laceblade | BSG, 2.17

Current Mood: sick

Entry tags:

tv: battlestar galactica

BSG, 2.17

So, firstly, I should say that I have been ridiculously sick the last couple of days, and I believe that I still am. So if there are a lot of logic gaps (or, at least, more than usual??), we can all attribute it to that.

So, episode 2.17, "The Captain's Hand." I liked this episode a lot. I really do want to see Lee and Kara pursue a romantic relationship, but for now, I'm really happy that their friendship can still be so strong. Despite each of them harboring feelings for other people that they never really discuss together, going through craploads of psychological trauma, and even getting "hot and heavy" with each other - they still have a friendship that looks a lot like the one they had in the mini-series. It's nice that in this series, there is at least one relationship (at least in one aspect) that we never have to question - at least, not for very long. I <3 the hand-sex! Watch how Bamber holds EJO's hand....and then look at how he holds Kara's. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

I also love Jamie Bamber's ability to emote with his face, particularly in the scene where he brings up Kara's shooting him in the chest.

A lot of people have made the point that it seems like while Dualla really cares about Lee, he doesn't seem to feel nearly as intensely about her. It's like he needs to be in a relationship right now, and Kara is obviously off-limits, at least for a while.

Anyway, what I really wanted to write about was the issue of abortion. I seem to be in the severe minority in the Battlestar Galactica community in that I happen to be pro-life. I should mention that one of my majors happens to be Political Science. I would never vote based solely on one issue, and, indeed, I often identify more with candidates who happen to be pro-choice. (So do not jump down my throat unless you want to throw down, ;D) I do not see any provision for a "right to privacy" in the Bill of Rights, and even if there was, I don't think that this would make murder okay. I believe life begins at conception. Once you start splitting hairs on when an unborn child "becomes a person" (When the baby can open its eyes? When its heart starts beating? When it reaches a certain month/week), how do you know where to stop?
I should also note that I am less adamant when it comes to stem-cell research - I mean, I am all for curing disease and I know that there are ways to use stem-cells without having to kill unborn children.

Anyway....I found it really odd that it was so cut-and-dry that pre-Cylons, the Colonies just accepted abortion as okay (with the exception of the colony of....whatever starts with P - the Pisces one? Why would this have not been an issue before now?). I love Doctor Cottle, so I was really sad to find out that he was so flippant about giving abortions to all of the women who came to the Galactica.
Speaking of Doc Cottle, did anyone else find it really strange that when Sharon was (almost?) raped, he said that there was no excuse for what they did to her. Yet, when Adama was about to forcibly abort her child, we can only assume that Doc Cottle would have done it. If abortion is a "choice" (and here, we must assume that Cottle is most definitely pro-choice), then how could he do this in good conscious?

As for banning abortion in the fleet, my response is....: DUH! They have less than 50,000 people left and Baltar's estimate gives them 18 years.
Why the hell didn't Roslin say this when he announced his candidacy? It would make him look like a moron. That said, I did think Gaius's back-stabbing was pretty brilliant. I've miss him lately; I hope he gets more screen time.

Anyway, I feel like I should have more to say about the ep instead of abortion, but....yeah. And also, I'm not sure how many comments this will generate (considering I seem to be the only opposer?) but please direct your anger at the issue, and not at me. I have been civil, but when I get inflamed....well, yeah.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I was intrigued by you saying you had an unpopular opinion (I'm always curious about people that swim against the tide!), and I found your post interesting.

First of all, I completely agree about Lee/Kara, and just need to slip that in there, because they are so wonderful and I could squee over them forever. Hand sex! Yes! The intensity of the sparks between them never fails to astound me.

Re. the issue of abortion, good on you for putting your point of view! My own feelings on this issue are very mixed. On one level, I don't think the state should have control of women's bodies and would oppose an absolute ban on abortion (eg for rape victims), but I also respond really emotionally to the matter of when life begins. I think I do believe it begins with conception: as you say, the lines get very blurry or fuzzy after that.

That aside, I think I do understand why abortion was legal before now. They've shown us that there is gender equality in the Colonies, and to have true equality, then women need to be able to decide for themselves what they do with their bodies. Accidents happen (and I mean *genuine* accidents), rape happens, and if women could not abort, then they would be disadvantaged in comparison to men in the workforce. It reflects what we see in our own human society: those societies with greatest equality between the sexes have pro-choice laws. To be honest, I was surprised there was any colony where this was NOT the case. It was an interesting twist to me, but suggested that the more religious colonies had less gender equality, and I'm not completely comfortable with that idea.

In the matter of banning abortion in the fleet--yup, they totally need to do that. It was humane of Roslin to allow the girl who had already sought an abortion to have one. But now that everyone understands the laws (and hopefully the reasons for them), it needs to be banned. (Possibly an unpopular opinion!)

