Abortion

[woodsmoke]

Can you see, Arctic, the religious flavor of these answers? Its called ideology, and it works like this: believe something on faith, then rationalize it by any means necessary. Some examples: opposition to gay marriage, Hell doctrine, belief in God.

I fully expect to be mocked for posting this, but someone had to.

That's a hell of a strawman you built there. The appeals to emotion are a nice touch too. Of course, the real cherry on top is the self-fulfilling persecution clause.

 

Really oustanding work. Someone should give you a medal or something.

 

The Guttmacher Institute puts an occasional report out on repeat aborters. It's a sort of profile, and it's thorough. I recommend anyone interested in securing real knowledge on repeat abortions read chapters 1, 2 & 4 (Introduction, What do We Already Know About Repeat Abortion?, New Information on Repeat Abortion) of Repeat Abortions in the United States: Occassional Report No. 29 from 2006.

Can you clarify, by "repeat aborters" are they referring here to people who've simply had more than one abortion, or the conservative strawman of the woman who goes out and recklessly fucks some new guy every weekend, secure in the knowledge if she does gets pregnant she can just take a happy little jaunt down to the local clinic and get it taken care of? 'Cause I've known women who've had more than one abortion, and just as with the link you provided, there was a perfectly legitimate reason (and sometimes a very personal story) behind each one.

[Yrth]

Can you see, Arctic, the religious flavor of these answers? Its called ideology, and it works like this: believe something on faith, then rationalize it by any means necessary. Some examples: opposition to gay marriage, Hell doctrine, belief in God.

I fully expect to be mocked for posting this, but someone had to.

That's a hell of a strawman you built there. The appeals to emotion are a nice touch too. Of course, the real cherry on top is the self-fulfilling persecution clause.

 

Really oustanding work. Someone should give you a medal or something.

Idk what you're talking about, I am appealing to reason not emotion, albeit somewhat emotionally. I listed the halfass rationalizations mentioned in the thread, then called them out as such and dubbed it religious. You will get the same types of answers from people who oppose gay marriage. The answers they give just don't make any sense. Same with this.

[Japedo]

I'm so pro-choice that I'll sometimes accept the label "pro-abortion", depending on the circumstances. Thoughts I've had on the matter, listed in no particular order, and not particularly organized:

 

By accident of biology, pregnancy (and thus, abortion) take place in the ground of a woman's body. There just isn't any getting around that, until we figure out how to transplant fetuses into men's bodies. This is why it's a woman's issue and a woman's choice.

 

As a woman I never want to find myself in a position where I am compelled to bear someone's child against my will. Compulsory pregnancy would reduce women to the status of incubators.

< Snip >

A woman outranks a fetus.

 

 

Awesome Post Gwen!!

 

I am a mother and agree 100%. I want the option for my daughter and for any women that doesn't wish to have a child for whatever her personal reasons are. I find people who are pro choice in the ONLY IF reasons to be a little contradictory when they only support abortion in only the cases of rape or incest, that stance is hypocritical IMO. Either support abortion or not, but women don't need to give the public a why or how come as to what to do with their own bodies.

 

A question for those types of anti-abortionists that are only for it in the case of rape and incest .... How is it the embryo is considered to be a life to you in the case of unprotected sex or protection that fails in a couple of horny teenagers or young adults, but then you can turn around in the same breath and say that same "Life" has the right to be aborted if the women happens to be raped? Is that life any less worth to you? I just don't understand how one can support abortion in one case then turn around and decry another case, What does it matter to you how the embryo got there? If the women can't have it, or doesn't want it her personal reasons should be moot to you.

 

The political "WHAT IF" scenarios in this thread are a little extreme and outrageous. Late term abortions usually only happen in cases where the mother's life my be egregiously endangered or the fetus is severely deformed. Late term is not the norm, but they are necessary where cases are warranted. Don't judge a women until you walk in her shoes. In a lot of those late term cases the children were wanted, and it's a heart wrenching situation all around.

 

I'll be happy when child abuse or neglect is paid attention to half as much as the abortion issue is. Once the child is born many of the Anti-Choice people are mostly the same people that turn their nose up at people on welfare with lots of children and have all sorts of classless names for them. Having a child is a lot of responsibility, forcing that enormous responsibility on someone is not right for anyone involved.

[RabbleRabble]

If a fetus could reasonably (with some help) be able to survive outside the womb then you have NO business killing it.

