Abortion Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And one more thing before…my biological father bailed on my 20 year old mom when I was a very young boy and I was raised in poverty my first few years.

I am eternally grateful my mom didn’t see that coming and decide it was going to be too much for her to handle; I’m glad she didn’t bail on me when I was still in her womb.

Just some perspective for all you social workers and family law associates who think maybe I have no business voicing a strong position on this sensitive issue.

Whatever you do, don’t any of you yap to me about poor single mothers having a rough time raising children. I’ll bet you a 10 year supply of ZMA very few if any of you were raised as poor as I was.

congratulations to your mother Push

I am not saying you don’t have the right to voice your opinion

but as I mentioned in regards to my miscarriage, no man will ever have the same weight in this issue

Like Aragorn said, what’s right or wrong is right or wrong regardless of the sex of the person saying it. The truth doesn’t hinge on an X or Y chromosome. The truth stands alone. Independent.

That’s not to say that a woman can’t bring a different perspective to the debate. But if you did a nationwide poll I think you’d see data that showed that gender is irrelevant when it comes to the support or condemnation of abortion in terms of numbers. In other words, I strongly suspect as many or even more women than men oppose abortion.

If I’m right about this it would really make sense since women obviously are the ones who have felt that little internal kick in the belly from another human being. They KNOW they have a person inside of them. A man can never FEEL that.

[/quote]

but Push there is no universal truth in this that everyone will agree on

I also think I am posting on a whole different aspect of this thread.

I also think you would be wrong about the consensus of women

but really, that is something we will never know because folks don’t even turn out to vote, although I fear this will be decided by a Supreme Court that is completely out of touch with actual people

442

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
…but am not supportive of late term abortions.

Why not?

[/quote]

I should have qualified that, I might be if the mother was in danger, thank goodness they don’t sacrifice the mothers anymore to save the fetus

444

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
…but am not supportive of late term abortions.

Why not?

I should have qualified that, I might be if the mother was in danger, thank goodness they don’t sacrifice the mothers anymore to save the fetus

OK, set that caveat aside.

Why not?
[/quote]

because it is very traumatic on the mother both physically and emotionally

445

I’m going to regret getting in to this but what the hell I’m bored.

I haven’t read this whole thread so if I’m just repeating what’s been said 5 times, I’m sorry and just ignore me.

To me it comes down to the fact that a woman is the sole owner of her blood, oxygen, nutrients etc. and as such cannot constitutionally have her own will to not share these resources with another being overridden.

To do so would give this other being, regardless of the circumstances it became dependent on the woman, rights above and beyond any other human being. It doesn’t matter if it is a fetus, a blob or my own sweet granny. This other being is not entitled to use the resources or body of someone other than it’s self, even if it needs it to live.

It may be immoral, unkind, cruel or many other things, but it should never be the law unless it is acceptable to extend this law to other people in need of resources.

If I cause, by my own irresponsible behavior, another person to lose a dangerous amount of blood, should the law have the power and authority to draw the needed blood from my arms to provide for the person who my negligence created a need for? That doesn’t sound too unreasonable but why isn’t that legal?

Just to be upfront, I do not consider a fetus a full fledged person and I have no moral qualms with abortion. But while I don’t think that’s relevant to my argument, I’m not sure I’d make that point if I were on the other side of the fence.

There are a bunch of other arguments such as protecting women’s lives/health etc and I do agree with those points but I don’t think they make a very strong argument that is consistent. Besides, if someone believes abortion is murder, those points won’t impress.

The following is not argument but opinion so take it for what its worth:

BTW I do support late term abortions because I recognize that they are a medical necessity and wouldn’t dream of insisting a that a woman who has carried a pregnancy for 7 or so months and who clearly wants to continue the pregnancy otherwise she would have terminated already since, at least in this country, abortion is readily available, have to stand before a judge and make a case that she is going to selfishly choose her own life over her child’s. Sorry, but that is cruel and that is the circumstances surrounding late term abortions, not tramps who decide at month 6 that they don’t want to play house anymore.

I know a woman who went through a late term abortion and it was terrible for her to have to abort or risk death when she wanted the baby so badly, had a nursery already and all that stuff expecting moms do. She told most people she lost the baby because she didn’t want the judgment (and she already had a shitload of guilt over the matter) I don’t wish that on anyone and I wouldn’t dream of making that harder. As is stands in Canada, abortion is unregulated meaning there is no cut-off date. That means it is up to a doctors discretion because late-term abortions are hardly risk free for the woman. They are not taken lightly and only a total hack would perform a late term abortion on any woman who just walked in and asked for one.

446

[quote]tedro wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

  1. a human life begins at conception. So far as I am aware, there is no alternate scientific explanation. So yes, a fertilized embryo is a human being. Is it a person?

  2. I think we all agree that murder of a person is wrong. The question is how do you define person?

The question of personhood is extremely problematic. It does nothing to develop the debate and at best simply asks questions that are unanswerable.

We can examine Mary Ann Warren’s personhood argument, but even she admits that a being need not possess all five conditions to be determined a person (consciousness, reason, motives, communication, self-awareness), and that it lends itself well to infanticide.

The most obvious problem with this argument is that there is insufficient reason to distinguish between the personhood of a newborn and that of a fetus. The list also seems to exclude the comatose from personhood, as most of these arguments do.

Many abortionists choose to then throw in the brain activity variable, which also does little to further this argument. The biggest limiting factor to measuring neural activity is our own current technology. Furthermore, this argument suggests that it is morally permissible to murder the brain dead.

The other major problem with the personhood argument is that there are many other mammals that meet all the criteria. In many cases these animals fit her definition of personhood better than young children, not just infants. Chimpanzees and dolphins are the best examples.

The personhood argument should then logically conclude that killing a dolphin is as morally wrong as killing a six-year old. Our own intuition tells us that while killing a dolphin is probably not morally permissible, it is surely not equal to killing a six-year old.

This is why the DNA argument is arbitrary. If a dolphin possesses every quality that we consider valuable in a person, sometimes moreso than a person, how can we logically deprive it of the same right to life that we give people?

Thankfully, this whole argument can be avoided. Since by definition killing results in death, we simply must ask ourselves why death is undesireable. The most logical answer is because it deprives us of all future experiences.

A future of value is our most valuable asset. No other loss would be as great as the loss of that future. Killing clearly deprives a being of this future. Therefore, killing is prima facie wrong because it deprives a being of a future like ours.

This argument need not distinguish between the future of an animal or a human. It does raise the question as to whether or not some other beings have a future of value, but it is clear that a chimpanzee or a dolphin does not have a future like ours, whereas a fetus obviously does.

Since we all agree that a fetus or embryo has all of the potential to become a full-fledged human, it can easily be concluded that the future of an embryo is a future sufficiently close to a future like ours. Since the embryo then has a future like ours, killing of the embryo must also be prima facie wrong.

[/quote]

Great post

I hope that those arguing in favor of abortion will attempt to directly address the points you made rather than just responding by saying: (a) Your not a woman, so you don’t understand, or (b) How would society be able to deal with all of the unwanted babies if abortion was not available.

447

[quote]debraD wrote:
I’m going to regret getting in to this but what the hell I’m bored.

I haven’t read this whole thread so if I’m just repeating what’s been said 5 times, I’m sorry and just ignore me.

To me it comes down to the fact that a woman is the sole owner of her blood, oxygen, nutrients etc. and as such cannot constitutionally have her own will to not share these resources with another being overridden.

To do so would give this other being, regardless of the circumstances it became dependent on the woman, rights above and beyond any other human being. It doesn’t matter if it is a fetus, a blob or my own sweet granny. This other being is not entitled to use the resources or body of someone other than it’s self, even if it needs it to live.

It may be immoral, unkind, cruel or many other things, but it should never be the law unless it is acceptable to extend this law to other people in need of resources.

If I cause, by my own irresponsible behavior, another person to lose a dangerous amount of blood, should the law have the power and authority to draw the needed blood from my arms to provide for the person who my negligence created a need for? That doesn’t sound too unreasonable but why isn’t that legal?

Just to be upfront, I do not consider a fetus a full fledged person and I have no moral qualms with abortion. But while I don’t think that’s relevant to my argument, I’m not sure I’d make that point if I were on the other side of the fence.

There are a bunch of other arguments such as protecting women’s lives/health etc and I do agree with those points but I don’t think they make a very strong argument that is consistent. Besides, if someone believes abortion is murder, those points won’t impress.

The following is not argument but opinion so take it for what its worth:

BTW I do support late term abortions because I recognize that they are a medical necessity and wouldn’t dream of insisting a that a woman who has carried a pregnancy for 7 or so months and who clearly wants to continue the pregnancy otherwise she would have terminated already since, at least in this country, abortion is readily available, have to stand before a judge and make a case that she is going to selfishly choose her own life over her child’s. Sorry, but that is cruel and that is the circumstances surrounding late term abortions, not tramps who decide at month 6 that they don’t want to play house anymore.