I haven't read the other posts about this, but what about soldiers who might get pregnant? Would they then have to go out of service because they aren't allowed to have an abortion?

It's an excellent question, and there's no doubt that it's not going to be easy or necessarily 'fair' on everyone. Although it would be rare that they couldn't avoid that by using good birth control (assuming that there isn't a problem with access to supplies of course!) But the survival of the human race is at stake: these are extreme circumstances. Another option, possibly, would be to have each case for abortion put before a jury. I only just thought of that, but perhaps that would have been a more democratic way to handle things? (Although rife with it's own problems.) I also think that more should be done to encourage birth/reproduction, not just ban terminations. They really need to be doing more.

The thing is, like I've read in other threads (after posting this question), is that while the survival of the human race is at stake, currently they are not capable of handling a population boom. Assuming it would boom because that many abortions are being done (not sure about that, though). They barely have enough supplies for the people that are alive!

My roommate in college once brought home 3 female pet mice, all three were pregnant (of course) and had babies. They weren't living in a big enough cage for 20+ mice, so when the babies were born the adult females started eating some of the babies! Why was that? Because in order to save more lives, they had to cut out drains on the food supply. They left alive enough mice that would survive in the space/food supply that they had. (This all happened at night, we woke up and saw them finishing some of the babies off .. it was sad and gross)

So, which is better: population boom full of hungry kids, or smaller population but greater chance of survival?

A jury for each abortion would be okay, for a few reasons: 1, so that there is the possibility for a girl to be able to present her case, and 2, to give the civilians something to do to feel in control of their survival. But then it would be difficult because you are regulated by time - if the fetus is too far along to safely abort, etc. I mean, you could get pregnant, want an abortion, and wait for a trial for 4 or 5 months! By that time it is more dangerous to have an abortion.

...I'm not a doctor so if I'm wrong that's fine. :)

How many of the 50,000 people are actually capable of having children? I don't know. It's not like they're mandating them to have babies, either....just preventing from losing the ones that happen to be created.

To me, a trial by jury would be extremely disturbing.

And wasn't the girl in this ep 4 months pregnant when she came to Galactica?

she was, and we still have no idea why she was seeking abortion. blah.

Yeah, I think they would have to. Problem being they need every person they can get ahold of... but I think they'd get kicked out of service even so.

Scary.

I really hope they have good birth control for soldiers.

then women need to be able to decide for themselves what they do with their bodies.

Emmm. Jumping in here (and mystickeeper, if you don't want me too, say) this statement seems close to what Roslin said.

But to me, to my ears, there is a difference between "controls what they do with their bodies" and "legally allowed to kill their babies".

When a woman decides who she's having sex with, and when, and (imo) if she's using birth control (which reduces the *rate* of pregnacy, not *prevents* pregnancy) then she's controlling her body. When she decides to abort, then she's going beyond just "her body". In addition to the life of the child, there are also the rights of the father to be taken into account.

(No, a fetus is not equal to a baby. But it's not equal to a tumor or an earlobe, either.)

It was an interesting twist to me, but suggested that the more religious colonies had less gender equality

From what I saw, the Gemionese (sp?) have more women in authority than the other colonies. So I don't think canon supports that.

Finally, I'm pretty opposed to Roslin making a decision like that unilaterally. The evidence needed to be put before "the people" so that everyone knew the risks. Also? They need to start making plans for raising (and teaching!) the kids, and for foster/adoptive parents. Not just military members, but also the civilian ship's crews need help raising the kids. All of that should have been touched on by Roslin, and it was, imo, bad planning on her part to do so.

It's possible that she was so upset by the implications of the results of the policies that she had been supporting all her life that she wasn't thinking straight.

- hg

It's possible that she was so upset by the implications of the results of the policies that she had been supporting all her life that she wasn't thinking straight.

Really? I mean, this is a character on a TV show we're talking about, so really we're only able to go with what we're given on screen by the writers, and infer motivations from their prior or stated actions. But honestly, it seems as though she's just adapting to a new situation. Although I do agree with you that it does seem odd that a show which has presented the fleet as a living, democratic society should embrace so thoroughly the power of the "unitary executive." Are the Quorum of Twelve simply an advisory council?

On the issue of the Geminese, while the delegate was a woman, that in no way implies that there's a greater proportion of female leaders in that colony than in any other. I mean, Texas may have a female Senator, but it's still run by men. And although the epiosde doesn't do anything to suggest that there is *less* gender equality in the Geminon colony, the fact that the young girl was still "property" of her parents, and the strict social opposition of abortion, would lead me to believe that perhaps they were not as committed to the liberal principles of the federal government (under the President) as the other colonies.