I should probably qualify my rather strict "NO place" statement. I also feel that the mother's health comes first. And I honestly don't think it's a cut and dried issue. I can't imagine that a woman who purposly keeps a pregnancy to the point of viability would have anything but a very difficult decision if abortion was being considered at that point.

 

Viability can be tricky, since medical science is constantly moving the bar. I prefer brainwave activity. This is the standard we use for death, why not also for life?

 

Brainwave activity begins somewhere around 6 weeks after conception. It's a narrow window, I know. But this seems to me to be one of those "err on the side of caution" issues.

At first glance this common pro-life argument seems like a good one, but after some inspection doesn't seem to really hold water for me. I found more information here and here. I'd be interested if anyone could direct me to more in depth info.

 

Your question, 'would you be OK with your mother aborting you?,' really struck a chord with me. It is an excellent way of demonstrating the personal connection we all have to our earliest existence. My answer is, of course, NO-get-the-fuck-away-from-that-knife-before-I-RIP-OUT-YOUR-HEART. I have a slightly less strong reaction toward other theoretical abortions, like a fox backed into a corner versus a fox watching a fox being backed into a corner, but it is still there. And that's because I, a human being, recognize that human beings (like myself) begin as embryos and end as elderly. Therefore I reject every halfass attempt (rounded up below) to rationalize the taking of a human life like mine without an incredible, extraordinary reason.

This is like a time travel argument. If you could go back in time and make changes to your life that would mean you never married that asshole of a husband would you do it even if it meant that your child had never been born? I don't think anyone is unfeeling enough to say that they would. The reason being that the child IS a real person to us. We've spent time with them and loved them. However, if someone ELSE where to go back in time and make a change that somehow resulted in my child never being born.... well it's not like I would know what I was missing would I?

 

Making an argument based on what an embryo could potentially become doesn't make sense. It's what that embryo currently IS that counts.What matters is not the person it may become in the future, but whether it is currently what one might reasonably define as a "person."

 

It is tragedy that chimpanzees with their wonderfully complex minds could be killed without most giving it a second thought, but a collection of cells without anything resembling functioning thought patterns is given more status by virtue of being "human."

[Skeptic]

Well. In the words of House, living in misery sucks marginally less than dying in it.

 

First of all, I disagree with this quote. When you die, the misery is gone (for you, at least, not for the people left grieving over your death). When you're alive, you continue to feel misery. Second of all, a fetus or a zygote wouldn't be "dying in misery" because it can't feel misery to begin with. There's nothing in the womb that would make it feel misery, except maybe the stress of the mother, but the fetus' brain would have to be developed enough to feel that.

 

'Viability' is a worthless concept, I suggest forgetting about that too. Its already been pointed out that technology determines the point of viability, so we can just assume that eventually humans will become able to survive outside the womb from their earliest developmental stage. And, just as strong, one human's dependence on another lessens the humanity of neither.

 

But, as I pointed out earlier, babies that are born very premature continue to have a myriad of health problems throughout their lives just from being born prematurely. Even if the technology is there to help these babies survive to get to where their proper birth weight would have been had they have stayed in the uterus, it's still very taxing on these babies' bodies, and that continues into childhood. I don't think we can "just assume" that humans will eventually be able to survive outside of the womb from the earliest developmental stage, no matter what technology we have in the future. A fetus needs to grow within its mother's womb not only to survive, but to thrive, as well. Unless scientists can perfectly recreate the experience of being in utero, which I sincerely doubt will ever be possible, then there's a chance that what you're saying could be true, but, as I said, it's pretty much impossible.

 

Ok then, go cut your throat this moment for the benefit of 'the planet.' We're all waiting.

 

I think you know that killing a human being is not the same as aborting a fetus. If you don't, then I don't know what to say to you.

 

"A woman outranks a fetus." We're ranking humans now? Does that turn the stomach of anyone else? 'Straights outrank Faggots,' 'Whites outrank blacks,' 'Christians outrank Jews,' 'Arabs outrank non-Arabs,' 'Brits outrank Non-Brits,' 'Men outrank Women,' -- turn the fucking monkey off for one second and think about what you're saying. You've got no right to rank anyone and you know it.