I know a woman who went through a late term abortion and it was terrible for her to have to abort or risk death when she wanted the baby so badly, had a nursery already and all that stuff expecting moms do. She told most people she lost the baby because she didn’t want the judgment (and she already had a shitload of guilt over the matter) I don’t wish that on anyone and I wouldn’t dream of making that harder. As is stands in Canada, abortion is unregulated meaning there is no cut-off date. That means it is up to a doctors discretion because late-term abortions are hardly risk free for the woman. They are not taken lightly and only a total hack would perform a late term aborton on any woman who just walked in and asked for one.[/quote]

debra, I respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just wish that you hadn’t prefaced this opinion with

[quote]I’m going to regret getting in to this but what the hell I’m bored.

I haven’t read this whole thread so if I’m just repeating what’s been said 5 times, I’m sorry and just ignore me. attitude.[/quote]

I don’t know why it hit me wrong but it seemed to trivialize what is an important issue and a very emotional issue for some. I don’t think you meant to do that, but that is how it came across to me.

448

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Ok, I’ve got to ask a question here OG. I kinda understand what you are saying in all this, but are you saying that while men have the right to voice their opinion, their opinions do not deserve the same weight as women’s opinions in the abortion issue?

If that is the case, I disagree with you. Regardless of the differential weight with which the after-effects of an unintended pregnancy fall on the woman instead of the man, the ethical issue at hand is one that is universal. That is, gender doesn’t matter for the purposes of being incorrect or correct about the central ethical issue of the debate, only rational discussion, of which both men and women are capable. Corrrect or incorrect is not gender based.

If that’s not what you were saying, then I’m confused.

it is what I am saying

Aragorn, I just don’t see this as an ethical debate.

first, you really can’t debate a belief, you can debate opinions.

secondly, I haven’t seen a post to really address that this isn’t an equal playing field. I know you understand what I am saying whether or not you agree.

and maybe I am this is just a whole different part of things that I am getting at.

I am speaking of responsibility and the ramifications. That will never be equal.

If this whole thread is soley upon the ethical status of abortion than I haven’t been discussing that at all.

and let me expand on what I mean by “weight” in regards to this issue. As I’ve stated before the pregnancy experience is not the same for a man as it is for a woman. A man at this time, cannot experience an actual physical pregnancy, as such he cannot really understand the whole possibility of being pregnant and how it will affect him. Not to the extent of how it effects a woman. This is true. So with that, when you know you are always “safe” you have a whole different background on how an opinion is matured. That is just the way things are, it isn’t a good or a bad thing, it is just the way things are.

But right now I am reading about men upset that they feel their rights are subjuated but isn’t that the result of biology? and men do have recourse right now that is available to them. Can you not see that the ramifications of a pregnancy hit a woman to a much higher degree than a man?

Did you read about what I posted in regards to abortion and if they become illegal about how do you punish the male? It is never going to be an equal situation.

[/quote]

The only issue I see is an ethical or moral one. As far as I am concerned all else is distantly secondary or nonexistent to that fundamental problem.

I did not argue with your declaration that pregnancy and responsibility and ramifications hit a woman harder than a man because I agree with it, and stated so in my last post, albeit implicitly to another point ([quote]“regardless of the differential weight…”[/quote]).

The rights issue (that of being notified or having a hand in the decision) is an issue raised by some of the men PRECISELY because they see this issue as an ethical issue in the first place. If they didn’t think it so, they wouldn’t be upset.

I haven’t addressed the issue of “this is a level playing field” as you wanted precisely because I view this solely as an ethical issue and as such the nature of ethical debate is not gender determined. Hence the issue of level playing field is addressed implicitly along with the characterization of the abortion issue as an ethical issue, not a rights oriented issue.

450

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The only issue I see is an ethical or moral one. As far as I am concerned all else is distantly secondary or nonexistent to that fundamental problem.

I did not argue with your declaration that pregnancy and responsibility and ramifications hit a woman harder than a man because I agree with it, and stated so in my last post, albeit implicitly to another point (“regardless of the differential weight…”).

The rights issue (that of being notified or having a hand in the decision) is an issue raised by some of the men PRECISELY because they see this issue as an ethical issue in the first place. If they didn’t think it so, they wouldn’t be upset.

I haven’t addressed the issue of “this is a level playing field” as you wanted precisely because I view this solely as an ethical issue and as such the nature of ethical debate is not gender determined. Hence the issue of level playing field is addressed implicitly along with the characterization of the abortion issue as an ethical issue, not a rights oriented issue.
[/quote]

it did seem as if we were discussing different things

thanks for the clarification

451

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
pushharder wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
…but am not supportive of late term abortions.

Why not?

