future of abortion debate??? scifi stories offer clues

[bobbieinok]

implant anti conception chip; only when certain requirements are met is chip removed......+ who decides in these stories???? the govt, of course........once govt decides 'you' are not permitted to halt pregnancy, govt can also decide 'you' are not permitted to become pregnant

and as in China, only one child is permitted per person

many, many scifi stories have played with this.....one of the nastier twists: 'you' have met the requirements and now have 1+ children; then 'your' situation changes and 'you' no longer meet the requirements and child/children must be disposed of

or another nasty twist: 'you' have more children than allowed, but they must be kept hidden and then become the targets of organ harvestors......'you' cannot report the disappearance of the child/children b/c they 'do not exist'

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I go along with Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale" for a truly

credible prediction of the future. Google if you don't know the details.

[mhr]

3. The Christian Right Wing On Steroids - Described To A Tee!

With all hypocrisies included.

[cali]

6. Do you really?

I know the book well, and it's truly a scary cautionary tale, but I don't see it as a credible predictor of the future in this country. It's based on the premise that most women become infertile. That's just for starters.

Regarding your name: EM Forester once wrote, "Only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocricy." I've long thought that is a particularly wise statement.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Hi Cali! How're you doin'?

Regarding infertility, look at the changes made in air and water purity by this administration. If that doesn't kill us, it's going to neuter us or affect our essential systems one way or the other. I don't doubt it.

P.S. I like Forster too.

[Tesha]

8. Actually, it's probably the Commanders who are infertile.

> I know the book well, and it's truly a scary cautionary
> tale, but I don't see it as a credible predictor of the
> future in this country. It's based on the premise that
> most women become infertile.

I'm not sure you know the book as well as you think.
It's probably the Commanders who are infertile but
they blame it on their wives so that they can take
concubines (in the form of the handmaids). (This
is another example of the complete sexism of the
society in the Republic of Gilead.)

The ordinary (non-commander class) couples in the
book don't seem to have too much trouble conceiving.

Tesha

[cali]

13. Well, I haven't read it in a decade or so

but I have read it twice. I'm afraid people are missing my point, or perhaps I didn't make it well. That's actually more likely. I'm not a fan of unrealistic projection. And sorry, this falls far into that realm. I'm much more a be here now type. That doesn't mean ignoring threats, it does mean dealing with the most likely ones. So I don't spend a moment worrying about apocalyptic scenarios, or even SD or MS banning all abortions. I'm far, far more concerned about the Federal law banning so called PBA that's about to be heard by the SC. Why? Because it's another Casey. If upheld, it will open the door to restrictions that will impact detrimentally on a woman's ability to access abortion services. It's a real threat, not a distant, cartoon bogeyman.

[mtnester]

10. The most frightening part of the book for me

is in the beginning...it is not about red dresses or underground whorehouses or an underground handmaid's railroad...

Margaret Atwood's book could become reality in a heartbeat if women in a single swoop were denied access to their funds...THAT was the beginning and it was horrifically swift. If you think about it, just as in the book we would immediately become totally dependent, which is the point of most of the book anyway..

THAT is the part of the book that I believe is the cautionary part of it, not the sterility of the population, but the absolute ability of a single small group of people to turn another group of people into subservient beings with literally the flick of a switch.

Of course there is more depth to the book than that, however, that particular part nearly paralyzes me with fear even thinking about it...which kind of reiterates my point about fear being able to make a group dependent and subservient (sound familiar? No? Terra Terra Terra)

Do I have secret money I can lay my hands on without going through some kind of electronic checkpoint (debit card, ATM, bank, credit card, etc.)...you betcha! Am I armed? Uh huh.

Hope I made sense :)

[lukasahero]

15. Similar reaction here

But the part that frightened me most, and seemed most plausible wasn't the immediate revocation of independence via funds, it was the reaction of those not affected by it and the lack of understanding. When our heroine has lost access to her money, she is told not to worry about it by her husband because he could still access it for her. Way to miss the point, dude.

I made the mistake of reading it for the first time just after reading "It Can't Happen Here" for the first time. I think I traumatized myself. :)

[mtnester]

16. Right, the "I will take care of you don't worry I love you"

syndrome.

I was struck by that too...that they did not flee immediately...like the frozen rabbit in the wide open syndrome. However, it was sort of insinuated, that her hubby may have been a "political" or something like that...I have always puzzled over his character. It seems that his decision (note I said HIS decision) to finally flee (too late) was more a result of his fears for himself than for her our his daughter. Maybe I am reading into that. Also, it really left you hanging as to whether he actually was killed outright or ever, or not.