 

This is not an accurate comparison. Let's pretend that, hypothetically, the fetus' rights would come before the mother's. The woman has no choice but to carry the fetus to term and give birth. That woman has been reduced to an incubator. She's carrying this baby that she doesn't want, she's not being given any choice in the matter, and she has to be miserable and go through the pain of childbirth for this baby that she doesn't even want and probably can't take care of anyway. Not only does that cause undue stress on the mother, but that stress causes LOTS of health problems for the fetus. Also, I know you're a guy and you've never experienced this, but childbirth is a bitch. I went through it with my son without any pain medication whatsoever, and I really love my little guy a lot. I'd have to *really* love a child to go through that again. No woman should EVER have to be forced to go through something like that, even if she is given medication, especially when she would also have to go through the unbearable stress of supporting that child for 18 years. If the mother doesn't love the child, that child is going to have problems for the rest of his/her life simply because a person who is supposed to be supportive isn't. Children who are born to parents who don't really love them and/or experience a lot of stress in trying to provide for them are at a greater chance of being abused. Even if the child is put up for adoption, that child could still have problems because of his/her background or he/she could be adopted by abusive parents, get shuffled around from foster home to foster home, etc.

 

I'll be happy when child abuse or neglect is paid attention to half as much as the abortion issue is. Once the child is born many of the Anti-Choice people are mostly the same people that turn their nose up at people on welfare with lots of children and have all sorts of classless names for them. Having a child is a lot of responsibility, forcing that enormous responsibility on someone is not right for anyone involved.

 

I totally agree with you on this. They talk a great deal about the rights of the fetus, but once that fetus is born, then all bets are off. They simply don't care anymore. They'll criticize a woman who gets pregnant and her boyfriend runs off for getting an abortion, but then they'll also criticize a woman who is in the same position and has the baby for being a single mother. You just can't win with these people. How about focusing on the kids who are alive now and are being abused and neglected rather than potential babies? How about focusing on the mothers who struggle to care for the children that they love rather than berating them for being in the position that they're in when they most likely had little to no choice in the matter?

[godlessgrrl]

Just curious Gwenmead....if a prospective mother changes her mind as she starts labor...is it OK to kill the fetus? What about 1 week before the due date? What about if the head is already out of the vaginal canal? Do you think if someone beats an expectant mother that wants the child a week before she is due and causes the death of the baby that they should be responsible for the death of the baby or just be guilty for roughing up the mom, a likely misdemeanor?

 

I don't know. Still considering such issues and haven't decided yet, honestly.

 

There is no afterlife. Or beforelife. This is the only life. ...I'm at a loss for what to say to convince you that your life is more valuable than you currently think. As it is, I think your living in an... intense cognitive dissonance.

 

While I appreciate the sentiment, my opinion is unchanged. I know the quality of my own life and I would not have wished it on anyone. If my mother had chosen to abort, it would have been her choice for her own reasons and that's perfectly fine with me.

 

While I agree that it's ultimately the decision of women, I don't think that men should have no say on the matter.

 

I would certainly hope that a woman finding herself pregnant would discuss the matter with her partner before making any final decisions. In an ideal situation the two people involved would come to an agreement about what to do and discuss many of the issues you raise, especially matters of future parenthood. I am opposed to forcing anyone into parenthood before they wish it, and that not only means women but also men too - but for men the matter goes into parental rights, which is a whole 'nuther ballgame unto itself.

 

But if there is any double standard here, it is one imposed by biology: men can't get pregnant, women can. Nobody set it up that way or deliberately made things slanted in favor of one sex over another, it's just the way it worked out. To even things out, I think it would be awesome if we could figure out a way to impregnate men. That sounds really really scifi and wacky, but I'm serious about it. If it were somehow possible to transplant a fetus into a man, have him continue out a pregnancy and give birth, then that could be an option for a pregnancy where a woman didn't want to go through with it but a man did.

 

Parental rights and responsibilities are related but tangential matters that I think deserve their own thread.

 

Y'know, something that does always strike me as a bit off - I've heard plenty of people crow that women shouldn't have abortions and that we should just keep our legs closed and stop having sex in the first place. What I never hear is anyone chastising men for knocking women up in the first place. Nobody tells men to prevent abortion by keeping their legs closed and not having sex. Why is that? Anybody got any ideas?

 

Keep in mind here that I just got up and haven't had any coffee yet, and spent a very difficult day yesterday with my batshit insane family, so I'm not terribly with it at the moment. Please pardon me if I appear not to have thought everything through or if my grammar is weird or something.

[♦ nivek ♦]

I ask the anti-choice folks to show me their collection of adopted children...

 

*I* don't like "abortion" as a political football, to be used like another State club to enforce Puritan compliance(s).

 

kFL

[godlessgrrl]

Gwen, have I told you lately how much I heart you?

 

Aww, thanks woody. And thanks too, Japedo. Guess even heartless bitches like myself have fans.

 

Abortion is a matter I'm constantly rethinking. Probably will for the rest of my life.

