posted
I think pH is saying that it shouldn't be used as casual birth control, as a replacement for condoms, etc. Hence:
quote: I do not think that people should take the availability of abortion as a license to have unprotected sex with no thought of birth control beyond, "Oh, I can just get an abortion."
My impression is that she's suggesting it as a last resort, rather than a primary method.
If I'm misinterpreting you, pH, let me know. I'm only speaking now because your last post really resonated with me.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I certainly don't either, pH. I'm not sure where you got that idea from my post, unless that was more of a general statement.
But why do you think abortion shouldn't be viewed as birth control? People can cite medical health reasons for that opposition, but I think it's a rare person who would view that as the only reason.
Not speaking for pH, here, but one other tenable reason is a respect (? don't know what the most accurate word would be, and this one seems to come with certain assumptions, but it's the best I can do) for life. That is, one does not have to place all life on equal footing in order to mourn or regret the snuffing out of a spark.
For example, in Buddhism (I believe) it is common to address in a mantra the suffering of all living creatures. So -- and again for religious reasons, perhaps -- one can acknowledge that loss of a life of any sort might be something to hope to avoid. We can't always avoid it, of course -- even vegetarian Buddhists survive in part through the deaths of countless micro-organisms -- but the valuation can still be assigned.
I'm a little afraid that this is likely to be responded to with the argument that "but Buddhists aren't trying to kill anything, but those who have abortions are." If I can respond pre-emptively ( ), I'm not trying to claim that Buddhists are pro-abortion or that the fetus is somehow morally equivalent to digestive bacteria. I just mean that it appears tenable to value life even if that value isn't the same as what one would have for a fully realized human life.
We see something similar in our expected treatment of human remains. When I dissected a body, I knew it was just arranngements of protein and water and various other chemicals (strands of muscle we cut aside to reveal nerves, pieces of bone we chiseled off to trace out the gray matter, etc.) -- and it did not have religious significance for me, not as it was then.
However (and this is a big however), I felt very strongly about not treating these pieces of flesh as mere toys to joke around with. Actually, my classmates felt the same -- there was none of the usual joking around with parts of bodies that you'd see in, say, dissection of a frog. I think (think) there was an awareness that to treat this material irreverently would be to do a disservice to those who had treasured (and perhaps still did) it, both those who knew the person of the body intimately and those who cared about human remains in general.
So, every little fragment, even the tiniest gobbet of fat, was set aside to be incinerated. It was the rule, but we enforced this ethic on ourselves. (And, at that time, infectious disease control wasn't the focus of concern it is today.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: km, I was responding to the "so how does that make sense" portion. I agree, there are some people with that motivation.
Yeah, I didn't express myself very well there. To try to make it clearer:
There are people who, while claiming (and perhaps believing) it is all about the sanctity of life, have no problem with executing minors, or the mentally handicapped, or those who have shown every indication that they have repented, reformed, and are trying to put their lives to some use. Often these people are the same people who refuse to allow sex education or access to birth control that could help to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In the areas where it is most diffucult to get abortions, it is also the most difficult to get pre-natal care. Mississippi, a state where getting an abortion is very difficult also has the highest infant mortality rate in the country. (Thankfully, they are starting to address that.)
These things lead me to the conculsion that some of the folks that want to make abortion illegal are doing it because they want to punish people for having sex or to control what women do with their bodies. This is part of the reason that, while I don't believe I would ever have an abortion myself (I would say never, but I am superstitious) I would oppose making it illegal.
A bigger part of the reason is that, like with the death penalty, I don't think the government is wise enough to make those decisions.
posted
[written while knboots was posting, so not really in reference to her thoughtful post right above this]
So, to summarize, I think I'd add to the list the following two candidates:
1) Some persons might see the loss of life -- any life -- as something to be mourned or regretted. That wrongness might not trump the wrongness expected to result in other circumstances, such as (perhaps) in the context of legislation totally outlawing abortion. This seems to be a tenable position to me, although I don't necessarily hold it myself.
2) Similarly, perhaps some people have beliefs about human tissue being (?sacred? sancrosanct?), regardless of whether it is alive or not. This, too could affect one's reasoning regarding medical procedures involving human tissue. Again, I don't necessarily hold this position myself, but I can understand it as a possible reason to have.
posted
And on a different tack entirely, I wonder if "trump" isn't a useful consideration to bring into play as we puzzle through this? That is, one can hold that each of two options (A and B) are "wrong," but that doesn't means that one believes A "trumps" B (i.e., "is worse than" B). It would also be possible to hold that B "trumps" A or that they are morally equivalent (i.e., equally "wrong" options).
