling her choice to terminate an unborn child while masking, minimizing, or misrepresenting her available alternatives is a worse approach for society than addressing the fundamental economic drivers of the decision. Simply put, it should never be unaffordable to raise a child, and something is gravely wrong in a society where this is the case.

I'm prepared to believe this is another of those 'least worst' scenarios where all the options are at least somewhat bad. I don't think the impossibility of my being confronted directly with the choice makes it impossible for me to have a perspective on it; in some cases, having distance from the immediate emotional turmoil around such a situation may even lend clarity, and if nothing else it adds context. The fact is, everybody either supports the status quo or supports a change in the status quo, even if they do so tacitly. By saying you as a man are not qualified to suggest a woman should be educated about what an abortion actually does, to her potentially as well as to the fetus, you're saying that she shouldn't be insofar as she isn't under the status quo. Which is entirely fair and reasonable, and absolutely your right: I just push a little against the frame of "you're not a woman, you can't talk about it." Precious few women have been in a position to decide the law on this question, that being another aspect of the economic dilemma that wears a social-issue mask. As usual, the dividing line between fiscal and social is largely illusory. Social issues are always prosecuted because of their fiscal consequences.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 13, 2013 11:02:49 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

Ironically, the unborn child is, using an admittedly out-of-favor definition, the "man's issue." .

you are entitled to your opinion, but i don't share it.  i think that men have a stake in children, for the same reason women do.  but i don't believe that, while the child is incapable of living without the mother, the man has much skin in the game.  that is, admittedly, MY OPINION.  and it is also, admittedly, bourne out of the tiresome and cringe inducing lectures about the "sanctity of life" coming almost exclusively from middle aged men- a spectacle that would make Mary Shelly blush.  but no amount of arguing on your part is going to shift my position one iota.

[happyhoix]

They couch it women's rights but it's really fringe racist / statist population control ideology that drives them on this issue.

Bullshit.

I don't want anyone else telling me what I can and can't do with my body, especially when their decisions impact my lifestyle, my finances, my family, my health and even, potentially, my life.

It's that simple.

You've created some mumbo jumbo to cover your wish to impose your religious views on 50% of the population.

[Lizard King]

Nov 13, 2013 12:36:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 13, 2013 11:02:49 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

Ironically, the unborn child is, using an admittedly out-of-favor definition, the "man's issue." .

you are entitled to your opinion, but i don't share it.  i think that men have a stake in children, for the same reason women do.  but i don't believe that, while the child is incapable of living without the mother, the man has much skin in the game.  that is, admittedly, MY OPINION.  and it is also, admittedly, bourne out of the tiresome and cringe inducing lectures about the "sanctity of life" coming almost exclusively from middle aged men- a spectacle that would make Mary Shelly blush.  but no amount of arguing on your part is going to shift my position one iota.

1) "Issue," archaically, is a synonym for "progeny." I was indulging in some wordplay there.

2) I'm not trying to shift your position, merely give expression to mine. There was a part in there about what I see as the faux-piousness of "I'm only a man, I can't have an opinion on this, so here's my opinion in favor of the mother over the child where those interests necessarily diverge." You're entitled to your opinion even if it weren't valid, and, as I thought I'd indicated in my post, it is valid. I just resent the implicit have-your-cake-and-eat-it rejection of the putatively majority-male pro-life opinion on the grounds that males necessarily aren't self-interested in the question. Felons are probably more animated than non-felons about the question of whether felons should have voting rights, but that doesn't make it good policy to leave the question to felons to decide. Pedophiles are certainly more interested than non-pedophiles in the advocate aims of NAMBLA, but there we can surely all agree that more impartial heads should weigh on behalf of the vulnerable in society. That we invert the logic because the vulnerable in a different special case haven't yet drawn breath strikes me, in MY OPINION, as perverse, but I accept that most of us, for various defensible reasons, do so.

[Lizard King]

I don't want anyone else telling me what I can and can't do with my body

You can't punch me in the face.

You can't grab things out of a store and run off without paying for them.

You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater that isn't actually on fire.

You can't have sex with a corpse.