[Yrth]

Well. In the words of House, living in misery sucks marginally less than dying in it.

First of all, I disagree with this quote. When you die, the misery is gone (for you, at least, not for the people left grieving over your death). When you're alive, you continue to feel misery. Second of all, a fetus or a zygote wouldn't be "dying in misery" because it can't feel misery to begin with. There's nothing in the womb that would make it feel misery, except maybe the stress of the mother, but the fetus' brain would have to be developed enough to feel that.

The argument I was responding to went like this: its OK because s/he would have had a miserable life. It wasn't about whether the fetus or zygote would be 'dying in misery,' although I'm not sure whether a fetus feels pain. I imagine it would, having a nervous system and all. (Hey woodsmoke -- that's half an appeal to emotion. ^-^) Regarding the House quote -- don't you think the decision to live or die in misery should come from the afflicted person?

 

'Viability' is a worthless concept, I suggest forgetting about that too. Its already been pointed out that technology determines the point of viability, so we can just assume that eventually humans will become able to survive outside the womb from their earliest developmental stage. And, just as strong, one human's dependence on another lessens the humanity of neither.

 

But, as I pointed out earlier, babies that are born very premature continue to have a myriad of health problems throughout their lives just from being born prematurely. Even if the technology is there to help these babies survive to get to where their proper birth weight would have been had they have stayed in the uterus, it's still very taxing on these babies' bodies, and that continues into childhood. I don't think we can "just assume" that humans will eventually be able to survive outside of the womb from the earliest developmental stage, no matter what technology we have in the future. A fetus needs to grow within its mother's womb not only to survive, but to thrive, as well. Unless scientists can perfectly recreate the experience of being in utero, which I sincerely doubt will ever be possible, then there's a chance that what you're saying could be true, but, as I said, it's pretty much impossible.

You think so? I think future technology will explode our current conceptions of the possible, so I can see why we would disagree about this. All the same, dependency doesn't lessen humanity.

 

Ok then, go cut your throat this moment for the benefit of 'the planet.' We're all waiting.

 

I think you know that killing a human being is not the same as aborting a fetus. If you don't, then I don't know what to say to you.

The argument I was responding to here went like this: There is a current problem of planetary overpopulation, so the less humans the better. Am I getting something wrong? I was trying to point out how absurd of a solution that was. Too many humans?, ok, we'll just get rid of some.. see? Also, 'human being' encompasses all the developmental stages, from an embryo to an adult. So, aborting a fetus is killing a human being -- that is just descriptive science. I believe I know what you meant, but if you feel like restating for clarity it I'll leave you to it.

 

"A woman outranks a fetus." We're ranking humans now? Does that turn the stomach of anyone else? 'Straights outrank Faggots,' 'Whites outrank blacks,' 'Christians outrank Jews,' 'Arabs outrank non-Arabs,' 'Brits outrank Non-Brits,' 'Men outrank Women,' -- turn the fucking monkey off for one second and think about what you're saying. You've got no right to rank anyone and you know it.

 

This is not an accurate comparison. Let's pretend that, hypothetically, the fetus' rights would come before the mother's. The woman has no choice but to carry the fetus to term and give birth. That woman has been reduced to an incubator. She's carrying this baby that she doesn't want, she's not being given any choice in the matter, and she has to be miserable and go through the pain of childbirth for this baby that she doesn't even want and probably can't take care of anyway. Not only does that cause undue stress on the mother, but that stress causes LOTS of health problems for the fetus. Also, I know you're a guy and you've never experienced this, but childbirth is a bitch. I went through it with my son without any pain medication whatsoever, and I really love my little guy a lot. I'd have to *really* love a child to go through that again. No woman should EVER have to be forced to go through something like that, even if she is given medication, especially when she would also have to go through the unbearable stress of supporting that child for 18 years. If the mother doesn't love the child, that child is going to have problems for the rest of his/her life simply because a person who is supposed to be supportive isn't. Children who are born to parents who don't really love them and/or experience a lot of stress in trying to provide for them are at a greater chance of being abused. Even if the child is put up for adoption, that child could still have problems because of his/her background or he/she could be adopted by abusive parents, get shuffled around from foster home to foster home, etc.

I don't see where those issues touch the problem of ranking some humans above others. That's what I was objecting to. But I'm not denying these problems, I'm just trying to put them in context.

[woodsmoke]

Alright, I'll bite.

 

It would probably be best to pretend as if you've never heard of 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' and then attempt to make up your mind about the different parts of the issue separately. Politics contaminate everything, but especially thoughts about abortion.

 

Your question, 'would you be OK with your mother aborting you?,' really struck a chord with me. It is an excellent way of demonstrating the personal connection we all have to our earliest existence. My answer is, of course, NO-get-the-fuck-away-from-that-knife-before-I-RIP-OUT-YOUR-HEART.

Absolutely no emotion here. No sir. Move along, citizen.

 

I have a slightly less strong reaction toward other theoretical abortions, like a fox backed into a corner versus a fox watching a fox being backed into a corner, but it is still there. And that's because I, a human being, recognize that human beings (like myself) begin as embryos and end as elderly. Therefore I reject every halfass attempt (rounded up below) to rationalize the taking of a human life like mine without an incredible, extraordinary reason.

Assigning motivation to you opponent, then invalidating it. This is what we call a strawman. Of course, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

 

Misery

This one goes like this - oh, its ok (abortion) because the kid would have been miserable anyway. Well. In the words of House, living in misery sucks marginally less than dying in it.

Referencing a TV drama to make your point! I am without words, sir, for the awesome power of your reason has left me speechless!

 

Viability

'Viability' is a worthless concept, I suggest forgetting about that too. Its already been pointed out that technology determines the point of viability, so we can just assume that eventually humans will become able to survive outside the womb from their earliest developmental stage. And, just as strong, one human's dependence on another lessens the humanity of neither.

Here, I'll actually agree with you. "Viability" is a red herring which needs to be forsaken by both sides so we can get back to discussing the root issue of a woman's right to control her own body.

 

Population

Someone above posted that they're OK with not existing because the planet has too many people anyway. Oh, right? Ok then, go cut your throat this moment for the benefit of 'the planet.' We're all waiting. *taps foot* Go on! No? Not going to do it? Maybe you read that the planet can feed 65 billion people? Or maybe your life is actually worth more to you than you would have us believe? Perhaps both. I hope you'll forgive me for my forceful way of making this point.

No, what Marty said was we need to be mindful of the issue and concentrate on preventing it from becoming a serious problem so as to make life better for the people already here, as well as those who will come in the future. Never once did he advocate suicide or the killing of living, breathing people. But of course, it's so much more reasonable to embellish the issue by creating a strawman to knock down in glorious triumph.

 

Non-existence

As I was writing this, Wizened Sage responded indirectly to my wanting to live:

 

"Some folks here have commented on what a terrible thing it would have been had they or one of their parents been aborted. Frankly, this makes no sense to me. I love life, but had I never been born, so what? One doesn't miss what one never had, what one was never aware of. If you never existed as an autonomous human being, you simply wouldn't know anything about it. Do you miss not having been alive 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000, etc? This has no meaning.I guess I'm saying that if my mother had aborted me for some reason. I would never be aware of that fact so it certainly could never matter to me. It's like, ummm, so what?"

 

Wizened and others are treating your question disengenuously. The fact is that you, Wizened, are aware of the life you love NOW, and in lieu of that fact, would you be OK with never having lived? Saying that 'Oh, I would never have existed to notice the difference' is playing the fool and it won't hold the field. In fact, you did exist as a very small human, perhaps in a test tube, more likely in your mother's womb - too small to notice your life, but there is no doubt that it was in fact YOU.

It's not disingenuous, and there's nothing foolish about his response. Asking if we'd have been okay with never existing and asking if we'd be okay with not existing now that we have are two completely different questions. You're shifting the goal posts.

 

Rank

"A woman outranks a fetus." We're ranking humans now? Does that turn the stomach of anyone else? 'Straights outrank Faggots,' 'Whites outrank blacks,' 'Christians outrank Jews,' 'Arabs outrank non-Arabs,' 'Brits outrank Non-Brits,' 'Men outrank Women,' -- turn the fucking monkey off for one second and think about what you're saying. You've got no right to rank anyone and you know it.

No, I'm ranking living, breathing people over someday-could-be-a-persons. Straights, gays, whites, blacks, Christians, Jews, Arabs, Brits, men, women; every single one of these denotes a living, breathing person. Your attempt at comparison fails.

 

Can you see, Pockets, the emotional flavor of these answers? Its called ideology, and it works like this: believe something on faith, then rationalize it by any means necessary.

[white_raven23]

Y'know, something that does always strike me as a bit off - I've heard plenty of people crow that women shouldn't have abortions and that we should just keep our legs closed and stop having sex in the first place. What I never hear is anyone chastising men for knocking women up in the first place. Nobody tells men to prevent abortion by keeping their legs closed and not having sex. Why is that? Anybody got any ideas?

 

 

Damn Straight Gwen. I'm right there with you on the views, and I particularly like this observation you just made.... it totally calls bullshit on the "men should have equal say" idealization. Nope...sorry. They get equal say the MOMENT they start being held equally responsible and liable by society at large...when THAT happens, then we can start talking about how they should be part of the decision.

[godlessgrrl]

And that's because I, a human being, recognize that human beings (like myself) begin as embryos and end as elderly.

 

Hey pockets, I have a quick question for you. And this is sort of related and sort of not. Do you think that there is ever any justifiable reason for ending a human life?

 

I ask because I think that most of the people who claim the term pro-life to describe their stance on abortion don't actually deserve the label because they don't hold to a consistent life ethic all the way, from conception to grave. If your position is consistent from conception to death, you and I will probably piss each other off endlessly and we definitely won't agree on abortion, but I can certainly respect the consistency in your own position as I continue to work through all the details of my own.

 

So just curious there.

[Yrth]

Absolutely no emotion here. No sir. Move along, citizen.

Perfectly reasonable emotional reaction to have to a threat against my life, don't you think? I like it. By the way, were you referencing Mr Potato Head in Toy Story just now?

 

I have a slightly less strong reaction toward other theoretical abortions, like a fox backed into a corner versus a fox watching a fox being backed into a corner, but it is still there. And that's because I, a human being, recognize that human beings (like myself) begin as embryos and end as elderly. Therefore I reject every halfass attempt (rounded up below) to rationalize the taking of a human life like mine without an incredible, extraordinary reason.

Assigning motivation to you opponent, then invalidating it. This is what we call a strawman. Of course, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I'm confused. Where is the assigned motivation and subsequent invalidation?

 

Misery

This one goes like this - oh, its ok (abortion) because the kid would have been miserable anyway. Well. In the words of House, living in misery sucks marginally less than dying in it.

Referencing a TV drama to make your point! I am without words, sir, for the awesome power of your reason has left me speechless!

Thanks!!

 

No, what Marty said was we need to be mindful of the issue and concentrate on preventing it from becoming a serious problem so as to make life better for the people already here, as well as those who will come in the future. Never once did he advocate suicide or the killing of living, breathing people. But of course, it's so much more reasonable to embellish the issue by creating a strawman to knock down in glorious triumph.

You're drawing lines again, ranking who 'counts', aka 'personhood.' This is what it comes down to, always -- which humans count, and which can we throw away. Why don't you just spell out why you think some humans count and some don't?

 

Non-existence

As I was writing this, Wizened Sage responded indirectly to my wanting to live:

 

"Some folks here have commented on what a terrible thing it would have been had they or one of their parents been aborted. Frankly, this makes no sense to me. I love life, but had I never been born, so what? One doesn't miss what one never had, what one was never aware of. If you never existed as an autonomous human being, you simply wouldn't know anything about it. Do you miss not having been alive 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000, etc? This has no meaning.I guess I'm saying that if my mother had aborted me for some reason. I would never be aware of that fact so it certainly could never matter to me. It's like, ummm, so what?"

 

Wizened and others are treating your question disengenuously. The fact is that you, Wizened, are aware of the life you love NOW, and in lieu of that fact, would you be OK with never having lived? Saying that 'Oh, I would never have existed to notice the difference' is playing the fool and it won't hold the field. In fact, you did exist as a very small human, perhaps in a test tube, more likely in your mother's womb - too small to notice your life, but there is no doubt that it was in fact YOU.

It's not disingenuous, and there's nothing foolish about his response. Asking if we'd have been okay with never existing and asking if we'd be okay with not existing now that we have are two completely different questions. You're shifting the goal posts.

I don't see it that way. In my eyes, its you who is shifting goalposts. The question is this: would you be content if your mother decided to abort you? It is a time travel question, and a useful one. The question can only be posed now, in lieu of your life and experience. You already have my answer.

 

No, I'm ranking living, breathing people over someday-could-be-a-persons. Straights, gays, whites, blacks, Christians, Jews, Arabs, Brits, men, women; every single one of these denotes a living, breathing person. Your attempt at comparison fails.

No, what fails is your pressuposition that some humans count as persons and some don't. You've got no right to be drawing such lines, none at all. Personhood theories are complete bullshit, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

 

Can you see, Pockets, the emotional flavor of these answers? Its called ideology, and it works like this: believe something on faith, then rationalize it by any means necessary.