Does that distinction make sense, or does it make things more confusing?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(And kmboots, how eloquently you express your position and concerns. Thanks -- it was an excellent read.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, I think you're doing a little of what Irriegardless was doing - projecting your own reasons for moral choices on others in a particular situation and finding their positions inconsistent.
For example, you go from this statement:
quote:Often these people are the same people who refuse to allow sex education or access to birth control that could help to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
to
quote:These things lead me to the conculsion that some of the folks that want to make abortion illegal are doing it because they want to punish people for having sex or to control what women do with their bodies.
Just as Irregardless's implication that people who think abortion are tragic or sad must think that it involves killing, you seem to be positing that people who think abortion is wrong must either be OK with birth control or wanting to either punish sex or control women's bodies.
If one thinks birth control is a great moral wrong, one is perfectly consistent to not support its use, even to avoid a greater moral wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I think that there are people who have separate reasons for those things. I do think that there is enough overlap that, with the other things I mentioned, I have reason to be wary.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummmm, I guess I don't get the whole "controlling what women do with their bodies" thing. Are you saying it's a control thing, not opposition to killing? Not being snide here, I just really don't understand what you're trying to say.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, for some people, it is sex that is the real issue. The idea of people having sex without consequence is a problem. Since men can more easily escape the consequences of pregnancy, this mostly impacts women.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see. I guess, as I look at the issue, the "death of an infant" part completely trumps the "having sex willy-nilly". (I'm trying to word things so as not to cause a fight, but have intelligent discourse.... please stick with me) (and I'm failing miserably. Just saying nothing)
Edit: Not being a jerk.. just think that arguement, well, insane, or I am terribly naive.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone mind if I go back and re-visit the whole miscarriage idea?
Because I'm confused. Was there some indication that people think we shouldn't address abortion because we have so many natural miscarriages?
There's an easy answer there to me. I see a huge, huge difference between allowing a natural process to take place and stepping in and artificially doing something. For example, letting a terminally ill person who has a DNR order die when they stop breathing is not murder. Smothering someone who can breathe on their own is murder. In one case you're simply allowing a natural process to take place. In another you're taking action to cause the death of a person.
Miscarriages are tragic and sad, and there is plenty of research out there and things that can be done to prevent miscarriages in people who have repeated ones - I had a friend who suffered six miscarriages before she began seeing a specialist who treated her with drugs and she was able to carry to term. So there is research and there is effort to help women carry to term when they've had miscarriages before.
Surgical abortion is a far cry from a natural miscarriage though. I guess I'm not seeing the connection, maybe I missed something?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nato, Juxtapose, & Bob, sorry for messing up on the math there. Thank you for the correction.
My views on abortion are not entirely decided. I've found this very civil discussion of abortion to be interesting and insightful. For years, I was very much on the pro-life side. I saw abortion as a means to avoid responsibility for one's actions and that made it clearly wrong. Then a few years ago a friend made an argument to me that I've never been able to counter. Imagine a situation in which you cause a car accident through carelessness. The person in the other car is seriouslly injured and needs a blood transfusion. As it turns out there is none of his/her type of blood available in any form. However, you have their blood type. To me it seems clear that it is your moral responsibilty to give them your blood if you are able to. Legally though, do they have any claim to your blood? I don't believe they do. (If this is incorrect, I would love to know.) The government does not have domain over our own bodies. They can not make us give blood to save a victim of our own carelessness. Similarly, they do not have the right to make a person carry a living entity within their body for 9 months even if it is that person's fault.
As I stated before, my feelings on this matter are very muddled. I think abortion, other than in rare scenarios, is very wrong. But I also don't feel convinced that the government should have the authority to control our bodies, something that is so fundamentally our own.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I appreciate that you are trying to word things carefully. This is a tough issue.
Not everyone sees a (for example) week-old embryo as an infant. This is a place where there is some room for doubt. Sometimes the health or even the life of the woman is at risk - also a place where judgments need to be made. There are cases of rape which may not qualify as having sex willy-nilly. All of these are examples of places where there are shades of grey.