(Und so weiter)

Welcome to society. Cost of admission: freedom to dispose of your body entirely according to your whim, where doing so impacts another member of society.

Property is impossible ~ Proudhon

[djAdvocate]

Nov 13, 2013 15:52:10 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

Nov 13, 2013 12:36:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you are entitled to your opinion, but i don't share it.  i think that men have a stake in children, for the same reason women do.  but i don't believe that, while the child is incapable of living without the mother, the man has much skin in the game.  that is, admittedly, MY OPINION.  and it is also, admittedly, bourne out of the tiresome and cringe inducing lectures about the "sanctity of life" coming almost exclusively from middle aged men- a spectacle that would make Mary Shelly blush.  but no amount of arguing on your part is going to shift my position one iota.

1) "Issue," archaically, is a synonym for "progeny." I was indulging in some wordplay there.

2) I'm not trying to shift your position, merely give expression to mine.

i understood that.  like you, i was speaking to both you and the audience.

There was a part in there about what I see as the faux-piousness of "I'm only a man, I can't have an opinion on this, so here's my opinion in favor of the mother over the child where those interests necessarily diverge." You're entitled to your opinion even if it weren't valid

true.  but i prefer better footing than that, so i generally cede in cases where i have none.

, and, as I thought I'd indicated in my post, it is valid. I just resent the implicit have-your-cake-and-eat-it rejection of the putatively majority-male pro-life opinion on the grounds that males necessarily aren't self-interested in the question.

not only did i not claim that, i didn't intend to imply it, nor do i believe it.  however their grounds for being self interested are suspect, imo. 

Felons are probably more animated than non-felons about the question of whether felons should have voting rights, but that doesn't make it good policy to leave the question to felons to decide. Pedophiles are certainly more interested than non-pedophiles in the advocate aims of NAMBLA, but there we can surely all agree that more impartial heads should weigh on behalf of the vulnerable in society. That we invert the logic because the vulnerable in a different special case haven't yet drawn breath strikes me, in MY OPINION, as perverse, but I accept that most of us, for various defensible reasons, do so.

sure.  but i don't really buy the moral argument for non-viable fetuses, either.  nor do i buy the amoral argument for viable ones.  there are a lot of fungible details here that i am am disinclined to argue for a variety of reasons.  i named one of them.

[happyhoix]

Nov 13, 2013 15:55:54 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

I don't want anyone else telling me what I can and can't do with my body

You can't punch me in the face.

You can't grab things out of a store and run off without paying for them.

You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater that isn't actually on fire.

You can't have sex with a corpse.

(Und so weiter)

Welcome to society. Cost of admission: freedom to dispose of your body entirely according to your whim, where doing so impacts another member of society.

Property is impossible ~ Proudhon

All of your examples are single, stand alone human beings who committed criminal acts on other single, stand alone human beings. 

In the first trimester, a fetus is a clump of genetic material, and not a stand alone human being. Men randomly leave their genetic matterial in bedsheets and toilets. Women lose genetic material once a month. Many zygotes fail in the womb and are lost even before the woman knows she's pregnant. Sperm banks discard genetic material regularly, and fertility clinics discard frozen pieces of genetic material that are left over after fertility treatments. None of this is criminal activity. 

It's no different if a woman removes some genetic material in the first trimester, because it's not yet a human, and might never be a human. If you believe it IS a human, than you need to sponser legislation to prevent all the other types of abuse against genetic material that I mentioned above. 

Good luck with the law against men spilling their seed in unfertile areas.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 14, 2013 18:18:45 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I've sort of lost interest in the abortion debate... But I thought I would pop in and leave this little link right here. 

watchdog.org/116284/wisconsin-obamacare-governor/


The bastard...who does he think he his...heartless I tell you. 

politicians are good at appearing to care.  don't believe them.  there is always something behind it.

yes, that includes Obama.

[happyhoix]

Right now in Indiana, 6th highest infant mortality, guess what one big reason is, no prenatal care. And Indiana like Texas would not accept expanding Medicaid. Hypocritical, totally

I agree.

A lot of interest in protecting zygotes, but once they become actual babies, not so much.

[Lizard King]

A lot of interest in protecting zygotes, but once they become actual babies, not so much.