I completely disagree. What exactly is the claim that I am believing on faith?! Answer: nothing.

[Skankboy]

We've gone done this road a few times here in the past and it always comes down to nobody being able to truly define when a embryo should be considered a "person".

 

All said and done, I'm pro-choice because it leaves the option open to not get one if you disagree. It may be distasteful to those who disagree, but the other option - no abortions for anyone or severaly limited access for certain eventualities will only lead to people seeking out illegal means to gain the same end result.

 

And in case anyone thinks getting rid of unwanted pregnancies is a new thing, think again. Preventatives and abortives have existed in one form or another for a long long time.

 

I am not a woman, so cannot begin to imagine how difficult the choice must be, but I firmly believe given the options that the choice should not be taken away.

[Guest QuidEstCaritas?]

I actually think it's good in a way to see pockets taking a difference of opinion on this.

 

I am strongly pro-choice but I like to see people standing up and making a different case because they believe/think otherwise, I just don't like it when it's done for religious reasons "Cause God sez so", without any real thought other than a dogmatic conclusion and rationalizations to justify the dogmatic foregone conclusion. I may not agree with pockets but he/she certainly has a right to his/her opinion.

 

In the exchange of ideas it's good to give rational reasons as best one can and articulate one's thoughts. That's always at least a small gain no matter what one believes imo.

[Yrth]

And that's because I, a human being, recognize that human beings (like myself) begin as embryos and end as elderly.

 

Hey pockets, I have a quick question for you. And this is sort of related and sort of not. Do you think that there is ever any justifiable reason for ending a human life?

 

I ask because I think that most of the people who claim the term pro-life to describe their stance on abortion don't actually deserve the label because they don't hold to a consistent life ethic all the way, from conception to grave. If your position is consistent from conception to death, you and I will probably piss each other off endlessly and we definitely won't agree on abortion, but I can certainly respect the consistency in your own position as I continue to work through all the details of my own.

 

So just curious there.

Well I don't like accepting the 'pro-life' label, I simply have thoughts and try to be consistent as I go along. I do think there are situations where ending a human life is justifiable. For instance, if someone is attempting to end my human life. The lone mugger who looks away from me for a millisecond had better be ready because I will have no problem ending him. Etc. And although I don't accept the pro-life label, I don't think that the position I just described is inconsistent with it. that's like saying 'pro-choice' people are hypocrites because they won't support everyone's choices. 0.o

[godlessgrrl]

Well I don't like accepting the 'pro-life' label, I simply have thoughts and try to be consistent as I go along. I do think there are situations where ending a human life is justifiable. For instance, if someone is attempting to end my human life. The lone mugger who looks away from me for a millisecond had better be ready because I will have no problem ending him. Etc. And although I don't accept the pro-life label, I don't think that the position I just described is inconsistent with it. that's like saying 'pro-choice' people are hypocrites because they won't support everyone's choices. 0.o

 

Okay. I suppose I nitpick about labels because I like to use them as tools to help make sure that I understand where someone is coming from (and because I'm kind of a vocabulary nazi, frankly). I'm not going to stick a label on you that you don't want though, so thank you for explaining.

 

Going with what you said here though, that there are circumstances under which you do consider it justifiable to end another human life, it seems a little odd that you would criticize me for my statement that "a woman outranks a fetus". It is true that I value the life of a born woman over the developing life of a fetus, and that's a judgment right there. How does that differ from the judgment you might make in a split second that your life is more valuable than that of a person mugging you?

 

Consider that pregnancy does damage to a woman's body, and consider also that pregnancy still kills us with some regularity (though this is more of an issue in areas and nations where access to health care is limited). If you have the right to defend yourself against bodily harm or death, do we also not have that same right, whether the threat comes from assault or from pregnancy?

 

Interested in your ideas on that.

[white_raven23]

Going with what you said here though, that there are circumstances under which you do consider it justifiable to end another human life, it seems a little odd that you would criticize me for my statement that "a woman outranks a fetus". It is true that I value the life of a born woman over the developing life of a fetus, and that's a judgment right there. How does that differ from the judgment you might make in a split second that your life is more valuable than that of a person mugging you?

 

 

A woman does outrank a fetus. I think pockets is probably uncomfortable with the notion of putting value ratings on people. Understandable, and I do sympathize with the Ideal that "all humans are equal".