I should have qualified that, I might be if the mother was in danger, thank goodness they don’t sacrifice the mothers anymore to save the fetus

OK, set that caveat aside.

Why not?

because it is very traumatic on the mother both physically and emotionally

So what? It’s her body and that baby is a non-person. It’s a clump of cells. Who are you to deny her the right to dump some cells she doesn’t want? It’s her physical trauma. It’s her emotional trauma. It’s her decision.

[/quote]

my main concern is the mother

452

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

debra, I respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just wish that you hadn’t prefaced this opinion with
I’m going to regret getting in to this but what the hell I’m bored.

I haven’t read this whole thread so if I’m just repeating what’s been said 5 times, I’m sorry and just ignore me. attitude.

I don’t know why it hit me wrong but it seemed to trivialize what is an important issue and a very emotional issue for some. I don’t think you meant to do that, but that is how it came across to me.

[/quote]

Sorry, OG, I’ve just had this argument a million times and I do feel incredibly strongly about in fact I’d say it is the issue I feel strongest about, I don’t have the stamina to argue it like I used to.

There is a risk I’ll give my two cents here and then abandon the argument altogether so I think its a fair disclaimer to anyone who wants to go head to head arguing for 5 pages that I will probably not last.

I also didn’t want to read 17 pages but I also didn’t want to waste the time of anyone who did and would rather not read from someone who didn’t read the whole thread.

Just trying to be upfront and courteous to everyone else in the discussion.

454

[quote]debraD wrote:

BTW I do support late term abortions because I recognize that they are a medical necessity and wouldn’t dream of insisting a that a woman who has carried a pregnancy for 7 or so months and who clearly wants to continue the pregnancy otherwise she would have terminated already since, at least in this country, abortion is readily available, have to stand before a judge and make a case that she is going to selfishly choose her own life over her child’s. Sorry, but that is cruel and that is the circumstances surrounding late term abortions, not tramps who decide at month 6 that they don’t want to play house anymore.
[/quote]

Here are the results of a 1987 survey of 420 women who had late term abortions.

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0543.htm

TABLE 4. Percentage of women who reported that various reasons
contributed to their having a late abortion and who cited specific
reasons as accounting for the longest delay

  Longest

All delay
(399) (311) Reason

71% 31% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48 27 Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33 14 Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24 9 Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8 4 Woman waited for her realtionship to change
8 2 Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6 1 Something changed after woman became pregnant
6 <0.05 Woman didn’t know timing is important
5 2 Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2 1 A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11 9 Other

455

Sorry dude, but 16 weeks is not what I’m referring to when I say late term.

456

[quote]debraD wrote:
Sorry dude, but 16 weeks is not what I’m referring to when I say late term.[/quote]

What do you consider late term?

457

Third trimester? (re-read my reply there sounded a little short, I didn’t mean it to)

458

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

it did seem as if we were discussing different things

thanks for the clarification
[/quote]

No worries. Always sucks to have an “A-B” conversation.

459

[quote]debraD wrote:
Third trimester? (re-read my reply there sounded a little short, I didn’t mean it to)
[/quote]

Lol, I wasn’t offended at all.

Yeah, I guess 16 weeks is a bit too early to call late term.

460

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Yeah, I guess 16 weeks is a bit too early to call late term.
[/quote]

Hmm. While I think third trimester when I hear “late term,” 16 week abortions begin to cross a line for me, sentience being my criterion for personhood. Speaking of which, should I ever become comatose and give indication that I won’t be coming out…please, let me go. Even if there’s brain activity. That’s not life, in my opinion.

[quote]pat wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
If some dumbass wants to stick a coat hanger up her twat in an effort to get rid of the baby, then the dumb bitch get�??s a Darwin award in my book.

I don’t even know what to say to this. If someone is tormented enough for whatever reason to do this, she has my sympathy. Do you really think girls and women do it for mere convenience? Because to me it speaks of desperation I can’t even imagine.

I’ll put it to you this way, if you saw me kill my own child would you give a damn about my circumstances? Remember, Susan Smith who killed her two toddlers in that lake? Do you really give a shit what she was going through?
Or the Benoit wrestler dude who killed his own family, do you really care about his feelings?

