Arizona's immigration law

[theatokos]

I've been asked my thoughts on the Arizona immigration law. It's impressive how well informed people are about US news. Of course, after living in the US my standards for informed people are pretty low. I have to say that I don't know much about it. snowcalla is basically my only source at this point! And the Daily Show. Hee. I figure the Economist will clue me in next week too. It's hard to get too worked up about it, even though I think it's a terrible law. But, of course, I do have some opinions!

Firstly, I'm wary of spouting off on Arizona. I think this law is a reaction to specific issues in the state. I have always been wary of people spouting off about Alaska and it's issues, including opening ANWR and wolf culling. Most people get all worked up, but don't really understand the complexities of the issues. (And do not get me started on the idea of 'untouched wilderness.') So I'm going to ignore Arizona, since I don't know anything about it.

Secondly, and I'm not defending the law, mind, but if the US as a whole won't deal with the issue of immigration, then I guess the citizens of Arizona have to take the lead. Even if Congress start debating this issue I can't see any real change occurring. It will be like health care - a start. But as we've seen, even though everyone will get health care, but it's still at the mercy of the insurance business and the medical-industrial complex. I see the same thing happening in immigration issues: band-aid beginnings. Unless the US is willing to pay the REAL COST of food corporate farms, producers, meat packers, restaurants, etc will continue to hire (and in many cases BUS IN) illegal immigrants to do the work that US citizens refuse to do for such low pay in such abysmal conditions. Are you willing to pick produce in the California sun for less than a dollar a boxful? Yeah, I didn't think so. And are you willing to pay $9 for strawberries? Or $11/lb for sustainably raised, ethically slaughtered, grass fed beef? No? Then chances are good you won't want to pay that much for feedlot fed, mechanically slaughtered meat when US citizens are working the cattle yard.

My liberal compatriots in the United States are all up in arms over this Arizona bill - and my conservative friends want stricter enforcement - but if they/we are serious about creating immigration reform then we've got to look at the much bigger and more uncomfortable picture.

Comments

[seaivy.livejournal.com]

The Arizona law reminds me of all those movies where the Nazis board the train and go from car to car demanding "Where are your papers?". Fortunately some Mayors and sheriffs and other sane people are speaking out and refusing to enforce the law.

And now as lunacy spreads the Oklahoma legislature, over the Governor's veto, has mandate compulsory sonograms for ALL women seeking an abortion. The woman MUST be shown the pictures of the fetus. A Vaginal Sonogram is required if regular ones will not clearly show the fetus. Neither physician or woman can refuse the procedure without breaking the law. I have not heard what the penalty is. This from conservatives who want less government in their lives.

It's election year and politicians are pandering to what has been termed "their base". An interesting choice of words as the actions seem base indeed.

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

The Arizona law reminds me of all those movies where the Nazis board the train and go from car to car demanding "Where are your papers?".

In my state - Massachusetts - I had to prove that I had health insurance when filing my income tax.

This from conservatives who want less government in their lives.

As a pro-life libertarian, I actually support this, because how many times have you heard the argument that "it's just a clump of cells"? At the basic sense, yeah, but so are WE. I can tell you that at 12w, my ultrasound for my child showed a clear outline of a baby. I'd be happy to post the image. 12w is considered first-trimester and abortions are legal at that time. For a person who thinks that what's inside them is just a squishy little unformed ball, an ultrasound - assuming that it's done correctly, and that a "wanted-baby-ultrasound-quality" image is shown rather than something deliberately fuzzy - can provide a little bit of reality.

My position on abortion changed after both seeing my ultrasound and feeling my child's kicks. Before that, I was still on the fence about aborting him, let alone my position on abortion in general.