My point (well, one of them)is that when some of the people that are most concerned with making abortion illegal are also people who would deny access to birth control and are the people who show very little concern about those infants once they are born, I have a problem with their motives. It makes me suspect that, for some of them, it is not about (or just about)saving babies.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They can not make us give blood to save a victim of our own carelessness. Similarly, they do not have the right to make a person carry a living entity within their body for 9 months even if it is that person's fault.
You could have said, "That's a ridiculously contrived analogy that only works in a universe of your own making."
But you probably wanted to keep your friend.
Similarly, you could have said, "No, legalizing abortion is more like, after donating blood to the accident victim, demanding that I want it back, and the government saying, "Go ahead, bleed him down!"
But you probably wanted to keep your friend.
Friendships are more important than analogies anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gotcha Kate. I understand the grey areas, and the entire "when is it a life" argument. Unfortunately, this is an issue where there is not much middle ground where the two sides can compromise. Your point is well taken.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:when some of the people that are most concerned with making abortion illegal are also people who would deny access to birth control and are the people who show very little concern about those infants once they are born, I have a problem with their motives. It makes me suspect that, for some of them, it is not about (or just about)saving babies.
Whether the opposition is hypocritical or not makes NO DIFFERENCE to the morality of killing the unborn.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, kate, we were kinda having a conversation. I'm just a slow poster. Thanks for the replies
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whether the opposition is hypocritical or not makes NO DIFFERENCE to the morality of killing the unborn.
As far as that goes, I agree. And I am not saying that all opposition is hypocritical. But motives do have an impact on whether or not it should be illegal and why.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You could have said, "That's a ridiculously contrived analogy that only works in a universe of your own making."
I don't see any argument for this in your post, Scott. What makes the analogy so contrived?
quote:"No, legalizing abortion is more like, after donating blood to the accident victim, demanding that I want it back, and the government saying, "Go ahead, bleed him down!"
I disagree. Carrying the fetus involves further hardship beyond what you've already suffered, so it's more analogous to donating the blood than it is to demanding back blood you've already donated.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
The highest infant and child mortality rates tend to be in the "Bible belt". Infant and child mortality rates are (I think pretty clearly) connected to poverty and healthcare, yet people will vote for candidates who are anti-abortion over ones who address poverty and healthcare issues.
And remember the discussion about the teacher in a Catholic school who got fired for getting pregnant outside of marriage? Wouldn't a more pro-life response be to make it easier for that women to raise her child?
I think the way to have fewer abortions - which I think we can all agree would be a good thing - would be to help women to avoid those desperate circumstances and to work toward a society where those circumstances aren't so desperate.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Imagine a situation in which you cause a car accident through carelessness. The person in the other car is seriouslly injured and needs a blood transfusion. As it turns out there is none of his/her type of blood available in any form. However, you have their blood type. To me it seems clear that it is your moral responsibilty to give them your blood if you are able to. Legally though, do they have any claim to your blood? I don't believe they do. (If this is incorrect, I would love to know.) The government does not have domain over our own bodies. They can not make us give blood to save a victim of our own carelessness. Similarly, they do not have the right to make a person carry a living entity within their body for 9 months even if it is that person's fault.
Here's the whole analogy. The bolded part is contrived. For the analogy to work, that highly improbable element must be accepted.
Destineer, I know that my analogy doesn't work and is over the top. That's why I said, "Similarly, you could have said. . ." I suppose I was trying to say, "Another analogy, from the opposite viewpoint of your friends, but still just as silly is X."
I'm anxious for the advent of human embryonic transfer (I know it's possible, but I'm not sure just how legal it is, or what the full extent of medical ramifications are). I know it won't solve all cases, but I can imagine that it would help.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to respond to something on the first page; this ballooned while I was off the computer. However, I think it fits in here, too.
quote:Either it's wrong and harmful to an individual protected by society, and it should be illegal, or it's NOT wrong, and legally, it should be just fine.
This is my problem: while I think it's morally wrong, I don't believe in legislating by my morals when that means curtailing personal freedoms. Not in this country. Also, I'm not sure how wrong it is. I mean, I don't know when a soul enters the body, and until that point, I don't consider a fetus a seperate human being. It might be different for each pregnancy. (I say this as a woman who is on her third pregnancy, second viable pregnancy-- I had a very early miscarriage last Easter, I have a healthy two-year-old, and while I've had a few problems here and there, I wholly expect that this child will be born alive and healthy as well.) It might be an in-and-out kind of thing. It might be something completely different. In any case, it's not mine to know, and so I would err on the side of life, myself. BUT. I would not force someone else to make the same choice based on my personal beliefs. There are some things that people think is universally wrong, with small exceptions-- murder, for example. But there are so many people who don't think that abortion is universally or almost universally wrong, I don't think it's up to me to make them behave as if it is.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:yet people will vote for candidates who are anti-abortion over ones who address poverty and healthcare issues.