I agree with

archaica below, and had similarly mixed feelings about the issue. It certainly is a divisive one, and one I could personally be swayed either way on, as I think both camps have strong arguments.

I should have clarified that yes, I do think Roslin should have put it before 'the people'. I was separating the manner in which she made the decision (bad in my eyes) from the decision itself (not pleasant but necessary and rational, imo).

As I wrote above, I don't think banning terminations is in itself enough. It could be a terrible mistake to do that without also opening dialogue with the people and arguing a case for reproduction: survival of the race. Surely people want the race to survive? Perhaps not. But that's what it comes down to and in emergency scenarios there are strong cases for laws that (temporarily) restrict the rights of individuals. Roslin went about this the wrong way, and with an air of desperation, but it's believable that these issues would come up, and as usual BSG shows us how individuals mishandle big moments.

I have to agree with

leadensky on this one. I am all for equality, but I think that it's well beyond a woman's own body when she decides to have an abortion. That's a decision that involves a minimum of two bodies.

In a bioethics class I took, we talked about whether, in cases of abortion rights, the legal (not moral) justification boils down to whether the state has the interest to step in and defend the rights of the fetus against the wishes of the mother. That in turn depends on what is essentially not a medical or factual decision, but basically something immaterial - whether you decide to assign a 10-day-old cluster of cells, a potential human, the same legal rights as a child one day from birth (which, under the trimester framework, even Roe v. Wade doesn't do), which is what laws banning abortions entirely would do. That 10-day-old cluster of cells is a *potential* human being (which is why I personally don't favor abortions, but as a practical matter feel they should be safe, rare, and legal), but to give what amounts to an unviable parasite the same rights as a person who could survive after the point of viability seems wrong to me, when those rights would completely obliterate the interests of the mother in the eyes of the state.

Honestly I hope no one gives you grief for expressing an opinion. That's just stupid.

As far as abortion goes, I'm pro-choice. And yet, I found myself on both sides of the fence on this episode. On the one hand, I understood Roslin's decision, and probably would have supported it. With 50,000 humans left, some rights will have to be given up in the name of sheer human survival. And yet on the other hand, I can't help but agree a little bit with Baltar that giving up their rights in the name of pragmatism (agree with those rights or not) does diminish their society a little bit. While I think the argument might resonate more with the audience had the issue not been framed around a topic quite so divisive as abortion, I think it's a point that deserves consideration even outside of *which* right they're giving up.

Honestly I hope no one gives you grief for expressing an opinion. That's just stupid. Me too! I clearly underestimated the BSG community - you guys are cool. I guess it's just because I go to an extremely liberal college where expressing pro-life ideas (or various others) is not a good plan unless you're looking for an argument.

I can kind of see Baltar's point, yet at the same time, I think to myself You don't have *any* rights if you're all dead... and in the case of the characters in BSG, they are all extremely close to death!

I kind of feel the same way about the FBI having access to library records/etc. It's such a ridiculous "liberty" that it seems absurd to be passionately opposed to it if it does, in fact, help the government find terrorists.

Then again, we disagree to begin with because I don't view the "right" to abortion as a liberty.

Well, which is why I kinda sidestepped the whole issue by framing the discussion around giving up "rights," whether or not that "right" is abortion or whether you agree it should be a "right." (Tricksy, ain't I? :) ) Again it seems we disagree on one's right to be secure in one's personal information, at least when the government frames it in a pragmatic manner intended to fight terrorism. And yet, as I previously stated, I can understand the pragmatic argument for criminalizing abortion in the fleet.

Honestly, abortion is such an emotional issue (or, at least it's become that due to the intentional polarization of our politics) that it's incredibly difficult to have a rational discussion about it. Not everyone has the tools to have a mature discussion about it, conservative or liberal. Which is not to imply that you're fundamentally irrational and therefore I can't have a discussion with you about it, just that, well, you're going to find people everywhere who are raving loons about it, whether they agree with you or not.

Anyone else find it kind of hypocritical that Roslin let that girl have an abortion and THEN outlaw abortions for everyone? If every. single. life. is so precious, then she shouldn't have been allowed to have it, no matter what her parents would do to her for being pregnant. It almost seemed like Roslin did it in some part to spite the Geminion chick.

Anyway, this part disturbed the hell out of me, as someone who does NOT want to have her own children. I can't help but think if I was one of the fleet I'd be screwed. Plus I'd suddenly have to vote for Baltar as the pro-choice president, no matter how much of a (well, insert many adjectives here) he is.

I can't help but think they'll probably outlaw birth control for non-soldiers or something next, or at the latest if/when they colonize a planet. Forced pregnancies, no matter how you feel about it. Eeeeek.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

BSG, 2.17

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Interpetations

Re: Interpetations

Re: Interpetations

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject