Abortion Controversy: 50 Years Later

[Yrth]

1st Flawed Premise: That the stated reason for an abortion is always the accurate reason. The lipstick excuse I just used is only a little rhetorical; it's drawn from a LJ discussion about a girl who said via a "Secret" community that she'd had an abortion because she didn't want to get too fat to fit into her favorite clothing brand.

Better Premise: People sometimes use smokescreen reasons for doing things, but the act itself is still perfectly valid for them to take. I don't think any woman anywhere has ever gotten an abortion for something as superficial as her lipstick, or whether she fits into her clothes; there's always something much deeper going on.

Nonono, you're the one that used lipstick as an example. Your point there and in the rest of this post is that reasons don't matter because you don't think it's a moral issue. If that's the case, why are you here clarifying that there's always something much deeper going on? Which, by the way, I totally agree with. I mean, why would that even matter to you if you believed half of what you're saying?

 

Also, I believe I clarified this earlier: I am not looking solely at the act, evaluating it, and then stamping it with approval or disapproval. That's what you're doing. It is absurd. The same act may be good or bad depending on the situation and someone's reasons for doing it.

 

2nd Flawed Premise: That said, that people need to "justify" their decisions to you or anybody else.

Better Premise: If I decide to abort, it's really nobody's business but my own. If I decide to carry to term, I don't have to justify that either to anybody. The simple truth is that it's my body, and I get to go any direction I want. When you set a decision up as something that must be "justified," you are setting up conditions for judging it according to your own internal moral framework--and it's not far from judging it to trying to control it to make it fit with your own ideals. I'm not sure why you feel you have any right to judge how another person uses his or her own body. Whether it's getting a piercing, spending $30k on a wedding, or having 5 kids or none or getting an abortion, or moving to another city, or wearing makeup or not, or marrying someone or refusing to marry someone, or giving blood or not giving it, it's not really your say.

Of course you are, it's essentially because I acknowledge that abortion ends a human life, in some cases even where the human life is indistinguishable from a baby. If someone is going to kill a baby for any reason, well, that is a morally salient fact, period. What you're doing is looking at the act, stamping it as 'bodily sovereignty,' and then disregarding the consequences as though they don't matter. Well, they do matter. Failure to acknowledge this is to be out of touch with human society and it's this failure that draws me into these threads.

 

I don't care about piercings, but spending 30k on a party or having 5 kids could undeniably be morally significant issues depending on the situation.

3rd Flawed Premise: Abortion is a moral issue.

Better Premise: Abortion is a medical issue. It is no different, not even a tiny bit different, from the decision to become an organ donor. It depends 100% on what the potential donor wishes to give, how much of the donor's life, time, money, and tissue s/he is willing to sacrifice, and how much medical risk that donor is willing to take on. If someone decides to go be a bone marrow donor, we laud that person--it's a nice thing to do. But we do not cast moral aspersions on those who do not choose to go to that kind of trouble. Nor do we try to strong-arm such a person into doing it.

See above. It's 100% different from organ donation. Denying this is specious.

 

4th Flawed Premise: "Good people" make decisions you, as an external viewer, can easily respect or look up to, all the time, and don't make decisions that you, the external viewer, would disagree with.

Better Premise: People do shit for all kinds of reasons. While you may privately think that you'd do things differently, it's not really your place to judge what they do or what reasons they might give for doing something. Especially in the case of stuff like sex or abortion, when you really get down to it, you're not impacted by the final outcome of that decision, so you're wasting a lot of time moralizing about it. That, and see above--the reasons people might give you as their judge aren't always the actual reasons for their behavior.

 

The moral issue at stake is sovereignty, not abortion. Abortion's just a medical procedure, and it means nothing more than what a particular individual might let it mean. But the real moral issue is what might underlay the decision to abort. It's about whether or not there are situations in which society can force another human to donate his or her own body to another entity. It's whether or not another person (not fetus, PERSON, as in grown person--congresscritter, partner, parent, preacher) has the right to demand ownership of another person. I'd argue that no, there are no situations that justify such a blatantly unsavory attitude. Society as a whole becomes lessened if we take the position that it's okay to enslave another under any circumstances. The same arguments we might use against abortion today are old and familiar arguments in favor of slavery and racism--anti-abortion activists are on the very wrong side of this issue. Decide whatever you want to decide with regard to your own body. I won't care. But don't try to force others to toe the line YOU've set for YOURself.

Regarding lipstick, see above.

 

There is an entire field of ethics called 'medical ethics' that discusses the ethics involved in - what? - medical procedures. Saying 'just a medical procedure' means absolutely nothing. Other medical procedures: lobotomies, lethal injections, and the human centipede. In this case, I've already explained the most obvious reason for why abortion is morally relevant.

 

I wouldn't make presumptions about why people do whatever it is that they do. But if they were to give their reasons themselves, then those reasons will obviously be held up to what I think is right and wrong. And then my judgments themselves may be evaluated by society and accepted or rejected.

 

Again, the legal aspect is only part of the story. It involves a whole other set of considerations that this thread hasn't even mentioned. It's a whole other separate issue for me. I'm happy with where the bright lines are now, personally -- it isn't perfect but it's as decent a 'best-fit line' you're gonna get.

[mymistake]

Of course you are, it's essentially because I acknowledge that abortion ends a human life, in some cases even where the human life is indistinguishable from a baby.

 

This is an assumption you make. The reason you arrive at a different conclusion is that you use extra premises. You and I both believe abortion kills a human life. Akheia does not. For some reason you see human life as sacred and I do not. Different premises lead to different conclusions.

 

However the government can distinguish between a baby and a fetus. One has experienced birth and the other not. The government recognizes the baby as a person but not the fetus. The idea you and I share that a fetus is human life doesn't address when human life becomes a person. That is subjective. So is morality which changes over time.

 

If someone is going to kill a baby for any reason, well, that is a morally salient fact, period. What you're doing is looking at the act, stamping it as 'bodily sovereignty,' and then disregarding the consequences as though they don't matter.

 

Wrong. The fetus is created from the mother's body. That is the crux of her argument. Where did the fetus come from? The mother's body. Can the mother object? Can the mother forbid?

 

Again we are talking about killing a fetus, not killing a baby that has experience birth and living outside his or her mother's body.

 

 

Denying this is specious.

 

It just means they used different premises.

 

 

In this case, I've already explained the most obvious reason for why abortion is morally relevant.

 

But without accepting the required premises your reason is empty.

[Yrth]

Of course you are, it's essentially because I acknowledge that abortion ends a human life, in some cases even where the human life is indistinguishable from a baby.

This is an assumption you make. The reason you arrive at a different conclusion is that you use extra premises. You and I both believe abortion kills a human life. Akheia does not. For some reason you see human life as sacred and I do not. Different premises lead to different conclusions.

 

However the government can distinguish between a baby and a fetus. One has experienced birth and the other not. The government recognizes the baby as a person but not the fetus. The idea you and I share that a fetus is human life doesn't address when human life becomes a person. That is subjective. So is morality which changes over time.

Well, if she doesn't acknowledge that its a human life, she's simply wrong. It's not a feline or a canine life, its a human life, a human individual. This isn't an assumption, it is a fact. What she has been saying is that it does not matter because of bodily sovereignty, and I think that it does matter in spite of bodily sovereignty.

 

When I wrote a human life I meant exactly that and no more.The fetus may not be a "person" yet, but then again neither is a baby or even a toddler. For that and other reasons I don't subscribe to the idea that only persons are worth saving. See below for why birth is irrelevant.

If someone is going to kill a baby for any reason, well, that is a morally salient fact, period. What you're doing is looking at the act, stamping it as 'bodily sovereignty,' and then disregarding the consequences as though they don't matter.

Wrong. The fetus is created from the mother's body. That is the crux of her argument. Where did the fetus come from? The mother's body. Can the mother object? Can the mother forbid?

 

Again we are talking about killing a fetus, not killing a baby that has experience birth and living outside his or her mother's body.

Actually we are talking about both. She doesn't think it matters if it's an actual baby with a headband on as long as it is inside the mother's body. And anyway fetus 2 minutes before birth is practically the same as a baby two minutes afterwards, so there is really no reason to say that the two are any different. The only relevant difference is location. So no, I'm not wrong.

 

Tangent: No offense, but its disturbing to read someone write that people aren't worth saving. I understand your concern about overpopulation but I think you should reconsider. If I've misunderstood you I invite you to clarify your thoughts.

[mymistake]

The fetus may not be a "person" yet, but then again neither is a baby or even a toddler.

 

Yet a toddler is a person. A baby is a person too. Governments and plenty of people have no problem with the distinction. A fetus has not been born. There is a huge difference in experience. A fetus is still getting oxygen directly by the mother. A baby is getting his or her own oxygen.

 

 

And anyway fetus 2 minutes before birth is practically the same as a baby two minutes afterwards, so there is really no reason to say that the two are any different.

 

That does not follow. You use the word practically to smudge over the differences.

 

 

The only relevant difference is location. So no, I'm not wrong.

 

Experience and oxygen supply are not location.

 

Tangent: No offense, but its disturbing to read someone write that people aren't worth saving. I understand your concern about overpopulation but I think you should reconsider. If I've misunderstood you I invite you to clarify your thoughts.

 

Every day you drive or ride over roads that have killed people. It doesn't bother you. Every once in a while you pass a mess where somebody has just died. Like the rest of us you just turn your head a bit to get a view and then you go on with your business. People die every hour. It doesn't make the news unless they were famous or the circumstances were very unusual. People only care when it was somebody they knew. We have systems and technology which accidently kill people all the time - plane crashes, train crashes, ships sink and so on. Business does not bother spending money on fixing the problem until after enough people have died. People sell products that are known to be toxic or dangerous - tobacco and so on. World wide we have famine where thousands starve to death. Most people do nothing about that. A few give 65 cents a day to a charity which amounts to almost nothing. There are wars all over the place killing people. And on a smaller scale there is crime all over the place inflicting violence in small doses.

 

Now all of that goes on every day whether I am here or not. I don't cause any of that. It's human nature. I look at what happens and I conclude life is cheap.

 

The those who get aborted, yeah, that is bad luck but life is full of bad luck and suffering. Getting aborted is not the worst possible fate. I won't go into all that because nobody else will be interested.

[Ro-bear]

The fetus may not be a "person" yet, but then again neither is a baby or even a toddler.

 

Yet a toddler is a person. A baby is a person too. Governments and plenty of people have no problem with the distinction. A fetus has not been born. There is a huge difference in experience. A fetus is still getting oxygen directly by the mother. A baby is getting his or her own oxygen.

 

 

+1

 

If you have legal rights, you are a person.

[Yrth]

The fetus may not be a "person" yet, but then again neither is a baby or even a toddler.

Yet a toddler is a person. A baby is a person too. Governments and plenty of people have no problem with the distinction. A fetus has not been born. There is a huge difference in experience. A fetus is still getting oxygen directly by the mother. A baby is getting his or her own oxygen.

Again, the government's assignment of rights is a separate issue, it's simply irrelevant to the philosophy of personhood. See the discussion with Vigile for an inkling of what people mean by 'person' in these discussions. It does not simply refer to the assignment of rights, it is a label given to entities that possess certain cognitive faculties. Babies and toddlers don't generally qualify.

 

And anyway fetus 2 minutes before birth is practically the same as a baby two minutes afterwards, so there is really no reason to say that the two are any different.

 

That does not follow. You use the word practically to smudge over the differences.

Actually yes, it does follow. Look up Legion's first comment in this thread. There is no significant physical change for the fetus that changes what it is. All birth changes is where it is and whose body is affected by it.

 

The only relevant difference is location. So no, I'm not wrong.

Experience and oxygen supply are not location.

Actually yes, they are. Someone's experience doesn't change what they are physically or whether they are worth saving. And someone's source of oxygen has no significant bearing on what they are physically either, all that it means is that the fetus is inside somebody else. In other words, location.

 

Tangent: No offense, but its disturbing to read someone write that people aren't worth saving. I understand your concern about overpopulation but I think you should reconsider. If I've misunderstood you I invite you to clarify your thoughts.

Every day you drive or ride over roads that have killed people. It doesn't bother you. Every once in a while you pass a mess where somebody has just died. Like the rest of us you just turn your head a bit to get a view and then you go on with your business. People die every hour. It doesn't make the news unless they were famous or the circumstances were very unusual. People only care when it was somebody they knew. We have systems and technology which accidently kill people all the time - plane crashes, train crashes, ships sink and so on. Business does not bother spending money on fixing the problem until after enough people have died. People sell products that are known to be toxic or dangerous - tobacco and so on. World wide we have famine where thousands starve to death. Most people do nothing about that. A few give 65 cents a day to a charity which amounts to almost nothing. There are wars all over the place killing people. And on a smaller scale there is crime all over the place inflicting violence in small doses.

 

Now all of that goes on every day whether I am here or not. I don't cause any of that. It's human nature. I look at what happens and I conclude life is cheap.

 

The those who get aborted, yeah, that is bad luck but life is full of bad luck and suffering. Getting aborted is not the worst possible fate. I won't go into all that because nobody else will be interested.

Do you think this is an objective take on human society? Or, do you think that something going on inside you may be influencing how you're perceiving the state of things? I have a friend who is always going on about how much good there is in society and how no one ever pays any attention to it. I think it might be time to focus on the positive.

 

Something else -- it's true that people only grieve over someone's death when it was someone they knew. Yet, everyone is known by at least one other person, and so no one's dies without at least one person caring about it. Viewed that way, the human race has grieved for nearly every member since it learned how. So maybe people aren't as uncaring about death as that sentence in bold makes them out to be? Its worth considering.

[mymistake]

The fetus may not be a "person" yet, but then again neither is a baby or even a toddler.

Yet a toddler is a person. A baby is a person too. Governments and plenty of people have no problem with the distinction. A fetus has not been born. There is a huge difference in experience. A fetus is still getting oxygen directly by the mother. A baby is getting his or her own oxygen.

Again, the government's assignment of rights is a separate issue, it's simply irrelevant to the philosophy of personhood. See the discussion with Vigile for an inkling of what people mean by 'person' in these discussions. It does not simply refer to the assignment of rights, it is a label given to entities that possess certain cognitive faculties. Babies and toddlers don't generally qualify.

 

Fact: It's very easy to see the difference between a fetus and a person.

 

But you ignore all that and change the context. The experience of being born changes everything for a baby. You don't have to like it but that is the standard. The people here are not going to agree with you because you used different premises. You won't be able to get them to your conclusion unless they use all of yours. Miss a key one and they wind up on my side of the argument. Miss a different key one and they wind up on Akheia's side. You quibble with Akheia over the words "human life" or "person" but really you need to find a way to get people to change their premises.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually yes, it does follow.

 

Any two things are practically the same except for what makes them different.

 

Look I pointed out the major difference between a baby and a fetus, besides location. You wish to gloss over all that and ignore. Yet those differences are what allow people and governments to so easily distinguish between a person with rights and a mere fetus.

 

 

Yet, everyone is known by at least one other person, and so no one's dies without at least one person caring about it.

 

 

Think about it and you will realize this is false. Two people are dying of famine out in a field somewhere. They are the last people in their social group. They are the last people on earth who mutually care about each other. One goes but the other lingers. There is no magical replacement friend. The last one dies alone.

[Yrth]

The fetus may not be a "person" yet, but then again neither is a baby or even a toddler.

Yet a toddler is a person. A baby is a person too. Governments and plenty of people have no problem with the distinction. A fetus has not been born. There is a huge difference in experience. A fetus is still getting oxygen directly by the mother. A baby is getting his or her own oxygen.

Again, the government's assignment of rights is a separate issue, it's simply irrelevant to the philosophy of personhood. See the discussion with Vigile for an inkling of what people mean by 'person' in these discussions. It does not simply refer to the assignment of rights, it is a label given to entities that possess certain cognitive faculties. Babies and toddlers don't generally qualify.

