Atheist And Abortion?

[twincats]

If it's just an inconvenience for her for 9 months

 

Do you seriously believe pregnancy is nothing more than an inconvenience? More women die from complications of pregnancy than do from complications of abortion. Pregnancy is a risky medical condition. It permanently alters a woman's body. And if we're talking about convenience, why should the potential adoptive parents have the convenience of getting a baby that was made by someone else? Why shouldn't they undergo the risk of making their own, or just go childless if they cannot? What entitles infertile couples to have a child that trumps someone else's desire not to carry a pregnancy to term? Also, have you considered the impact on an adopted child of knowing their birth mother/parents gave them up?

 

What reason would you have for telling a woman that she should undergo nine months of stressful physical changes and accept an elevated risk of death just so some other people can have a child?

 

ETA: FWIW, if I sound harsh, it's b/c I also once thought "just adopt" was a sensible solution. But the more I thought, and the more I actually learned about pregnancy (Catholic school sex ed is not very specific in this regard), the more I disagreed with it being "just" an inconvenience.

 

I love you for this!

 

That is all.

[gradstu09]

for gwenmead

 

Thanks, twincats.

[Pecker]

Thanks all,

 

I sent gwenmead a PM stating that I'm trying to figure all of this out. I don't want to outlaw abortion, but I do think its a disappointing occurrence.

 

I'd like to see the procedure minimized as much as possible, but not outlawed.

 

As i wrote to gwenmead, maybe getting religion out of the bedroom and classroom (in sex ed) would make it easier for many to be more informed and responsible, resulting in fewer unplanned pregnancies.

[Susanetal]

Gwenmead,

 

Awesome post. It was very clear, concise and well written!

 

Pecker,

 

I have struggled with the issue of abortion all my life. I was raised in an extremely conservative Christian home, and was taught that abortion for ANY reason was wrong. So when I was gang raped and impregnated at 14 (by young men from my upper middle class church), what could I do? I saw no other option - I had a secret abortion. I did not tell anyone for many, many years. If I had not had that abortion, I have no doubt that I would have killed myself. I do not say that lightly - I suffered from tremendous shame about the rape and was convinced it was solely my fault. If there had been parental notification laws in place at the time I had my abortion, I would have had to tell someone what happened and I don't think I could have faced that. My mother had always told me that once a girl lost her virginity, no other man would ever want her. Therefore, I saw myself as totally worthless and irreconcilably damaged at the age of 14. Even now, I struggle with low self-esteem and suicidal tendencies. I am now almost 38, so this has taken a huge toll on my life.

 

I also have a cousin who got pregnant when she was 15. She was involved in a consensual sexual relationship with a young man. Her parents and the boys' parents decided they should get married, so they did. He beat the living hell out of her and almost killed her. My cousin had 3 children with that man, and has been married to 2 more men and had 3 more kids since then. All three of her oldest kids either got pregnant or got someone pregnant in high school and dropped out. None of those kids has any relationship with their sorry excuse for a father. Their step dads treated them with cruelty and neglect. My cousin never graduated from high school and has worked at minimum wage jobs all her adult life. I would never say that she "should" have had an abortion when she first got pregnant, because I think that should have been her decision. At the same time, I don't think her parents had any right to force her to get married at 15 and bring children into the world who she could barely care for.

 

So... for what they're worth, here are my thoughts on the issue of abortion:

 

1. I read a book once that contained the following statement that I think is so true: A woman doesn't want to have an abortion like she wants to have a doughnut or ice cream. She chooses abortion the way a trapped animal will choose to chew off its' leg to escape to freedom.

 

2. If life begins at conception, what happens when the cells split into two (or more), creating multiple fetuses? Where do the other souls come from? In the same vein, what happens if the two cells merge into one (which does happen at times)? Where does the second soul go?

 

3. Abortion is an extremely personal issue. I don't think it's my place to tell someone that she should carry a pregnancy to term... I don't know how she is going to care for a child. Motherhood is a lot of work! Anyone who is not a mother may not realize just how much is required. I know I didn't before I had kids. At the same time, if someone wants to have her child, I think as a society we need to help that young woman and do whatever we can to help her give her child a bright future.