My position, as a conservative-leaning libertarian, is that My rights end where your rights begin. And on the flip side, Your rights end where my rights begin. I believe that life begins at conception and the "fusion" of two half-sets of DNA into one complete, entirely new, never-before-seen-and-never-seen-again set of DNA. That is the starting point and it happens at no other time in a person's life. I believe that that is where life begins, and that any intentional attempt to destroy that life, with the ending of that life as the primary goal, is murder. I am perfectly fine with the government legislating laws against homicide, saying that I can't kill you and you can't kill me, and relying on the basis of beyond a reasonable doubt or the preponderance of the evidence regarding instances of self-defense - but I am still A-OK with the government having those laws and means of enforcement, and punitive measures for individuals who break those laws regarding homicide.

Regarding the typically-conservative position on abortion, it is really not that much of a conundrum that procedures meant to prevent or dissuade someone from an abortion, which is murder (although many may disagree), are supported.

Death-row inmates are treated better than unborn children in America (and elsewhere - look at the circumstances of gender-preferential abortion and infanticide in India and especially China). At least they get the chance for appeals and a last meal and to see their family and friends and say goodbye - and they have committed horrendous crimes against humanity.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Death row inmates are already in the world. That is why they are treated better than the unborn. I said this on your post: when women are valued and treated as seriously as the unborn are THEN we can talk about talking the rights of the unborn seriously.

I am vehemently against requiring an ultrasound for an abortion. There may be the occasional woman who just goes 'oops, time for another abortion' but most women -whether or not they feel guilt or shame (and they don't need to)- take the decision quite seriously. No one is all 'YAY ABORTION! Woo-hoo!" Why should a scared teenager have to see an ultrasound? Why should a rape victim have to see an ultrasound? Why should a family that already has 4 kids and low paying jobs that don't provide maternity leave and/or decent health insurance and the birth control malfunctioned have to see the ultrasound? Why? There is no good reason.

Make every child wanted before we bring every child into the world.

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

I had a comment for this but deleted it before posting. I just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring this.

Your opinion will not change. And neither will mine. And only one of us can be right regarding the fundamental point - do unborn children have a right to life that supersedes the mother's right to convenience? (Rape/incest/mother's health cases are reported by the Guttmacher Institute to account for a MINUSCULE percentage of abortions, and "convenience" is the biggest reason.) I do not believe so. At all. In any case.

When I think about murder, I think that lives are wasted. That these victims have grown for nine months inside their mothers. That they have been nurtured and hopefully loved, able to grow to adulthood. And somebody, for no reason that justifies the action, has decided that that time, that attention, that affection and love and care - that that is worthless. I wish that murderers would think about that before they commit a murder. That they truly know what they're doing. And I think that anybody having an abortion should know the black&white version of what they're doing, because there is ALWAYS an alternative to abortion. ALWAYS. Whether people choose to pursue that alternative or not, it still exists.

Make men and women know exactly what they're doing and be personally responsible, knowing that their actions can, even with birth control, result in pregnancy, before they get busy. As long as there are selfish people, there will be unwanted children, who are unwanted because their parents do not want to alter their lives.

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

What exactly is "convenience," in this context? How does the Guttmacher Institute define it? Are they polling women who have had abortions and asking them if they did it based on "convenience"?

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

I had previously found a statistic page that broke down general reasons into more specific ones, but was unable to find it on my cursory check of the Guttmacher page. I've got to write a paper this weekend for my Legal Ethics class, so I'll let you know if I come across it in the course of my sourcing.

Here's the closest thing I could find - it's not specifically what I'd found before (that was in table format) but here you go anyway.

The most common reasons given to "Awww!" people into excusing abortion are for 1) mother's health 2) rape and 3) incest. Those 3 are 3 of the 4 LEAST common self-reported reasons for procuring an abortion.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

Nevermind, I found it. It's Table 2 on the PDF, page 4.