This thread wasn't about abortion, and virtually nobody ever changes their mind on this issue.

I think it is asinine, for example, to disallow morning-after 'abortifacient' pills to sexually-active women. No coherent defense of a right to life extends to the examples happyhoix cites, and I'm pleased to endorse that view.

There is, however, a tiny distinction between a zygote:



And a first-trimester fetus (this one's at 10 weeks):



As womenonweb.org points out:

If you have been pregnant for longer than 9 weeks and do a medical abortion anyway, the medicines still work and cause an abortion. However, the risk of complications increases and it is more likely that you will need to receive treatment from a doctor afterwards (See the table below on complications to determine the exact amounts of increased risk). Therefore, it is strongly advised that the pills are taken in the waiting room of a hospital or in a cafe very close to a hospital. In that case, should you need urgent medical attention, you will be nearby. The symptoms are exactly the same as a miscarriage. If you need emergency care in a hospital, it is important to tell the doctors you had a miscarriage, as women can be prosecuted for having an abortion. The symptoms and treatment are the same.

Realize also that you will loose a lot of tissue and blood, but also a foetus (the size depends on the duration of the pregnancy), which can be recognized as such. It can be quite distressing to see.

By the way, that little guy at 10 weeks gestation:

* has a heartbeat indepedent of the host womb (even though he parasitizes blood supply)
* has a liver that is manufacturing red blood cells
* has a developing brain
* has a digestive tract, and is swallowing fluid
* has limbs that bend, and is kicking

Around 40% of abortions in the US are performed on fetuses at or past this stage of development. Roughly 10% of abortions in the US are perfectly legal, constitutionally-approved, second-trimester procedures.

It seems to me that a 10-week fetus has more in common with a postpartum baby than a preconception spilling of seed. So that analogy doesn't really work for me.

***

Here's a cute frame of the moral question.

Suppose you're walking by a river, enjoying the afternoon sun, when you notice somebody splashing around in midstream, sinking and surfacing, crying for help, obviously drowning. If you do nothing, this person will surely die. Arer you morally obligated to help?

Of course, a more accurate frame would see that person on the path ahead of you, rather than drowning, and you actively deciding that your right to continue on the path as planned justifes you pushing them into the river to die.

This frame minimizes the potential importance of you getting where you're going and the potential cost of delay; it also assumes the personhood of the fetus. Either ground is valid to dispute the frame. But for anybody who accepts fetal personhood at the point of viability (this being equivalent to that guy in the river grasping a lifeline), fetal personhood prior to that becomes a less cut-and-dried question (personhood post-implantation doesn't seem a bad place morally to draw the line, and allows an adequate post-coital window for Plan B abortifacients). And if you accept fetal personhood, there are implications for the morality of ignoring the interests of that person in favor of avoiding more disruptive large-scale addresses of the interests of the other.

I offer this frame with no didactic intent; even if that little fetus IS a person, I can still see very sympathetic grounds for a woman pregnant after volitional sexual activity to seek an abortion. I feel personally she shouldn't find herself in the position of needing one, and the clamor to defend her right to have one - and damn the consequences - obscures that point.

But, again, I'm not trying to change anybody's mind.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 15, 2013 13:01:54 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

By the way, that little guy at 10 weeks gestation:

* has a heartbeat indepedent of the host womb (even though he parasitizes blood supply)
* has a liver that is manufacturing red blood cells
* has a developing brain
* has a digestive tract, and is swallowing fluid
* has limbs that bend, and is kicking

i don't find that aspect of the argument very compelling.  a salamander has a heartbeat independent of his mother, as well.  it has vital organs, and the ability to manufacture it's own blood.  it has a fully developed brain, digestive tract, and limbs that bend.  but i wouldn't waste a moment thinking about it if i accidentally squashed it.  there is something more to being human than all of this.  just fyi- i don't intend to carry on this argument.  it is too loaded.  i am just pointing out that the fact that it looks like a bitty human doesn't necessarily mean anything.  and it might.

edit: to answer the second part of your question using the above analogy- i am not sure how much time i would waste saving a salamander that a child was poking to death with a stick.