 

I have had a 180 degree shift in beliefs... I now think that abortion should be legal, and I don't believe in forced parental notification before a minor has an abortion. I wholeheartedly agree with others who have said that more focus should be given to contraception. But I believe that abortion should still be an option, for any reason, at any time during a pregnancy.

 

As an aside, I always believed that the pro-life view of abortion was the most compassionate way of looking at the issue. I mean, who would ever consider a "baby-killer" to be a compassionate person? But you know what? The day I had my abortion was the worst day of my life. I was totally alone, except for a nurse at the abortion clinic. Even now, writing about this, I am overwhelmed with tears. She showed me so much compassion and kindness that day. She really gave a damn about me when I didn't believe that my life had any worth at all. She asked me how old I was, and if my parents knew what was going on. She didn't pry and ask why I was pregnant at 14. She gently encouraged me to talk to my mother. She was totally non-judgmental and showed phenomenal kindness to a scared, emotionally crushed young teenager. I will never forget her. I have often wished that I could find her and tell her I am ok, and thank her for the kindness she showed me. I don't know if I will ever be able to do that, but I now have a huge appreciation and respect for people who work in abortion clinics. I used to think they were either there for the money or they were there because they could not find jobs in "real" hospitals or clinics. I now know this is not true at all. I believe most of them are there because they genuinely care about women. I, for one, am so grateful that they are willing to deal with the constant picketing, the bomb threats, and the stigma. I think they are doing a very important service that really makes a difference in our world.

[gradstu09]

Take a look at the stats (again at Guttmacher) for worldwide abortion rates. The countries with the lowest rates are the ones with comprehensive sex ed and readily available birth control. That is, if you teach teens how to be safe and provide the proper tools, they will use them responsibly. If you tell them nothing or give them bad information, they will still have sex, but not safely. Making it easier to avoid getting prgenant in the first place is the number one thing we can do to lower the abortion rate.

[dance]

I hear you.

 

It is extremely unfortunate that American politics (way back to the 19th century) have cast political discourse on abortion into 'pro-life' vs. 'pro-choice.' Personally, I refuse to identify myself with either. I do, however, believe that abortion is always a bad thing, always wrong, albeit the lesser of two weevils in certain circumstances. i.e. not because madame wishes to visit Europe in the spring and being pregnant would be oh so inconvenient *to her travel plans*...

 

This is what I think. It isn't based on God. This is an excerpt from something I wrote maybe a year ago, and though I know the writing is flawed, I believe it's coherent. Coherent enough, anyway...

 

Virtue ethics offers arguments for the moral significance of prenatal life that are based on more than just physiology. Whereas the abortion ethics outlined above generally hone in on how the physiological aspects of fetal life affect its moral significance, Rosalind Hursthouse’s virtue ethics focuses on the moral aspects of others involved in an abortion. She argues that the morality of actions is determined by whether one has the proper attitude to and understanding of the relevant situation.

 

In her article “Virtue Theory and Abortion,” Hursthouse outlines the basic tenets of virtue theory. Noting the suspicious absence of young moral geniuses, she draws a connection between life experience and moral wisdom. Moral dilemmas, she argues, cannot be solved by some “clever adolescent” and his or her book of moral guidelines, for moral problems don’t resemble arithmetic. The factors and rules required for the proper solution to a moral problem are not directly accessible through books; instead, they’re acquired through life experience, for only experience will reveal the full breadth of real-life conditions and considerations that structure moral issues. With moral wisdom comes an understanding of “eudaimonia,” roughly translated as “human flourishing,” the Aristotelian concept of the worthwhile. Virtue theory also provides an understanding of the vices and virtues, evaluative vocabulary used to articulate and understand moral aspects of life. Thus the morally wise, more fully acquainted with life and its worthwhile pursuits, are in the best position to pass moral judgment.

 

Hursthouse observes that pregnancy and childbearing are worthwhile ends, and thus an abortion is always “a bad thing,” much like a death is always “a bad thing.” Yet, like death, abortion, although always a wrong in one sense, may in some cases be the right decision. Those with more experience with pregnancy and childbearing ought to possess the moral wisdom required to make the appropriate discernments. Hursthouse observes the difference in moral consciousness between women with different degrees of childbearing experience, noting that while the life in first-time pregnancy may seem to the mother somewhat obscure in its early stages, mothers are more conscious of the life growing inside them after their first pregnancy. Additionally, mothers with full-grown children attach much more significance to counterfactual arguments like, “if Smith was aborted, he wouldn’t be here as my son,” than other women. One’s judgment on the general nature of abortion is proportionate to the amount of experience one has with pregnancy and with life overall.

[.god]

gwenmead brings up several excellent points I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

shit happens and condoms fail. They can break and they can slip off. It eventually will happen to everyone if they use them often enough. They have a very high reliability rate (89%) but it is not 100%.

 

Foam, cups and other forms of contraceptives have an even higher rate of failure, but some people choose to use them because of the difference degrees of sexual pleasure compared to condoms.

 

Birth control pills can really wreak havoc on a woman's hormonal system - you're essentially taking estrogen and progestin supplements. You either take 1 or 2 pills every day of they year, and you must take them at the same time every day. That's 730 pills a year where you have to be on the dot, no matter what you are doing, you must remember at the same time to take those pills. I don't even think I know anyone who manages to brush their teeth at the same time as every day all year without missing a beat.

 

Even if you do not miss a pill, there is a 1-2 in 100 chance that you will become pregnant.

Side effects of birth control pills include headache, nausea, vomiting, mood swings, weight gain/loss, vaginal bleeding, dizziness, loss of sex drive. Risks include blood clotting, severe pain and/or cramps. Pills also shouldn't be combined with other medication or medical conditions. Smoking and pills can lead to heart attack.

 

If you do miss a pill for one day, you have to play catch up and for 7 days or more you are at a higher risk for pregnancy.

Some women take pills to help deal with skin and acne problems, others with irregular cycles use them to regulate their periods.

I would say the biggest side effect noticed by most people taking pills is loss of sex drive - rather defeats the original purpose of the pill for most people doesn't it?

 

They are currently developing a hormonal based BC pill for men right now that is going thru testing. Would you take it given all the side effects and possible risks on your health? And if you miss one day or take a pill at the wrong hour, you run the risk of getting a girl pregnant anyway? Is the benefit worth the risk in your opinion? Is it so "easy" to take a pill?

 

 

Condoms may be easy to get, especially this day in age with the internet. But I encourage you to stop by your local supermarket, pick up a pack of color Trojans and a pregnancy test, and get behind the little old lady in the 15 item or less check out line. Sure it's no excuse not to use contraception, but there's a reason why many high schools will distribute condoms for free. I would imagine in a small conservative town most sexually active youngsters, even college students may feel the social pressures of an originally puritan society.

 

And that's not to mention what gwenmead already said about when it actually comes to condom usage in the moment.

 

Abortion is an inevitability in this world, and how you only assume a "lack of personal responsibility" from a pregnancy is somewhat naive.

Someone can employ all the contraceptives available to modern society today and yet still become pregnant. The only sure way to prevent pregnancy is to completely abstain from any sexual activity barring masturbation, or get your tubes tied. Both fairly drastic measures and unlikely scenarios.

 

 

For m ore about contraceptive options, here's an fda website from 2003:

http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html

 

which one would you pick?

[Legion]

I'd like to see the procedure minimized as much as possible, but not outlawed.

This is pretty much my take on the thing too Pecker. (lol I said "Pecker") I think it should be legal but I think it should also have some social stigma attached to it. And I think that's kind of where we are right now.

 

legal? yes

celebrated? no

[Pecker]

I'd like to see the procedure minimized as much as possible, but not outlawed.

This is pretty much my take on the thing too Pecker. (lol I said "Pecker") I think it should be legal but I think it should also have some social stigma attached to it. And I think that's kind of where we are right now.

 

legal? yes

celebrated? no

 

 

Thanks all for understanding. I'm going to have to get used to arguing a controversial topic without hearing reasons such as "The Bible says so..."

 

It's refreshing!

 

[gradstu09]

Those with more experience with pregnancy and childbearing ought to possess the moral wisdom required to make the appropriate discernments.

 

So one's ability to know whether they want a child is developed by having a child they don't want? Where does the child come into this?

[Outback Jack]

Hi Pecker, and welcome.

 

To get back to your OP,

Are there any atheists opposed to abortion? If so, how do you validate your argument other than using a religious cop out?

I've never been religious but I've been *mostly* against abortion since I got out of puberty, learned to control myself, and thought about the topic for a while.

 

For me, the main argument against abortion is based on common biology and morality. Sex leads to babies. Babies are humans and should not be murdered. Therefore, I'm against abortion in general. I'm willing to make the usual exceptions for rape, incest, physical health of the mother, ect.

 

The trouble of this topic is exactly where we draw the line between a clump of cells and a real live human baby. I don't think that you have a viable human at conception but neither do I think you have an un-viable tissue mass at 8 months. My own opinion is that when you've got something with legs, arms, a brain, and functioning nervous system you just might have yourself a baby. I'm open to argument on this, though! However, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution when we're talking about killing (possible) kids.

 

I really like Han's proposal,

And like you said, the lines are arbitrary and difficult to draw, but my opinion is: 1st trimester: womans choice; 2nd trimester: has to be approved by physician; 3rd trimester: adoption is the option, and only allow abortion if serious medical conditions.

I'd probably be a bit more strict, but as I said, this is a very gray topic.

[gradstu09]

the morality of actions is determined by whether one has the proper attitude to and understanding of the relevant situation.

 

Who or what determines the universal "virtue" to which everyone must attune their attitude and strive towards understanding?

[ShackledNoMore]

This right here is EXACTLY why there is nothing "immoral" about abortion, and why it needs to be an option. I think this was a moving and powerful illustration.

 

My own personal anecdote pales in comparison, but I think it is nearly as illustrative. Everything went wrong with my wife's pregnancy with my son. The obstetrician strongly suspected that he had either trisomy 18, trisomy 13, or if we were very lucky, only Down's Syndrome. An amniocentesis ruled out those diagnoses, but there were still other serious problems and the risks of a bad outcome were still high. You better believe we very seriously, agonizingly weighed the risks, and the pros and cons. We were right on the cusp as far as the decision to abort or not. Had the amniocentesis indicated one of the very serious conditions the doctor suspected he had, we would have aborted without hesitation rather than condemn him to a life expectancy of less than a year, and a short life of agony, ill health and mental retardation if he survived longer. I believe it would have been immoral for us NOT to have an abortion, had the evidence tilted just a little further than it did toward a poor prognosis.

 

The thing is, the issue of abortion is not at all black and white. In my opinion, it doesn't have to be a situation like Susan's or even like ours. If the mother is considering an abortion, there's a reason. I have to question what kind of a service we do for a child to bring it into the world unwanted, perhaps with a parent or parents unwilling or unable to give the child the care, nurturing and love s/he needs, in some cases bringing the child into abusive homes. Sure abortion is a tragic option for birth control, but in my opinion it's an option that needs to be available.

[upstarter]

My question is, what if it is immoral? Do we have a right to judge anyone else's moral choices? I don't think so.

 

I would call myself absolutely pro-choice and very much anti-abortion. I believe that abortion is the only option for some circumstances. Do I believe it is the same as ending any other human life... yep. But other people's moral choices are none of my business. I will fight to the end of my life so that women continue to have the right to make this choice.

 

Heather

[Susanetal]

ShackledNoMore,

 

Thank you very much for sharing your story. I can't imagine how difficult that situation must have been! I assume you and your wife decided to carry the pregnancy to term? Can I ask how your son is doing today?

 

I know of a woman who had an abortion in her second trimester because of severe fetal defects. The baby's bones were very brittle and would fracture even when they had an ultrasound. The birth process would have likely killed it, or it would have died shortly after it was born. I know it was an excrutiatingly difficult decision for her to end the pregnancy. I don't know how anyone can look down on someone in that type of situation.

 

You also said:

 

"If the mother is considering an abortion, there's a reason. I have to question what kind of a service we do for a child to bring it into the world unwanted, perhaps with a parent or parents unwilling or unable to give the child the care, nurturing and love s/he needs, in some cases bringing the child into abusive homes."

 

I agree with you, and I also wonder how compassionate it is for humanity to bring millions of children into the world to die of starvation within a few years of birth. (40,000 people die of starvation EVERY DAY in our world; most of them children) I believe that we need to help these people as much as we can, but I also think that advocating the use of birth control and allowing for legalized abortion would help to alleviate this suffering.

[godlessgrrl]

Heh! Thanks for compliments guys, I'm glad what I said was clear & made sense. And I did indeed get a nice PM from Pecker on the topic. It's no bad thing to think about it and revisit the issue from time to time, methinks.

 

One of the things I always find myself thinking about is gender-related issues. Not just with abortion, but with sexuality and family planning in general. I mean in some ways it makes a lot of sense to me that most of the discussion about BC, abortion, and so on put most of the action on women's shoulders - we're the sex that gets pregnant, after all, and thus the sex that can abort.

 

But I do find myself wondering: is this why most BC methods are focused on women? Because we get pregnant and men don't? Is that the only reason? Can we look at female responsibility for BC as another way of controlling female sexuality? By whom, and for whom?

 

I find myself thinking about the problems with each method too. Hormones play hell with our bodies, sometimes contributing to life-threatening medical conditions (like heart disease). Some folks consider hormonal methods abortive, and seek to limit our access to them. Latex isn't an option for a lot of us; an allergic reaction might land us in the hospital, and the non-latex option is more prone to breakage or leaking. Female condoms are uncomfortable; I've never found them to make sex any fun at all. Spermicides kill sperm, but they also shred delicate female tissue; some of us develop cystitis, UTI's, or other unpleasant urogenital problems from the damage they can cause. The wrong IUD can make us sterile (remember the Dalkon Shield). Getting snipped, for a woman, entails risky abdominal surgery - the risk is offset by the advent of things like laparoscopy, but it's still there. Diaphragms, cups, sponges and rings can slip, or contribute to Toxic Shock Syndrome.

 

There are benefits and risks to every method, but I always find myself wondering why it is that women have to take so many more risks than men, when it comes to getting laid. Because we get pregnant? Perhaps. Perhaps the common attitude is that it's women who get pregnant, therefore it's women who are the target of most BC methods, and women who are responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies. But I might offer an alternative attitude: if a man wants to get laid, he needs to be responsible for the BC. I'm just sayin'.

 

And pregnancy can kill us. My own sister would be dead right now, if she'd given birth a century ago. Despite medical advances, pregnancy is still risky, still dangerous, still potentially deadly. Men don't die from it. Women still do - less often than we used to, but we still do.

 

And what does it say about the culture we live in, when abortion is a more viable choice for many women than actually raising a child? What does it say, when a woman has to worry about poverty if she becomes a single mother, or worry about access to resources, or worry about whether or not the father will stick around, or have to put her education aside? I knew, for instance, that in my life it was economically feasible to either have a child, get an education, or buy a house; with my life circumstances, and because of the commitment I'd want to make to any one of those things, I knew I likely couldn't do all three. Do men have to make the same kinds of choices in life?

 

Stuff like this is what makes abortion a feminist issue for a lot of folks. I bring this up not because I think men don't have anything to say about it, or that men shouldn't, but I think it impacts women very differently, simply because that's just how human biology ended up. And being a woman I think I should freely admit that I can't separate my own biology from the issue.

 

More selfishly, I never want to be put into a position in which a man can compel me to bear his child against my will. Abortion is one of many tools to prevent that.

 

There are also questions like whether or not one human being has the right to use the physical resources of another human being's body without their consent. We do not use human beings as, say, dialysis machines or unwilling blood donors; should pregnancy be treated differently? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

Sometimes I wonder about the pro-life insistence on the human right to life for fetuses, and I wonder - when I hear a pro-life protester scream that fetuses have the same rights as adult humans, why don't I ever hear them scream about extending further rights to fetuses as well? Like the right to vote, or form contracts, or bear arms?

 

I also wonder why concern for the fetus seems to stop at birth, with a lot of pro-lifers. Why is that? And why are so many pro-lifers also pro-death penalty? Why do some pro-lifers put "innocence" into the equation? Is it because an unborn baby is innocent because it hasn't had a chance to do anything wrong, but if they were actually born they'd then have a chance to fuck up so badly they deserve death? And how is that "pro-life", actually? I think that whole thing masks the fact that pro-lifers can regard human life as having relative value, just as pro-choicers can. I value the life of a born woman more than a fetus, and a pro-lifer might value the life of a fetus over a convicted criminal.