TABLE 2. Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their
decision to have an abortion, 2004 and 1987
Reason 2004 1987
(N=1,160) (N=1,900)
Having a baby would dramatically change my life 74 78*
Would interfere with education 38 36
Would interfere with job/employment/career 38 50***
Have other children or dependents 32 22***
Can’t afford a baby now 73 69
Unmarried 42 na
Student or planning to study 34 na
Can’t afford a baby and child care 28 na
Can’t afford the basic needs of life 23 na
Unemployed 22 na
Can’t leave job to take care of a baby 21 na
Would have to find a new place to live 19 na
Not enough support from husband or partner 14 na
Husband or partner is unemployed 12 na
Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance 8 na
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems 48 52*
Not sure about relationship 19 na
Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married 12 30***
Not in a relationship right now 11 12
Relationship or marriage may break up soon 11 16*
Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children 2 3
Have completed my childbearing 38 28**
Not ready for a(nother) child† 32 36
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant 25 33*
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child 22 27*
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion 14 24***
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 13 14
Physical problem with my health 12 8**
Parents want me to have an abortion 6 8
Was a victim of rape 1 1
Became pregnant as a result of incest <0.5 <0.5
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. †This was a write-in response in 2004 and 1987. Note: na=not applicable, because
survey questions were not comparable. Source: 1987—reference 4.

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

I think summarizing all of women's experiences except for rape and incest as "convenience" is really disrespectful to women.

I am graduating with a Ph.D. in ethics and sociology of religion. I am not a "roar I have no idea what I'm talking about" person either. I don't think it's fair, though, to set the issue up as though one person's personal experience is worth more than another's. I respect what you've gone through to arrive at the opinion you now hold. I would ask that you consider that other people have also gone through equally challenging experiences and come up with a different opinion.

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

In the interest of full disclosure, I am graduating with my B.A. in Sociology-Criminal Justice in a month and intend to pursue a career in family practice law, although I have a major passion for constitutional law.

My views on abortion are the way they are and especially strong because I nearly aborted my child, who is 3 now. At the time, I was 19, unmarried, unemployed&had a very difficult pregnancy which prevented employment, living 1000+ miles away from family, living 1500+ miles away from my child's father, and halfway through my college degree. I'm also a sexual assault survivor. I quit my employment to move home to be with family (still 1500+ miles apart from my child's father). Some of my situation has changed, and some has not. My life has changed significantly because I accepted the situation that I had instigated by having sex in the first place, and I am wholeheartedly a better person for doing so, both in the way I live my life now in both behavior, example, and thought, as well as my aspirations for the future, which are what they are because of my experience.

I find the need to explain at least some of my background and experience and "credentials" so I don't come off as one of those ROAR I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND I HAVE NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE ISSUE BUT I'M GONNA MAKE MY OPINION KNOWN ANYWAY people. :)

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

And re: death row inmates.

I'm sorry, but if a person has horrifically murdered someone, they deserve A HELL OF A LOT WORSE than the equivalent of abortion. Innocent child within the womb is, IMO, "worth more" than a criminal and murderer, especially one who is unrepentant for his or her actions.

Semi-OT but I read the book "Dead Man Walking" when my mom still had her Mommy Van, which broke when I was 11, so I read it before then. I'm not unfamiliar with capital punishment or gruesome and sadistic criminal cases.

Connor Petersen's life was worth so much more than his father Scott's life.

[seaivy.livejournal.com]

When do your feelings about the fetus top the right of a woman to choose to safely and without unnecessary procedures have a medical procedure that is legal in this country. Since when did the state have the right to dictate what occurs between the doctor and patient?

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

I do not believe the procedure should be legal. The original "right to privacy" is not at all written in the Constitution and was perceived as implied via the ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut (I believe in 1961) due to a textual interpretation of the Constitution. That ruling and the perceived 14th Amendment "right to privacy" in the Due Process Clause are where the basis for Roe v. Wade (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, as well as the latter Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I believe that the premise of the "right to privacy" as a constitutional right is faulty and that the federal government should have no business universally allowing abortion. I would vastly prefer state-by-state legislation on the issue.

No medical procedure is 100% without risks. While the abortion may be "safe" for the woman, it results in death for her unborn child.

Since when did the state have the right to dictate what occurs between the doctor and patient?

The abortion procedure is not merely between the doctor and the patient/mother. That is akin to the removal of a tumor or injured body part - for which an individual would undergo significant testing and extensive discussion, and possibly a mental health check (in the case of, for example, gastric bypass). Abortion is not the removal of a tumor or gangrenous limb. It is the removal of living tissue, one that possesses or will soon possess a heartbeat, and, if NOT aborted, will grow and develop as a human being, as we all continue to grow and develop, from conception to infancy to childhood, adulthood, and old age.

I don't want the state telling me I can't remove a tumor. I fully support the state telling me that I can't take the life of my unborn child.

[seaivy.livejournal.com]

But it IS legal and therefore it is a medical procedure governed by medical protocols NOT the state's philosophical preferences.

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

Your question was with regard to my feelings. I explained my views on the issue from a legal perspective.

But it IS legal and therefore it is a medical procedure governed by medical protocols NOT the state's philosophical preferences.

This is 2010. Roe came into being in 1973.

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," *JUSTICE* reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the *UNBORN* were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Substituting the bold text to make a point.

We have 150+ years of hindsight regarding those words, right now. The original basis for the above italicized text would seem to us horrifying, and we are appalled that the statement was even made. Yes, when that statement was made, it was in support of a widely held view, a legal view, reaffirming a legal principle/law. Many individuals or groups did not see fault with that statement - in fact, they promoted it widely, and much of their lives were based around that statement.

I'll repost the original statement.

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," [U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B.] Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Maybe in another 153 years we'll look back at this time, in 2010, and wonder how and why abortion could possibly be legal, and why more individuals and groups didn't speak out against it, in defense of those hurt by abortion - like many did not speak out against slavery and the oppression of the African/African-American, in defense of those hurt by slavery, bigotry, and overt racism. Just because something is legal today does not mean that it is right. It does not mean that it will not be seen as something horrifying and become illegal in the future.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

And as a Constitutional Positivist, I am the LAST person who would desire a state or federal government to govern by philosophical principles rather than constitutional ones.

Sourced (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html)

[seaivy.livejournal.com]

I'm not interested in your feelings nor did I ask about them. I am interested in women having access to a LEGAL medical procedure without the state placing unnecessary conditions upon it.
I had not read your story before this. Every woman has her own story. I am happy that you are happy with your choice. You had a choice. You would deny CHOICE to other women. It is legal, it is medical and it is a choice.

My comments were directed specifically to the Oklahoma law which is mandating unnecessary procedures which while complicating access also drive up the cost. Which adds a dimension of economic class to the situation. The rich have always been able to access abortion one way or another. But rape, incest, fetal deformity and maternal health can be found in all economic situations.

It is popular to use the slavery argument about abortion. But, again that puts LIVING people against POTENTIAL people. Abortion was been a subject of philosophical debate for about as long as there are people. When does life begin? There have been many opinions. And in all that time there have been abortions.

[autumnalmonk]

"I believe that life begins at conception"

Your entire argument depends on this, and it is a statement of personal belief. "Life" beginning at conception is not a fact, nor is it provable in any empirical or philosophical sense. While I am happy for you to hold such a belief, I, and many others, happen to have quite different ones- and those are just as valid and provable as yours (if not more so).

What exactly is it that gives you the right to assert your belief system is the only right one and impose it on everyone?

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

This really set me thinking and led to my most recent post.

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

Life does begin at conception. The argument is over at what point do we count it as a sentient human.

[pwilk.livejournal.com]

I think there are a lot of good arguments against that, unless you define what "life" is. Just some things off the top of my head:

- There is plenty of conception without implantation.
- My little sperms are capable of self-locomotion and goal driven behavior. They also can exist by themselves for quite sometime until they starve to death.
- Is a virus alive? Is a bacteria?
- How about a zygote that is incapable of cell division. How about a zygote with half a gamete?
- How about a zygote with the wrong number of chromosomes.

I think you simplifying too much a very deep philosophical conundrum.

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

Oh - and if I was stopped in public and asked to prove I had health insurance? Okay, I open my wallet and pull out my insurance card as proof. I don't get why it's a huge deal to have papers of citizenship if you're a citizen or legal papers of whatever kind if you're a legal immigrant. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law of our country by their presence - which is a crime - and as individuals committing a crime, they should be treated as such.

It so happens that the majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic. Arizona is right next door to Mexico, and the Mexican president encourages illegal immigration. I'm completely against domestic violence, but it doesn't mean that I hate all men, just because men are far more likely to commit serious acts of domestic violence and sexual assault against women and children. In a country with a serious problem regarding illegal immigration, ESPECIALLY by Hispanic individuals - well, if the individuals weren't hopping the Mexico-Arizona border, they would be looking at individuals from another race, wouldn't they?

There was a major crackdown on illegal immigration in my city about 3 years ago and Portuguese, Hispanic/Latino, and Mayan illegal immigrants were affected. I, frankly, didn't understand the hullabaloo. You knowingly break the law, you suffer the penalties of the law. End of story. People like to speak of "fairness" - how is such blatant disregard for the law "fair" to American citizens who follow the law, or "fair" to legal immigrants to America, or "fair" to people like Niki, who wish to reside in another country, and go through the proper channels to do so? Niki didn't just hop a boat and head over to Wales with the intention of sneaking in. Would that have been acceptable? (Semi-rhetorical question and not meant to be a jackass.)

[seaivy.livejournal.com]

MONEY! That's what it's all about. Where can you earn enough to feed your family? What will you do to earn that money? Is the face of your hungry children enough to send you where the money is no matter what the dangers?

And what of the source of the money in the United States? What of the need for laborers willing to do back breaking labor in unsanitary, difficult conditions. What of off the books payment? What of violation of labor laws?

Who is illegal? Who is trying to survive?
Maybe in hard times both?

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

That may be the case, but if my child is hungry, does that give me the right to steal food from a grocery store and break a law while doing so?

No.

While we may go to great lengths for those we love, there can be consequences - and rightly so - for breaking laws. If laws are not enforced, what is the incentive for others to obey them?

I will be of no use to my child if I am jailed.

With the skyrocketing unemployment rate, and the fact that many people live more comfortably on unemployment than by seeking a menial job - I think that we need to address those issues.

Who is illegal?

An immigrant coming into this country with the full knowledge that they are doing so against the law.

Please don't get me wrong. I completely support immigration. I do not support blanket amnesty or illegal immigration, because that is a slap in the face to those who have gone through the proper channels to enter America legally.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's the needing papers per se that is the problem, but it's the 'slippery slope' (ahem) to racial profiling - you look like a grubby Hispanic, show me your paperwork to prove that you're not illegal. It creates second class citizens.

Yeah, I feel the pain with international visas. Holy cow, was it stressful, confusing, and expensive.

I feel you on the blatant breaking of the law. I guess I feel like there should be blanket amnesty. But I'm not sure if that's the best way. I've known many immigrants, most legal (including my mother, who is not an American citizen) and some illegal. All have been hard working. The people who risk their lives and break the law to get here don't have the resources to go through the legal channels: they don't have the money for the visas or often the education to fill in the paperwork (which makes even me, a hyper-educated American go cross-eyed), and the US is reluctant to let in skilled engineers, do you think they're going to let some one in who writes 'fruit picker' in the employment slot? I guess I'm leaning once again on mercy.

Honestly, I have no idea what the policy as a whole should look like. My main beef is the myopia of it all and the lack of seeing the interconnectedness of all the issues.

[lopezuna.livejournal.com]

I do find it a bit illogical that the same people who are all "Mexicans are taking jobs away from low-income American workers, no fair!" are the very same people who object to paying higher taxes so the very same low-income American workers can have access to health care. Do they not realize that by shutting out the Mexicans, they may not end up paying higher taxes, but they will certainly be paying higher prices for goods and services, which will hit their pocket in exactly the same way? And if it's about morals, and the Mexicans are immoral because they are "illegal," what's so very moral about allowing poor people to die because they don't have health insurance and can't afford to pay for health care?