 

But fact is, it's an ideal that can ONLY be an ideal. It will not, nor can ever be realistic. Nature created the "ranking" as soon as it started evolving. Improved species succeed over those that stagnate... it's deeply imbedded in our social makeup too. Whether we like it or not. We "rank" people all the time. We accord different tites and statuses all the time. We've all played the Lifeboat game in one form or another. We KNOW the Doctor, the Mechanic, the Sailor, and the Teacher are "in" and the Baker, the Janitor, and the Unemployed Drifter are going to be treading water.

 

As for weather ranking is "right" or "wrong"....that's a whole other topic. I posit that it's neither. Ranking simply IS.

[SilentLoner]

Consider that pregnancy does damage to a woman's body

 

What kind of damage? I'm trying to learn more about childbirth, as I've a young friend who is interested in midwifery, and I like to keep up with the conversation. I was under the impression that our bodies are inherently built for childbearing, and harm or death are exceptions, not rules.

 

Interested to hear more,

Phanta

 

Childbirth today is radically different than it was in the past. Death during childbirth was once among the most common causes of death for women. Modern obstetrics has made it seem very safe.

 

On another note, I did some research on homebirth vs hospital births. Personally I'm not a fan of homebirth advocacy.

I do have a favorite blog on the subject if you're interested.

[godlessgrrl]

What kind of damage? I'm trying to learn more about childbirth, as I've a young friend who is interested in midwifery, and I like to keep up with the conversation. I was under the impression that our bodies are inherently built for childbearing, and harm or death are exceptions, not rules.

 

Well, mainly I'm thinking here of the drastic physical changes pregnancy has on a woman's body even when a pregnancy is going well. But I'm also thinking of a number of complications, many of which are harmful to either or both woman and fetus - things like gestational diabetes, placenta previa or accreta, hypertension, etc. There's a list of complications here that might be worth checking out for more info.

 

My impression is that pregnancy is not without risk even with the advent of modern medicine, and there are no guarantees. Plenty of women feel it worth taking on the risks and going through with it. I am not one of those women, especially after knowing that my sister damn near bled to death from placenta previa with her first child.

[Neon Genesis]

Damn Straight Gwen. I'm right there with you on the views, and I particularly like this observation you just made.... it totally calls bullshit on the "men should have equal say" idealization. Nope...sorry. They get equal say the MOMENT they start being held equally responsible and liable by society at large...when THAT happens, then we can start talking about how they should be part of the decision.

But playing devil's advocate here, what if the wife decided to go through with the pregnancy and the husband later decided he didn't want a child after all, so he decided to give the child away to someone else without talking to his wife, would that be ok? How is it different? I know it's not an exact analogy since a born child and a fetus isn't the same but isn't communication an important value in relationships?

[SilentLoner]

Man, I go to a research methods seminar and end up way behind in the conversation.

 

Bit late of a response but here goes: It's a mystery to me why prolifers think "what if your mother had aborted you" scenario is a good argument. Are we so special that the world would have come to a shuddering halt should we not have been born? If that had happened, we simply wouldn't exist. So what? Things that don't exist have no opinions either way. To be blunt, it's a stupid and pointless argument.

 

Let me point out you wouldn't be here either if your parents had used effective birth control, abstained for the night, married other partners, had a naturally occuring miscarriage, or done some other sexual acts not involving vaginal intercourse.

 

I know one of my closest friends's mom had an abortion long before she met her current husband. If she had not had the abortion, my friend and his three siblings would not be here. Is that thought any scarier than your scenario?

[bird28]

I haven't read all this thread, but basically I don't know where to stand either. There's too many people in the world, that's obvious, so abortion could be a good thing, but there is the whole murder issue...

[Neon Genesis]

Bit late of a response but here goes: It's a mystery to me why prolifers think "what if your mother had aborted you" scenario is a good argument.

On the other hand, what if Hitler had been aborted?

[white_raven23]

I know it's not an exact analogy since a born child and a fetus isn't the same but isn't communication an important value in relationships?

 

This assumes there is an actual relationship to be maintained though. My BF knows very specifically that kids are a deal breaker for me, and he is greatly relieved that women who feel this way DO actually exist.

 

If anything, I feel sorry for you guys. Seriously. You get what? A condom? Something that requires very precise application for effectiveness performed at a moment that is not known for 100% perfect coherence?

 

Other than that....you are stuck....STUCK....with TRUST. You have to trust that SHE is behing honest about being on the pill, knowing that people can be irregular and flakey...considering themselves "on the pill" even though they've MISSED A WEEK (careful questioning of friends who got pregnant while "on" the pill tends to bring this truth to light).

 

Your only other options are abstinence....or vasectomy. SUCKS!! Talk about all or nothing!