Fact: It's very easy to see the difference between a fetus and a person.

 

But you ignore all that and change the context. The experience of being born changes everything for a baby. You don't have to like it but that is the standard. The people here are not going to agree with you because you used different premises. You won't be able to get them to your conclusion unless they use all of yours. Miss a key one and they wind up on my side of the argument. Miss a different key one and they wind up on Akheia's side. You quibble with Akheia over the words "human life" or "person" but really you need to find a way to get people to change their premises.

You are not understanding what a person is in abortion philosophy, see the bolded text above. A baby does not have the cognitive faculties of a person under personhood philosophies. That is why a lot of this thread has been about why infanticide is wrong (my arg) or neutral (other people's arg).

 

I've already explained that being born doesn't change the fetus/baby physically. 2 minutes before and 2 minutes after birth, the fetus/baby is physically indistinguishable except for its location, its dependence. That's why the issue is bodily sovereignty. The experience of being born is totally irrelevant to whether it is worth saving. Just think about it, if the fetus was being incubated or whatever in a machine would there even be an issue? I would say no, because its life matters and there is no longer any reason (bodily sovereignty) why it would have to be forfeited. It's removal from the machine is just like taking off someone's oxygen tube, there is no difference in principle.

 

By the way, what is it that you think I'm concluding anyway? I'm just saying that it's important to acknowledge that there are morally significant facts here, that's all. But I mean, it;s all moot with you in any event because you don't think human life is worth saving period, right? So why even discuss this with me, I'm confused.

Actually yes, it does follow.

Any two things are practically the same except for what makes them different.

 

Look I pointed out the major difference between a baby and a fetus, besides location. You wish to gloss over all that and ignore. Yet those differences are what allow people and governments to so easily distinguish between a person with rights and a mere fetus.

I'm not glossing over it, I explained why that difference doesn't matter except in terms of bodily sovereignty. This is getting redundant.

 

Yet, everyone is known by at least one other person, and so no one's dies without at least one person caring about it.

Think about it and you will realize this is false. Two people are dying of famine out in a field somewhere. They are the last people in their social group. They are the last people on earth who mutually care about each other. One goes but the other lingers. There is no magical replacement friend. The last one dies alone.

Wow, how often does that happen?! .000001% of the time? So even if it were as you say, it would be a relatively isolated tragedy. But it's not as you say, because the last survivor must have known people in her life, and she would have known that they would have cared about her fate if they had been alive to witness it. If she ever had loved or been loved she could have felt loved even if she were the last person on earth.

 

I'm just offering you a more positive way to look at the world. It's no less accurate, it is just choosing to focus on different truths. Sorrow can overwhelm you if you deliberately immerse yourself in it and ignore everything else. That kind of tunnel vision literally affects your brain chemistry and warps your perspective.

[mymistake]

You are not understanding what a person is in abortion philosophy, see the bolded text above.

 

I understand it just fine Pockets. This doesn't have to be about my character flaws.

 

The experience of being born is totally irrelevant to whether it is worth saving.

 

False. I have already explained why. I'm not the only one who has explained it to you. Choosing to ignore the reasons does not make them not exist.

 

Just think about it, if the fetus was being incubated or whatever in a machine would there even be an issue?

 

Then there would be no mother to choose.

 

 

But I mean, it;s all moot with you in any event because you don't think human life is worth saving period, right?

 

Just because I don't think all human life is worth saving does not mean there is no human life worth saving.

 

 

So why even discuss this with me, I'm confused.

 

Discussions can be useful. It's a discussion board.

 

 

Wow, how often does that happen?! .000001% of the time? So even if it were as you say, it would be a relatively isolated tragedy.

 

Even if it happened only once in history it would still counter your claim. You can't have an all if there is an exception.

 

 

I'm just offering you a more positive way to look at the world. It's no less accurate, it is just choosing to focus on different truths. Sorrow can overwhelm you if you deliberately immerse yourself in it and ignore everything else. That kind of tunnel vision literally affects your brain chemistry and warps your perspective.

 

Why is it when you disagree with somebody you start picking at their character? While it is true that optimism is more positive than realism it is false that optimism is no less accurate. Putting a positive spin on everything is still spin.

[Yrth]

You are not understanding what a person is in abortion philosophy, see the bolded text above.

I understand it just fine Pockets. This doesn't have to be about my character flaws.

Well, if you understood what a person is in abortion philosophy, you would know that a baby is not a person because it lacks certain cognitive faculties.

Not understanding something isn't a character flaw, all right? I'm not attacking you. See above in other responses, it's common to point out places where you don't think the other person understands something.

 

The experience of being born is totally irrelevant to whether it is worth saving.

False. I have already explained why. I'm not the only one who has explained it to you. Choosing to ignore the reasons does not make them not exist.

Actually I don't think you have explained why experiencing birth is relevant to whether a life is worth saving. That's a pretty unique claim and I've never actually heard it before. I'm genuinely curious, why would experiencing birth be relevant to whether a life is worth saving?

 

Just think about it, if the fetus was being incubated or whatever in a machine would there even be an issue?

Then there would be no mother to choose.

D: ...precisely, that was my point. With bodily sovereignty out of the way, there is no reason to draw a line at removal from a machine.

