New York Signs Abortion Bill Allowing Abortions Until 'Last Day of Pregnancy'
Last Tuesday, January 22nd and the 47th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion, the state government of New York announced the Reproductive Health Act.
1/28/19, 6:20 pm EST
By John Corry, photo from StatisticsBrain
–Parental Discretion Advised–
In a move sure to turn some *heads*, New York governor Anthony Cuomo in reaction to the announcement said: “I am directing that New York’s landmarks be lit in pink to celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow,” to which many haters obviously pointed out the irony: they should be lit red (dirty, amoral, fascist, sinful, anti-American, anti-’science’, baby-killing–)
The condemnations from conservatives have been swift (so swift), with some calling for the governor’s head, others for him to lose some of his rights in the Catholic church–of which he is a member–and most (definitely ‘the most’) arguing for his ousting as a member altogether. Pundits of ‘the left’ have of course FREAKED OUT! over such reactions, and praises on all sides of ‘the left’ have forced everyone to take a side: on Wednesday of last week, Ohio governor Mike DeWine said that he will sign a controversial ‘heartbeat bill’ originally vetoed by former Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) which makes all abortions performed before a fetal heartbeat can be detected illegal…
Fetal heartbeats appear within 3-4 weeks following conception, before many women know they’re pregnant.
This is an important question, and one in which people refuse to shake in any way whatsoever. This is about a question–one question–asking ‘when does life start?’, though (and this is my ‘main’ thing) with a presupposition inclined toward some type of acclamation to an either strictly spiritual philosophy, or a political one; conservatives with the former–their assumption that a ‘man’ cannot morally Absolutely make the call over when life starts, because he physically can’t give birth, and ignoring the fact that a ‘woman’ must–and the liberals with the latter doing the same old Marxist thing they always do when shit gets too emotionally heavy: blaming the fact that, if thought about in a certain way and through a certain lens, everything comes down to politics.
And as everything comes down to anything /> nor does everything come down Absolutely to spirituality, as the conservatives argue on this one, and in just as vehement terms (and I use ‘vehement’ here to mean: inherently unwilling to even debate if the other ‘side’ has any point at all).
Until now, I’ve never understood why the abortion issue was such a thing. While the frequency of women getting abortions with the same attitudes they get check-ups may be going up (a phenomenon I blame on the heightened tensions begot from the rising heat level in the political realm exploited as a mask masquerading as some fake, ‘idealized’ version of Freud’s id), the reality is that the Lena Dunhams out there are far in between (sorry, Lena– we can talk about it)). Most women–as far as I can tell–would not be very stoked to have to have an abortion procedure performed (passive verb there intentional). On the flip side, the idea that men simply want the right to control women’s bodies is equally ludicrous: as the majority of women realize that that’s a fucking kid that’s coming out at the end of all this, so does the man, however: obviously with a different point of view (like, quite literally (like: the woman being the one with the uterus and all)). No man has the right to tell a woman what it’s like to be a woman, but neither can a woman tell a man what it’s like to be a man, no matter how volatile the power politics may be (they don’t trump the ‘identity’ part =P (as they’re dependent on ‘identity’ (‘identity here more so defined as the simple, obvious, differences between people))). Given the nature of this issue, that is important, because men are just as needed for the procreation of human life as women are–
They might not be as involved in the day-to-day following conception, but that’s why women have the ‘sex card’ to play (;D).
Which renders this entire controversy, 50+ years in the making, not one about religion, science, or even freedom (or: freedom for classically marginalized groups (like women)), but one much deeper and more applicable to the human condition as a whole than to any individual opinion or belief anyone involved or not involved may have (hence the controversy). While those elements are certainly elements at play here, they cannot be considered the entire argument any more than any person can know exactly what it’s like to be any other person, which you can’t–
The question of ‘abortion’ is the question of the ‘meaning of life’ within the context of the as-yet far-from-completely-understood power politics at play between sexually attached men and women (because if you’re not the one who had the sex with the (now pregnant) woman, you don’t have much of a say (this is to get at the true nature of the argument– obviously, rhetorically you have a say (and therefore politically), but the search for the ‘meaning of life within the context of power politics’ is an individual search before it is a societal one (because the search for truth is individual; the possibility ‘search for truth’ being impossible without the conscious (as opposed to: subconscious (or: determinist)) recognition of it (Descartes)))).
Because we don’t have the capability to see life fully objectively (because we are in it (and just as we cannot see life fully subjectively either: because we have the capability to fathom some absolute objectivity (or: understand facts)) (and because no person can know firsthand what it’s like growing up as both a man and a woman)), science can only go so far here. Yes, a seeded embryo following sex will become a human if not infringed upon, but so will the same situation in a rabbit (what is: life). (This is the rhetorical part) that embryo cannot see, it cannot feel (so far as we know), and a full-grown rabbit can do those things, yet we’re all fine with a rabbit as roadkill on the side of the street. What is really the difference?
If the argument is really that the human embryo is going to turn into a human, then the argument is about what it means to be human, not the obvious fact that some things are and some things aren’t (what is: the difference between man and animals (see: further)), and just because something ‘is going to turn into a human’ ignores the fact that at one point in the very distant past, every chemical in the universe was in the same cloud, before the ‘big bang’. Everything in the universe has the ‘capability’ to turn into a human at some point, assuming time and space to be inherently-infinite (the concept ‘infinity’ to be inseparable (or: impossibly understood) from space and time, and vice versa) though not without certain focused ‘points’ where the singularity makes itself ‘apparent’ (or: ‘known’ for consciousness).
Therefore–and even more so assuming that quantum theory regarding how particles interact on the smallest levels (‘depending on where you’re looking from: any particle can be in two places at once’) has any merit–the argument that ‘human life starts at conception’ (*point*) is an argument over the ‘meaning of time’–
And good luck with that one (fo realz).