 

I'm not throwing all this out here to push any conclusions, I just think it's a lot to think about, so am sort of spilling some of my own thought process on the matter. So take whatever you like and leave the rest.

 

Thanks for reading.

[gradstu09]

extending further rights to fetuses as well? Like the right to vote, or form contracts, or bear arms?

 

Did you hear there's a ballot measure in CO this fall that seeks to define life as the moment of conception? It is a slippery slope from there to fetus lobby groups, fetus home(womb?)owners associations and fetus seperatist militias!

 

More seriously, I agree with everything you've said. The only thing that popped to my mind that you did not address was:

Can we look at female responsibility for BC as another way of controlling female sexuality? By whom, and for whom?

The discussion has been delightfully secular so far, but I'm going to drag religion into it and say this is the curse of Eve going on. It's women's responsibilty not give it up, you know? And then if they do, it's women's responsibility not to trouble men with annoying little things like pregnancies. So don't use it (madonna), or if you must (whore), you must make sure you fdon't get pregnant, lest you 'trap' some innocent boy into marriage when he was only looking to use you as a lay.

 

That's the short version. I've had a beer and am getting sleepy, but I hope you get what I mean.

[upstarter]

Gwen, I have also always wondered how the same person can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. If you believe in the sanctity of human life then how do you get to decide who "deserves" to be alive? How do we decide who has forfeited their right to life?

 

The question of when "life" begins is a tricky one for me. And what constitutes "life"? Will the child with brittle bones or a child with Trisomy 18 who will likely die at birth really have a life? And at the other end of life, does the senior with advanced dementia, no control over their bodily functions and a reliance on a feeding tube really have a life?

 

These are not simple questions, but they are questions that people should have the right to answer for themselves. I for one would like to be able to give someone permission to end my life when certain criteria are fulfilled. I have no trouble defining life when it's MY life I'm talking about.

 

I'm kind of rambling... there's a lot of distraction here tonight. But I do think these "moral" questions are all linked.

 

Heather

[Pecker]

In terms of it being the responsibility of the woman in terms of Birth Control, I guess its because that's the simplest method.

 

I know birth control for men is being studied, but its not been perfected. (Not even sure if its even close yet.)

 

Other than wearing condoms, there's not much a guy can do. My wife and I for years did both, she was on the Nuva Ring, I wore a condom.

(Yes, married guys do wear condoms...lol)

 

Maybe its just me being a pragmatist, but science and medicine hasn't developed a reliable contraception device for men yet. I'm sure they'll sell like hot cakes once they're available. If I were a single guy that was sexually active, I'd sure use them.

[Legion]

Maybe its just me being a pragmatist, but science and medicine hasn't developed a reliable contraception device for men yet. I'm sure they'll sell like hot cakes once they're available. If I were a single guy that was sexually active, I'd sure use them.

Me too Pecker!!!

 

Pecker, Pecker bo becker

Banana fanna fo fecker

Fee fi mo mecker

Pecker!

 

(Sorry, I can't help myself Pecker.)

[Asimov]

I don't know if you have changed your mind on the topic, or if you're still weighing the options, but consider:

 

Even if someone considers a fetus a human being (even though by convention and by law a fetus is not a human being), it does not give them the automatic right to use another persons body against their will for it's own use and function.

 

A pregnant woman is readily asserting her rights that are being violated through unwanted pregnancy.

[gradstu09]

Gwen, I have also always wondered how the same person can be pro-life and pro-death penalty.

 

Maybe b/c babies are innocent but criminals "deserve" it?

[Outback Jack]

A pregnant woman is readily asserting her rights that are being violated through unwanted pregnancy.

Yes, because you know how often those unborn babies parasites magically and maliciously turn up in innocent women's bodies.

[Outback Jack]

Gwen, I have also always wondered how the same person can be pro-life and pro-death penalty.

 

Maybe b/c babies are innocent but criminals "deserve" it?

Yup.

[Legion]

A pregnant woman is readily asserting her rights that are being violated through unwanted pregnancy.

Yes, because you know how often those unborn babies magically and maliciously turn up in innocent women's bodies.

Get him Outback! Get him!

 

Down with Asimov! Down with Ass-a-loft!