 

Wow, how often does that happen?! .000001% of the time? So even if it were as you say, it would be a relatively isolated tragedy.

Even if it happened only once in history it would still counter your claim. You can't have an all if there is an exception.

That's true, but I did qualify it to 'nearly every member' in that post. Read together, it's a qualified claim, but I can see how the cutting and pasting process could confuse it.

 

I'm just offering you a more positive way to look at the world. It's no less accurate, it is just choosing to focus on different truths. Sorrow can overwhelm you if you deliberately immerse yourself in it and ignore everything else. That kind of tunnel vision literally affects your brain chemistry and warps your perspective.

Why is it when you disagree with somebody you start picking at their character? While it is true that optimism is more positive than realism it is false that optimism is no less accurate. Putting a positive spin on everything is still spin.

I'm not attacking you, MM, this isn't about your character it's about your perspective. I am familiar with fatalistic perspectives and I was just trying to help.

[mymistake]

Well, if you understood what a person is in abortion philosophy, you would know that a baby is not a person because it lacks certain cognitive faculties.

 

So you are changing the context around? You can move the conversation into philosophy and then to law and then to the real world and definitions are not changed by the changing context?

 

 

Actually I don't think you have explained why experiencing birth is relevant to whether a life is worth saving. That's a pretty unique claim and I've never actually heard it before. I'm genuinely curious, why would experiencing birth be relevant to whether a life is worth saving?

 

See post 81

 

"Something that has no conciousness isn't aware if it dies." - Silentknight

 

An unborn fetus is just growing in a dark, noisy place. There is a loud beat. There is pressure. That is the only existence they have known.

 

 

 

D: ...precisely, that was my point. With bodily sovereignty out of the way, there is no reason to draw a line at removal from a machine.

 

But a mother's body is in the mix. You can't just take these issues out one by one, detangle them and then pretend that what might be true in a hypothetical sterile context is still true in the real-world, all-tangled-up context.

 

Because a fetus is getting it's oxygen from it's mother's body and because the mother's body hides the rest of the world from the fetus birth is relevant.

 

 

I am familiar with fatalistic perspectives and I was just trying to help.

 

I'm not familiar with fatalistic perspectives. I had to look it up.

 

I use to have a conclusion that was very similar to yours. I use to believe that every zygote was a person. Yes I understood that some would be naturally stillborn. I refused to use the term "natural abortion" because I saw abortion as evil. I figured since God created us then God has the right to kill us. And whenever I thought about the stillborn zygotes going to heaven and the ramification of that on abortion as a medical procedure I got confused and put it out of my head. I kept telling myself that every zygote was a soul and God had a plan for him or her. And God was looking out for that person. And God was going to provide for them because God loves us and God provides for his children.

 

But then one day I woke up and realized there is no God. So all my ideas based on God fell apart. How can I tell a woman that she can't have an abortion? By what authority? I've got nothing. So since I have no valid objection I am now pro-choice.

[Yrth]

Well, if you understood what a person is in abortion philosophy, you would know that a baby is not a person because it lacks certain cognitive faculties.

So you are changing the context around? You can move the conversation into philosophy and then to law and then to the real world and definitions are not changed by the changing context?

Want to run that by me again? I don't understand what you're saying. I haven't been discussing the law.

 

Actually I don't think you have explained why experiencing birth is relevant to whether a life is worth saving. That's a pretty unique claim and I've never actually heard it before. I'm genuinely curious, why would experiencing birth be relevant to whether a life is worth saving?

 

See post 81

 

"Something that has no conciousness isn't aware if it dies." - Silentknight

 

An unborn fetus is just growing in a dark, noisy place. There is a loud beat. There is pressure. That is the only existence they have known.

Consciousness is one of those cognitive traits I mentioned that are required for personhood in abortion philosophy. Experience of birth is unrelated to consciousness. I mean, take a hypo I posed earlier, where humans would be fully conscious in the womb but still needed to gestate for 9 months. So, I'm still curious why experiencing birth would matter.

 

D: ...precisely, that was my point. With bodily sovereignty out of the way, there is no reason to draw a line at removal from a machine.

But a mother's body is in the mix. You can't just take these issues out one by one, detangle them and then pretend that what might be true in a hypothetical sterile context is still true in the real-world, all-tangled-up context.

 

Because a fetus is getting it's oxygen from it's mother's body and because the mother's body hides the rest of the world from the fetus birth is relevant.

You must take the issues one by one for the purposes of examining your reasons. We are looking at why birth is relevant and why it is not. We essentially agree about this, all you're doing is rephrasing 'bodily sovereignty.' You settled this last post when you said that the only reason there is an issue is because there is a mother to choose. Birth, then, is only relevant insofar as it relates to bodily sovereignty.

 

I'm gonna take a break. Take care.

[mymistake]

Morality changes over time. If our decedents create a world where human suffering has been practically eradicated and pregnancy has been replaced by growing zygotes into people in some chamber then morality will grow to accommodate that new world with it's new conditions. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world today.

[Akheia]

Pockets, you're still functioning under premises that not everybody accepts:

1) That a fetus is a 'person' with full person rights. It is not. It is a developmental stage that will, eventually, become a person--the same way that a group of stem cells from someone's nose might. Yet you don't freak out about someone getting a nose job and destroying all those stem cells ZOMG. Exactly where in that development a fetus becomes a human being is way up for debate. You, a mere law student, has decided in your grandiosity that you know this essential philosophical answer that few reputable doctors would take a position on. Do you accept that I, a history writer, might have looked over the same resources and come to a different conclusion than you? Why is your answer of more importance than my answer? And even if it IS a "person," that still leads to a whole other issue: consent. So this is a non-starter of an argument against abortion, a total red herring. Do you understand that?