I have a hard time pitying the selfish when their acts are grievous and heinous.[/quote]

I sort of do give a shit, yeah. I really am that big a sucker. In the case of a parent who murders like that my primary concern wouldn’t be sympathy (though I probably would feel some), but rather an interest in knowing why. Why, why would someone do such a thing? And more importantly, how can we prevent it happening again? You see it as a waste of time to pity the selfish, but I view understanding them as an investment in preventing selfish acts.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
…I think what a lot of pro-lifers (and pro-choicers, for that matter) fail to really understand is that certainty is a luxury not everyone shares…

It is precisely this uncertainty that behooves a prudent person to err on the side of life.[/quote]

Push, I believe I am doing so. I believe my moral position errs on the side of life.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You are correct to suggest that stopping abortion world wide would be a monumental task. You (and Em) are correct that some abortions would shift to the back alleys and those situations are indeed gruesome. You are correct that in some other cultures abortion is not viewed with quite the same disdain as it is here.

It is debatable that a population explosion with deeply negative effects would occur as a direct result of eliminating abortion.

I am correct in saying that despite all of the above it is still wrong because it is the willful taking of an innocent (the most innocent) human life.

So maybe I am the salmon swimming upstream and facing concrete dams and the treble hooks of fishermen but that doesn’t mean I’m going to turn around and head back to the ocean. Some things ya just gotta do.[/quote]

Could you clarify for me what it is you do, exactly? Because I frankly feel that I am the only one weighing in here who is doing a single concrete, proactive thing to protect the lives of unborn babies. (In addition to blathering on an internet forum.)

Many of you disdain the selfishness and stupidity of the mothers who get knocked up and then want to abort for convenience’s sake. And I don’t argue that for many of them, it is merely a means of birth control. But has it occurred to you that they didn’t ask to be born with IQs of 75 or 80, that they are, in their own way, “innocents”? Same thing with the “losers” who neglect or don’t feed their children or won’t keep jobs. They once were innocent little fetuses swimming around in the toxic swill that passed for amniotic fluid in their own addicted mother’s wombs. Tell me what is “prudent” about ignoring this reality, or saying it has no bearing on the discussion at hand?

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Christine wrote:
You’re gonna get crap for this, but it is so much easier to sit in judgement when it is a decision that you will never be confronted with making.

I know… I know… but it had to be pointed out.

the fact of the issue is that this will never be a level playing field. Sorry gentlemen, I am not being underhanded or hysterical, it is the physical truth of the matter. I am not saying it to put myself apart from you or be holding the golden key, it’s the way we were made.

and I also wanted to point out that I haven’t seen any posts relating to the punishment for men (and you’ve discussed punishment for women).

this whole thread seems to only be about punishing women
[/quote]

By the same token, as the others have pointed out, men today have no power over their own progeny as long as it is contained in the body of the mother. Men are completely disempowered once the sex act is completed. A woman has the choice to abort any pregnancy that might come about or she can force a man to pay child support for 18 years for a child he never wanted. It’s shocking how few teen boys really understand this. (One of the concrete things I do to protect lives is to tell them.)

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
I think what a lot of pro-lifers (and pro-choicers, for that matter) fail to really understand is that certainty is a luxury not everyone shares.

Hey thanks, I try to make sense once in a while. I agree with you, the view is problematic. Then again, the entire issue is thorny. However, while I completely agree that certainty is not a given, I do believe it is more ethical to err on the side of caution.
…

See, where we’re falling apart in this conversation is that I don’t find these issues superfluous.

I suppose I should have rephrased that one. These issues are undoubtedly thorny and interconnected and I admit that. But lets say for the sake of discussion that it is shown decisively that a fetus is a person deserving of complete legal protection and abortion amounts to murder (clarify–unjustifiable killing).

So, do you keep it legal? These wide ranging problems of illegalizing abortion are still there. But now the morality of abortion is no longer in question.

Now we know exactly what the right thing to do is. Making abortion illegal and seriously criminal is now the right thing to do, but all the problems of doing so are still there.

So, now the issue becomes HOW do we enforce it, and HOW do we minimize problems such as black market abortions, etc. I believe the public policy requirements are secondary to the central ethical issue.

You have to decide on the right thing before you can decide how to administrate or execute it, or whether to leave the situation status quo because that is the ethical thing to do.

In any case, the order of decision must stem from the ethical to the political, not the reverse. I have a dash of the utilitarian in me, but not enough to decide that the difficulties in administration of a task should dictate that the task is not executed. [/quote]

I believe I am erring on the side of moral caution. Sentient beings mustn’t suffer in greater numbers. The politics are relevant to the discussion because in many cases the people who are against abortion are also for what they call “personal responsibility.” “Personal responsibility” seems to boil down to “I’m not paying for some stupid bitch who can’t manage to keep her legs together and her snotty little rug rat.”

Although abortion is not the same as birth control or preventing egg and sperm from ever meeting in the first place, it is a means of population control which occurs without cruelty because it precedes the capacity for recognition of trauma (in the first trimester certainly, arguably for even longer than that).