As a (legal) immigrant, my view is that the US should allow immigration, but tax immigrants at a higher rate than US citizens. If you set the tax rate sufficiently high, you will internalize the negative externality on US citizens. Instead of Mexicans paying large sums to violent criminal gangs to get them over the border, they will be paying the US government for the privilege, which is a win-win. Though I will note that some immigrants provide not a negative externality, but a positive externality. For example, the US taxpayer did not have to pay a penny towards my (high quality, government subsidized) elementary, high school or college education, but it is able to capture some of the returns to that education through my taxes.

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

Leaving the health care debate aside...

I do agree with you on the immigration-tax bit. That is actually a good idea as you've illustrated.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I like the idea of an immigrant tax. Legal immigrants already pay income, property, sales taxes, and those things fund schools and such. Hell, if my mother had had an extra tax applied to her I am certain we would have gone hungry when I was a child.

I've been meaning to ask: what country are you from?

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

Illegal immigrants already pay some of those taxes too.

[lopezuna.livejournal.com]

You are right, that in many cases, immigrants may already be paying more on net to the US in taxes than the net cost they impose on US citizens. But low-skill immigration may still result in a transfer from the poor to the rich, because it drives down the wages of low-skill Americans and reduces prices for rich high-skill Americans. So given that the US is a country with a poor social safety net, it is logical for poor people to oppose low-skill immigration.

As regards actually implementing an immigration tax, clearly there would be tricky issues like what to do about non-economic migrants (like your mom). But the bottom line is, as long as the net benefit to immigrants of moving to the US is greater than the net cost they impose on US citizens, it is efficient to let them come, but to tax them and transfer that to US citizens so that nobody is worse off. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with morals or illegality. After all, there's a lot of stuff that is legal but immoral, and vice versa.

I'm from Ireland, by the way.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

You're Irish?! I did not see that coming! The Lopez and Spanish speaking threw me for a loop! Ha!

[amyura.livejournal.com]

As usual, right on the money.

If they really want to fix the problem they need to choke off the demand. Most people won't come here illegally if there's no work for them. The whole "jobs Americans won't do" guest-worker program was and is pure bullshit. Americans will do any job if they get paid an appropriate wage-- garbage collectors and custodians have some of the most disgusting jobs around, and they earn me, a salaried professional, under the table....because that's the salary you need to pay them to get someone to do the job.

The politicians won't go after the companies who employ undocumented workers, though, because those companies are the ones who donate the most or buy them off with promises of high-paying jobs once their political careers are over.

[autumnalmonk]

I really appreciate the insight that the illegal immigration problem in America is supported, and perhaps even created, by American's ongoing demand for low-cost goods.

This train of thought starts me off on a whole diatribe against our materialist culture and how it's entirely dependent on the often-violent and inhumane exploitation of the underclass and the poor around the world. You're well versed in that line of thinking so I'll spare you though. ;)

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

It's such a sticky issue, intertwined with so many variables! We are all complicit in the US if we eat - but we HAVE to eat! And most of us have little real control or influence over the larger food-forces-that-be. And it's not just food. I also understand that people do not make the treacherous and illegal journey for no good reason - there are clear benefits to the illegal. I really don't know how to untangle this mess but the whole debate seems short-sighted.

[readthisandweep.livejournal.com]

I have read this thread with a mixture of interest, amazement & down right bewilderment.

I have this to say: WOMEN DO NOT GET PREGNANT ON PURPOSE IF THEY DO NOT WANT A BABY.

My body, how it works & what I choose to do with it, under whatever circumstances is MY choice, MY right to decide & has nothing whatsoever to do with men.

I am vehemently opposed to patriarchal interference in the choices of women, in particular with regard to terminating an unwanted pregnancy. After a lifetime of activism I remain outraged that anyone would think male legislators should or could & do have this power over my body.

A law that tells me I have no choice is legislative rape.