 

2) That your moral judgment of another human being is binding upon that human being. Your arguments for why your judgment regarding abortion and a woman's relative "moral" reasons for having one are the exact same arguments people have used to oppress and remove the rights of a host of people. Right now in the South there are states where it's illegal to possess sex toys--why? Because some fucktard legislator thinks that if women have orgasms with sex toys, that'll destroy the moral fiber of the country. Why are these politicians allowed to intrude upon a woman's right to enjoy her body the way she wishes? By the same token, why is your moral judgment of someone's reasons for someone having an abortion anything but your subjective, subject-to-change evaluation of available facts? And why should someone else care about what you happen to think they should do in that situation?

 

3) Even if a fetus is a person and deserves legal protection, you have not demonstrated that you have the right to override a woman's right to decide she doesn't want to donate her body, organs, tissues, and time to another person or why you have the right to decide that she will undergo a potentially dangerous medical procedure against her will. This really is the thing you seem to skate away from the most. It's hardly "specious" to claim that a forced pregnancy is very similar to a forced organ donation. Speaking as a woman, I can tell you they sure seem the same to me. In both cases, the procedure is potentially risky, very painful, and done entirely for the benefit of another person. And both should be completely elective and subject to a woman's consent.

 

In short, Pockets, enjoy your break, and please think about this stuff a bit more. I think you're locked in a dogma from your old Christian days, honestly.You've decided that you have rights over another's body, and that the ends (a live birth) justify any means (forced pregnancy). You've completely ignored the pressing issues of consent and sovereignty that I brought up as well. I wish you could see how absolutely not okay that is. If you yourself think abortion is wrong, don't have one. And make sure the women you fuck know you'll make their lives hell if they do get pregnant accidentally and decide to abort. It's really that simple.

 

You have absolutely no right to decide how another human being will respond to the demands of a pregnancy and no right to demand that a woman donate her body to another entity purely because you, yourself, have decided that your moral viewpoint of her actions are binding upon her. You do not own me, not even a tiny bit, and neither does a fetus.

[Yrth]

Never grocery shop hungry, never type angry, --and never say never. You make it very difficult to respond calmly to your posts. I mean, I have to wade through your insults, your caps-lock tone of voice, and your condescension before I can even see whatever substantive point you're trying to make. You've been this way since you entered the thread with "this conversation is boring, I can't believe everyone else doesn't think like me!" It's like you don't even care about discussing this, not really. You just want someone to scream at. Well, I'm not your sounding board, got it? I respect you, Akhiea, ok, you're a strong-willed, articulate, intelligent person -- but you had best back off my shit. kk? thx.

 

Pockets, you're still functioning under premises that not everybody accepts:

That a fetus is a 'person' with full person rights. It is not. It is a developmental stage that will, eventually, become a person--the same way that a group of stem cells from someone's nose might. Yet you don't freak out about someone getting a nose job and destroying all those stem cells ZOMG. Exactly where in that development a fetus becomes a human being is way up for debate. You, a mere law student, has decided in your grandiosity that you know this essential philosophical answer that few reputable doctors would take a position on. Do you accept that I, a history writer, might have looked over the same resources and come to a different conclusion than you? Why is your answer of more importance than my answer? And even if it IS a "person," that still leads to a whole other issue: consent. So this is a non-starter of an argument against abortion, a total red herring. Do you understand that?

I really don't think I have said anything like that. Everything I've said has focused on the final final final stages of pregnancy, 2 minutes before birth and 2 minutes after. You're 0 and 1.

 

 

2) That your moral judgment of another human being is binding upon that human being. Your arguments for why your judgment regarding abortion and a woman's relative "moral" reasons for having one are the exact same arguments people have used to oppress and remove the rights of a host of people. Right now in the South there are states where it's illegal to possess sex toys--why? Because some fucktard legislator thinks that if women have orgasms with sex toys, that'll destroy the moral fiber of the country. Why are these politicians allowed to intrude upon a woman's right to enjoy her body the way she wishes? By the same token, why is your moral judgment of someone's reasons for someone having an abortion anything but your subjective, subject-to-change evaluation of available facts? And why should someone else care about what you happen to think they should do in that situation?

Uh, where have I said that my moral judgment is binding on someone else? Nowhere. I have said that what to do legally is an entirely separate issue with an entirely different set of considerations. 0 for 2.

 

Why "someone else" might care what I think -- depends. Obviously. I suppose you mean someone I don't happen to know? It really depends on them and what they think about it and whether or not they care. I would never think otherwise, who do you think I think I am? Don't answer that. Of course, at this point I would direct your attention a page back or so to where I said that I would not presume to know someone's reasons and judge someone on a decision I know nothing about.

 

3) Even if a fetus is a person and deserves legal protection, you have not demonstrated that you have the right to override a woman's right to decide she doesn't want to donate her body, organs, tissues, and time to another person or why you have the right to decide that she will undergo a potentially dangerous medical procedure against her will. This really is the thing you seem to skate away from the most. It's hardly "specious" to claim that a forced pregnancy is very similar to a forced organ donation. Speaking as a woman, I can tell you they sure seem the same to me. In both cases, the procedure is potentially risky, very painful, and done entirely for the benefit of another person. And both should be completely elective and subject to a woman's consent.