God, I wish Ms. Atwood would have let us know more about Offred after she got into that van.

Traumatize is a mild word! :)

[lukasahero]

17. Yeah, I was left wanting to know more

like - so how did she/they change things and destroy Gilead!?!? ;)

Re: the husband, I think it was supposed to be indicative of the common case of the frog in the pot. Slowly bring the water to a boil and it won't even notice it's being burned. Chip away at others' rights and you won't even notice when they're your rights too.

[mtnester]

18. Nail meet head

you are dead on...my rights are your rights are their rights....so TRUE

Speaking of the slow boil...does it scare you to see the similarities actually having in many way? The "not knowing we are being cooked" as we speak?

[lukasahero]

20. Ayup. Keeps me up at night actually.

I take hope in the fact that there are so many people who are trying to be heard but I am scared to death of the much larger numbers of the ignorant and apathetic. Toss on top of that the lengths the criminals in charge will go to to get their way and keep their power, and I am having a very hard time keeping hope alive these days.

My husband keeps telling me it's just like Watergate - drip drip drip - and all I can think is "You really don't get it this time - there's no one there to blow the story - you're waiting for someone else to fight the fight." I think a lot of people keep waiting for someone else to start the fight.

[Ian David]

2. Sci-fi may offer a "loophole" to the abortion debate...

mandate that a tissue sample from all "aborted" fetuses must by cryogenically frozen. That way, perhaps someday, the fetus may be "resurrected," thus it wouldn't really be an abortion after all-- more like a lay-away plan for the unborn.

[Tesha]

11. See Sheri S. Tepper's "The Visitor" for exactly this sort of concept.

> Sci-fi may offer a "loophole" to the abortion debate...
> mandate that a tissue sample from all "aborted" fetuses
> must by cryogenically frozen.

See Sheri S. Tepper's "The Visitor" for exactly this sort
of concept. In the novel, when people are close to death,
a small bit of them is "bottled" (preserved alive as a
tissue sample). In this way, they never die and could,
in theory, be "resurrected". By comparison, bad people
are allowed to die "unbottled" so in this dogma, they
are really and truly dead forever.

Yet another example of religious dogma "gone 'round
the bend".

Tesha

[KyuzoGator]

4. Battlestar Galactica is currently handling abortion in their election.

Interesting take on it, the president reluctantly banned abortion because she wants the human race to repopulate...and the guy who convinced her to do it immediately took the opportunity to run against her on the platform that she's taking away freedoms.

[tocqueville]

5. this is not sci-fi, implants are already common in France

Julia a 20 years old girl I know, student/sound engineer in being just got one. They are cheaper than the pill and have the latest stuff. Last two years.

She can have it retired whenever she wants. WTF has the government to do with it ?

And France has the highest birth rate in Europe. But women decide IF and WHEN they want a kid.



http://www.gynob.emory.edu/familyplanning/norplant.cfm

google "contraceptive implants" and you'll see

[rman]

9. aside from implants also in use are long term anti conception injections

in particular in 3rd world nations

[Tesha]

12. "Depo Provera". (NT)

[bobbieinok]

21. in some scifi stories, everyone MUST have implant...only by

passing a govt test are 'you' permitted to have it withdrawn

IOW, the govt doesn't NECESSARILY have anything to do with it......but given certain conditions, it COULD.......for example, what if there is a theocracy govt in US: it could then remove implants from only 'approved' people; have you noticed BTW how many children religious right couples are having these days???? 'win the future with numbers', b/c how many feminist woman are having 4+ children today??

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Or..... the embryos are impanted into cows for maturation. Save the babies

and stop the stretchmarks all at once. X(

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. China is a great example to use in the "debate"

and it's been effectively more me in face to face 'discussions'. Those who are emotionally-hyped up about it will take pause to really think once they're moved from 'murdering innocent babies' to WHO controls the decision.

I don't try to change their mind or discuss their opinion that "abortion is murder". But I ask them to look into the future. Think about IF 'the government' changed its mind. When they tell me that can't happen, I ask them to look at history. Have there been times when the party or elected officials have changed things based on the state's interest? (No need to cite examples; they come up with their own.) When they acknowledge this I'll ask, "Then what is there to stop the Government from changing it's mind and forcing abortions based on the state's interest like in China?"

[bobbieinok]

22. kick for a new group of possible readers