So now we’re back to the fact that there is a difference between human beings and other beings, and where the ‘meaning of life’ can start to be twisted in term of power politics (that ‘singularity’ simplified for primal tendencies and instincts).
Is it simply DNA? To render the capacities of man as nothing more than a tweak in her biological system–which may very well be true–from a certain point of view–is to ignore all human capability for emotion/spirituality, and to render any ‘meaning’ to life as null in the face of biological or technological fact. That’s obvious. The argument, ‘well, it’s all science, man, and science says the heartbeat starts at 3-4 weeks in’ clearly violates the basic mandate of the argument that you can’t just assume that everyone is on the same page–
Not everyone agrees with the assertion that it’s the heartbeat which differentiates man from animal (real lovers of intellectual ‘freedom’ here)–
In fact, in my view, and in the view of Carl Sagan (which is where I got this from): it’s far more ‘obvious’:
The difference is consciousness.
“Cogito ergo sum.” –Rene Descartes (‘I think, therefore I am’.)
No other animal is ‘conscious’ as far as we can currently tell (they have not built cities, written symphonies or tried to escape police in a Ford Bronco at 35mph down a highway during L.A. rush hour). If there is any measurable point of difference between man and beast that’s it. ‘The beast’ can’t think, it can’t debate, and it doesn’t have the potentiality to do so (or at least not yet). The human does, and she does because she is ‘conscious’ and can recognizes herself as such in the mirror (Descartes).
The field of neuroscience, and especially the development of the brain in the womb, is not completely unified, as best as I can find, but there are some generally accepted notions regarding the source of consciousness in the human brain:
-The neocortex is the newest addition to the brain, developing over the past 200 million years, starting in the Cretaceous period of the dinosaurs.
-The neocortex is associated with language, spatial reasoning, motor commands, and thought in general.
-Without a functioning neocortex, a human loses all capability to think, reason, or do any of the things which we associate with ‘conscious humanity’. All the other parts of the brain may be working fine–and as such the person can ‘live’ perfectly well (though ‘live’ there is used vaguely), but without the neocortex, the ‘human’ parts of the ‘human’ are gone (check out this, this, this, this, this, and this).
-While all mammals have a neocortex, it fills about 76% of the human brain’s volume, which is more than other mammals, and a lot more considering how much physically bigger humans’ brains are compared to other mammals, as well as its relation to the rest of the body.
-The fetal brain does not begin to develop until 3-4 weeks in, with nerve cells connecting different areas of the brain (a must for any living creature outside of plants) not developing until the end of the first trimester (12 weeks) (check out this, this and this).
-The human fetus is a rapidly growing lifeform, and more information is needed.
But neither ‘side’ is concerned with any of that right now (I am Jack’s devil’s advocate). While ‘conservatives’ get their ‘panties all in a bunch’ over their ‘god-given right’ to tell the rest of the world when life ABSOLUTELY begins (and ends?), liberals are trying to flaunt their GIGANTIC cock-and-balls as much as they possibly can. The liberal substantiative to the conservative ‘meaning’ is ‘power’, because the ‘liberal’ discovery that all humans are different implies a far more complicated in-time application of ‘power’, regarding each one of those individual’s specific ‘places’, in ‘the world’; it made ‘power’ as natural to human experience as pain, morality, and virtue, and as such elevated ‘power politics’ (the ‘rhetorical’ part of ‘politics’ (so: most of it (apparently)) as natural to society as everyday communication (which doesn’t render ‘power politics’ any more ‘important’ or whatever than ‘everyday communication– from a certain point of view).
in other words: meaning is to power what spirituality is to politics.
Which obviously makes sense through a strictly subjective point of view (compared to the ‘conservative’ objective). That’s just the thing here, and it’s the reason why all of this needs to be heated down for a goddamned hot minute: human perception is equal parts objective and subjective, or, more specifically: it cannot understand reality fully through either of those lens, as its perception of that reality is equally dependent on both perspectives (think of it as something like the Chinese Yin/Yang). So take you head back in every once in a while on every issue! To forget that is to forget what makes consciousness ‘conscious’ (balance/educated faith), and render this whole argument as obviously ridiculous, let alone pretty much any other argument ever possibly conceived.
But again: nobody gives a fuck about any of that!
All this law does is to serve as yet another SWING! and DESTROOOOOOYED! to the heads of anyone who disagrees with the most strident and most authoritarian of those pretending to ‘argue’ for the ‘liberal’ side of this debate. To say that it’s okay to kill a baby up to the moment of birth is no more based in reality than the argument of a man masturbating is killing a baby. Both arguments are ridiculous, but, in light of the extremes which either one portends to represent: it’s only logical.
With one side arguing politics, and the other spirituality, the only option is compromise, and it’s a compromise inherently dependent on listening to the other side (or at least assuming good faith over time), as these two ways of thinking are so diametrically opposed. The reason the constitution ‘separates church and state’ isn’t just because the founding fathers ‘hated’ religion (or: religious doctrine??), but because they understood that they simply cannot go hand in hand together without some sort of arbiter (in this case: psychology??).
‘Women’s rights’? ‘Fetus rights’? ‘Religious rights’?
If the only ‘right’ I care to ‘consciously’ care about is DESTROYING! the ‘other side’ and forcing people to either pay for what they believe to be murder or be brainwashed into thinking that there’s only one way to ever think about any topic, what can any of it possibly ‘mean’ anyway?
Certainly not any more than what any sense of ‘power’ can tell ‘me’ about my ‘personal state of humanity’-is-the-entire-world/sole-possibility-of-capability for ‘perception’.