Once again, I have said that the legal issue of what to do is completely separate and irrelevant area from where I have staked a claim. If you're just using the phrase "right to" in its colloquial sense, I think I've made it clear that consent is not absolute. All you need to do is raise the consequences to the point where to continue would be outrageous. And you flipped it back and demonstrated the same, reversed. Did you not get what that meant? Bodily sovereignty is an extremely important principle, but it isn't absolute. .5 for 3.

 

In short, Pockets, enjoy your break, and please think about this stuff a bit more. I think you're locked in a dogma from your old Christian days, honestly.You've decided that you have rights over another's body, and that the ends (a live birth) justify any means (forced pregnancy). You've completely ignored the pressing issues of consent and sovereignty that I brought up as well. I wish you could see how absolutely not okay that is. If you yourself think abortion is wrong, don't have one. And make sure the women you fuck know you'll make their lives hell if they do get pregnant accidentally and decide to abort. It's really that simple.

Unbelievable, no for the last time I have not decided any such thing. .5 for 4.

In my Christian days I thought souls and life began around conception and a life killed vs. a life burdened came out in favor of the fetus. My views have completely changed, but unlike the majority of folks I haven't simply chomped down on the party line. .5 for 5.

 

For some reason, you think bodily sovereignty is an absolute and you refuse to acknowledge that there is anything else important going on. I think that's messed up, it leads to things like Ro saying, iirc, that he'd rather kill a million fetuses (I believe we were talking about about-to-be-born fetuses) than infringe on someone's bodily sovereignty. That's messed up.

 

Regarding the other bolded sentence - see my first paragraph.

 

You have absolutely no right to decide how another human being will respond to the demands of a pregnancy and no right to demand that a woman donate her body to another entity purely because you, yourself, have decided that your moral viewpoint of her actions are binding upon her. You do not own me, not even a tiny bit, and neither does a fetus.

We're done here.

[Yrth]

Just count me out of anything further related to this genre. Talking about this just isn't worth the cost. Egos are facing off and it's just not worth it. If I see some ex-Christian arrive with a similar view, I'll let him or her know that they aren't total outcasts on a site designed for support, but other than that I believe I am done discussing this. Baggage indeed.

[Akheia]

I'm sorry it came to that, Pockets. You can probably very easily guess where I stand on this issue, but at this point I've got to be honest--based on your last post to me, I've got no fuckin' clue where *you* stand. You say one thing, then another, then another. It's very clear to me that you feel abortion is a complex issue. I still bear you only the greatest affection and hope it works out for you with school and family and whatnot. If you ever do feel like spelling out where you stand, I'm listening.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Holy cow, man. Nobody told me there was an abortion debate going on.

 

 

Jensjam: This issue is very close to my heart, too.

 

 

I want to point a few things out:

Just a point here. I am old enough to remember BEFORE Roe v. Wade. I remember all the women who died or became sterile because of backroom abortions.

This.

Anyone can look into the history of what it was like before Roe v. Wade. Few people do, and more should. We know what that gets us, and it ain't pretty on a number of levels. Not just with respect to the tragedies that occurred in illegal or self-induced abortions, but also with respect to adoption and infant abandonment. Without contraception and abortion, women were essentially trapped by their biology and the roles imposed on them by -- largely -- sexist religious ideology. Young, unmarried pregnant women were often shamed and manipulated into relinquishing their children before Roe v. Wade. This era is now called the Baby Scoop Era and the emotional trauma of those practices is starting to be more openly discussed. Abortion legalization is one of the things that helped to usher in some needed changes to some parts of the adoption industry. (There is still manipulation and abuse in this industry today, though. More awareness, change and oversight are needed.)

 

If you look at older eras, and in other countries where abortion was banned, you'll find that infant abandonment rates were or are much higher.

 

What most of you don't realize is that many, many BAPTISTS were for this decision. It was not an issue until the 1980s and the rise of the religious right.

The history of Roe v Wade is not discussed much, and we certainly don't hear about what happened to women, then. You will never hear any Baptist admit they were pro-Roe v. Wade, but there were plenty then who were.

That's really interesting, and you're right, I didn't know that.

 

Pockets: Fetuses aren't infants. The differences in development are huge, and they matter a lot.

Late-stage abortions are extremely rare and nearly always performed because of some kind of life-threatening condition for the woman or severe deformity in the fetus... like this. Please stop using late-term fetuses as representing all or even most abortions. This is a straw man.

 

I agree that most of us value life, one way or another. But I don't understand how you can so confidently assert that a fetus, or even something as seemingly mundane as an omeba does not value life.

Something incapable of consciousness can't value anything.

 

That does not mean fetuses don't have an inherent value. They do. However, their value does not supersede that of the mother or her rights to bodily integrity, moral and religious autonomy, health care, and privacy. I agree that fetuses are alive, they are human, and abortion kills them. But they are not people at that stage, and should not be accorded the rights that people have.