[blessed-oak.livejournal.com]

Hope you don't mind me visiting. :) Some thoughts:

Illegal immigration:

This issue is part of the whole corporate greed system, where the only thing that matters to the powerful is money. If you want to have a real eye-opening 90 minutes or so, try to find Food, Inc. - a film about what's become of the US farm industry. At least some of our (awful) slaughterhouses exploit bused-in illegal labor as well.

I am moving toward vegetarianism and buying organic. The organic market is growing because there's a demand for it. Those of us who can afford to can increase that demand by committing to buying organic (and meat-free, if you will). Then the prices for sustainably grown food will fall.

It is a more effective strategy than trying to get laws passed.

Abortion:

It is a biological fact that embryos and fetuses are human (i.e. human dna and no other) and alive. I can see no dividing line between non-humanity and human personhood other than conception. Birth is somewhat arbitrary and does not fundamentally change what the organism is. Viability is continually changing with technology and impossible to define exactly.

And by the way, and embryo is just as much "already here" as a convicted murderer -- unless a vagina is actually a portal to an alternate dimension. (Hmmm...maybe...?)

These things seem totally self-evident to me.

BUT!

I have had respectful and thoughtful conversations among friends who agree and disagree. We shared our convictions and our stories. No one's mind was changed, but what I learned was that each one of us sincerely believed our positions and really cared about the issue.

There was no way to prove to the "other side" that your side is the right one. You are sure they are mistaken, just as they are sure you are mistaken. This tells me there is no way to know. The only conclusion I can come to is that the decision must be left to each individual's conscience, and not interfered with by outside parties.

By the way, I would never call abortion "murder." The word murder implies intent to take a human life unjustly. This doesn't apply to abortions.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

I don't mind at all! Thanks for coming by!

I have seen Food Inc. It's very disturbing. I've been reading/following/trying my best to engage in food politics for about a decade now. I think those of us who can afford to make more ethical choices should do so, but I don't believe that merely buying stuff will change the system. In fact, I want to think more about that and maybe write a longer post about purchasing as activism.

Your observations about conception are completely true, and drive home my thoughts on our understanding via science vs our understanding through lived experience. Birth is definitely not arbitrary and most certainly acts as a portal - an initiation, if you will.

[readthisandweep.livejournal.com]

*The only conclusion I can come to is that the decision must be left to each individual's conscience, and not interfered with by outside parties.

Quite. Regardless of our opinions, in this debate (termination) feelings naturally run high & it has to be down to our individual conscience & CHOICE.

(ps: Apologies N for my part in hi-jacking your post. By the time I came in it was something of a fait accompli...)

[pwilk.livejournal.com]

when I lived in Germany, I was asked for my papers randomly by a policewoman on the streets of Munich.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Well, hi there!!

Why were you stopped and how did it make you feel?

[pwilk.livejournal.com]

I was stopped for not looking like a german; perhaps she heard me talking in my terrible German. I can't say that I felt anything about it. Most Europeans are very very protective of their EU labor rights, and are pretty conservative of their border security. In Germany, you are obligated to produce your Personalausweis card when asked by the Police. In practice, all Germans carry this card with them. The US attitude is pretty liberal compared to the European model.

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

When I was europe - I had to produce my papers all the time.

Which is why I have found European outrage over the Arizona law down-right funny.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

In both Australia and the UK I have found that people have very strong opinions of US politics and that most people would fall on the liberal/Democrat side of things.

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

That's not a surprise. But I do enjoy when they get pissy about something going on over here, that they do over there (and usually more strict/worse/etc)

I've had Europeans rip into me about what shits we are in proposing abortion legislation, and when I look up their abortion laws, I find they are more restrictive than what is being proposed over here. Likewise with the ID/proof of citizenship stuff. Let me tell you, if you are not in their countries legally, they throw you in jail and then kick your ass out pronto. And if you are there illegally, you WILL get caught because their cops ask you for papers if you don't speak the language or do so with an accent.

[pwilk.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I ran into this. Europeans are pretty paranoid about people coming and mooching off their welfare, or coming and willing to work for less. Get them going about Polish plumbers and you can't shut them up.