[Akheia]

This is a thorough, non-partisan treatment of the subject if anybody's interested. I read it in college right around when I got ahold of the Crisis Pregnancy Center's lying, manipulative brainwashing "handbook" for its unlicensed "counselors." Quite surprising info in it, especially around Mohr's assertions about how society's acceptance of abortion hinges upon how it views those getting abortions. If it's "good girls who got in terrible trouble," it's more lenient; if it's "sluts being slutty and wanting to avoid the obvious consequences of their slutting around," it's way less lenient. He also covers what illegal abortion was like, as well as "abortion mills" and the quiet under-the-table abortifacient-drug business. Most eye-opening was what he uncovered about the roots of the anti-abortion movement--not quite what one would expect.

 

Anybody who thinks that anti-abortion legislation will end abortions is only fooling himself and buying into a political agenda that runs deep into anti-woman fundie-takeover territory. Even the people at the top of anti-abortion groups refuse to advocate what actually *will* make abortions rare: make contraception easy to get and cheap, educate young people in how to safely have sex, and foster an environment that honors a woman's ownership of her own body. I realized in my 20s that these groups weren't actually interested in saving precious babies, which led me into interesting mental territory regarding what they are actually interested in, based upon their actual behavior and actions.

[mymistake]

privacy

 

Good post. Now there is a word I haven't heard in the abortion debate in a long time. It brings me back.

[Kurari]

Speaking as a woman who has had an abortion, this is something very dear to my heart as well. People are all too happy to TELL me what an abortion is like ('cause you know, it wasn't like I was THERE or anything), what "actually" happens, and armchair psychoanalyze my personality and mental capability. I'm either stupid, duped, or a cold vicious killer. They don't care about me or my family...and they never, EVER ask me for my story.

 

This debate is not about abortion or medicine. It's about control. Man is under God, woman is under man, and child is under woman.

 

While the Access side is concerned with making sure every woman receives the medical care they want and need (which includes prenatal care), Pro-LIARS only wish to see women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. The Pro-Liars don't care about fetuses. They just use them as a platform to preach and gain power. Listen to them talk about children sometime. They are "consequences," and "In/conveniences." Not children. They scream holy hell at the very idea of increasing welfare to care for these unwanted children and their parents, or even giving prenatal care to women who can't afford the prohibitively expensive cost of caring for themselves in pregnancy and birth.

 

Don't be fooled by their emotional pleas. They DON'T care. This is about power, oppression, control, and food for their self-righteousness. Further compounding that the religious are the elite, and the rest of us are unsaved SCUM.

 

In that light, I'm not at all surprised that after 50 years in this country, this is still a debate.

[Akheia]

Me either... and it was a very serious part of the debate once. Maybe nothing's private anymore. Maybe some things need to be.

[Akheia]

Speaking as a woman who has had an abortion, this is something very dear to my heart as well. People are all too happy to TELL me what an abortion is like ('cause you know, it wasn't like I was THERE or anything), what "actually" happens, and armchair psychoanalyze my personality and mental capability. I'm either stupid, duped, or a cold vicious killer. They don't care about me or my family...and they never, EVER ask me for my story.

 

This debate is not about abortion or medicine. It's about control. Man is under God, woman is under man, and child is under woman.

 

While the Access side is concerned with making sure every woman receives the medical care they want and need (which includes prenatal care), Pro-LIARS only wish to see women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. The Pro-Liars don't care about fetuses. They just use them as a platform to preach and gain power. Listen to them talk about children sometime. They are "consequences," and "In/conveniences." Not children. They scream holy hell at the very idea of increasing welfare to care for these unwanted children and their parents, or even giving prenatal care to women who can't afford the prohibitively expensive cost of caring for themselves in pregnancy and birth.

 

Don't be fooled by their emotional pleas. They DON'T care. This is about power, oppression, control, and food for their self-righteousness. Further compounding that the religious are the elite, and the rest of us are unsaved SCUM.

 

In that light, I'm not at all surprised that after 50 years in this country, this is still a debate.

 

Thank you for being brave enough to step into the light with your story, Kurari. Never stop telling it. Like you, I am neither cruelly tricked, nor a brutal murderess, nor a blithering idiot. Like you, I assessed the pros and cons of having a child, and came to the inescapable conclusion that having one would have made my life a living fucking HELL. So yes, I had an abortion (7 weeks in, and it would have been 5 if not for "pro-life" fundies fucking up access to the clinic and causing my appointment to be rescheduled). I haven't had any regrets at all about it. I did the best that one could do with the situation I was in.

 

I've never seen anything out of the anti-abortion side that makes me think they're about anything but destroying women's independence. The rank and file I'm a lot more gentle toward; I know they don't understand what's motivating their leadership. Very few of them have actually looked far past the "saving precious babies" stated agenda and many don't understand that ending a woman's right to decide how her body is used is detrimental to ALL humans, not just to women facing unwanted pregnancies. And if anybody's been tricked, it's the kindhearted people at the bottom of the pile who don't get what the real agenda is here. I've been trying to find that court case upholding the rights of a guy who was almost forced into donating a chunk of his liver to a dying relative under "presumed consent," and can't find it, so here's a nice legal writeup about something very similar.

[silentknight]

Kurari,

 

I'm sorry you've had to deal with so much judgment. Emotionally, I don't think anyone takes abortion "lightly", and fundies tend to think pro-choice people are going around using it as their main means of birth control, or at a whim. I'm sure it was a difficult choice.

I'd never presume to understand what it was like for you, or judge you for it.

[Akheia]

SK, you know I love you man, right? Wish I could take you to Kinko's and make a bunch of copies of you.