Because those are always mutually exclusive, right?
Infant mortality rates are obscenely high in poor southern states, and many of them are trying to address it. But I really, really get angry when I see the implication that pro-life people don't care about the babies once they're born or about the women carrying them. Especially since I've volunteered my time, and donated my money to ministries that do exactly that - help the woman with pregnancy and baby expenses and offer counseling and support for her during the pregnancy and beyond.
As a principle, I do NOT donate money to pro-life groups that do nothing but picket clinics or publish the names of doctors so they can be harassed - I only put my money and my time on ministries that actually minister to people, in this case the mother and child. And there are far, far more pro-life people out there that feel as I do than you seem to be aware of. Stop with the generalizations - it's disrespectful to those of us who care about this issue and are actually trying to do things that help the people involved.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Allowing someone to die through inaction isn't necessarily murder - or, if it is, we're all very, very guilty people. Taking a life (the fetus) because it's convenient to do so (it would be such a shame if it crimped my lifestyle) is wrong on so many levels that if you can't see the difference, there's no way I would be able to explain it to you.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Infant and child mortality rates are (I think pretty clearly) connected to poverty and healthcare, yet people will vote for candidates who are anti-abortion over ones who address poverty and healthcare issues.
You're still looking at this from your perspective. If, in your view, people were killing close to a million babies a year, legally, wouldn't that be a top priority for you?
Should abolitionists have been told that the way to have less slavery is to save up to buy a slave's freedom and to get that freed slave a job? Were people who concentrated on abolishing slavery doing something wrong because they didn't divert that energy to sending freed slaves to Liberia?
In this day and age, there's almost no way to vote for a pro-life candidate who also supports expanded government-subsidized pre-natal care. Yet there are literally millions of people who would do this if possible.
I'm not arguing whether your analysis about which method would reduce abortion more is correct or not. People could agree or disagree with your take on moral grounds, pragmatic grounds, or both.
Rather, I'm trying to get at another point. You seem to be saying, or at least strongy suggesting, that people spending them advocating for abolishing abortion are being inconsistent by not doing something else instead.
They're not being inconsistent. They have a different set of moral priorities than you do, and it's simply not possible to analyze them as if the only difference is their view on abortion. This is the problem Irregardless was having before, from the other direction.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are some things that people think is universally wrong, with small exceptions-- murder, for example. But there are so many people who don't think that abortion is universally or almost universally wrong, I don't think it's up to me to make them behave as if it is.
I disagree vehemently. Everything from "home corrections" of wives by husbands to slavery had majorities or at least very signifcant minorities claiming that these actions were moral and good.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: This is my problem: while I think it's morally wrong, I don't believe in legislating by my morals when that means curtailing personal freedoms. Not in this country.
And yet we do it on a daily basis. If the government doesn't legislate morals of some kind, what purpose does it serve?
The question should be - what morals do we enforce?
quote: Infant mortality rates are obscenely high in poor southern states, and many of them are trying to address it. But I really, really get angry when I see the implication that pro-life people don't care about the babies once they're born or about the women carrying them. Especially since I've volunteered my time, and donated my money to ministries that do exactly that - help the woman with pregnancy and baby expenses and offer counseling and support for her during the pregnancy and beyond.
And, Belle, then you would not meet the conditions I outlined. Please reread what I have said. I was very careful to not make generalizations.
And kq, thank you. You have very well outlined my larger reasons for being pro-choice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: This is my problem: while I think it's morally wrong, I don't believe in legislating by my morals when that means curtailing personal freedoms. Not in this country.
And yet we do it on a daily basis. If the government doesn't legislate morals of some kind, what purpose does it serve?
The question should be - what morals do we enforce?
[Edit: Gosh, I'm terribly slow.]
Actually, many laws are enacted for public safety, regardless as to whether the public is itself moral or not (as certain groups of people, from varying philosophies may claim our society is), [EDIT: or whether the law itself mandates a moral good].
Take speeding. There is nothing inherently wrong with driving fast, but because one can foresee that such behavior could cause harm to another citizen, these rules are put into place. That other citizen could be a serial killer, and crashing into their car could be construed as a moral good. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the speeding laws aren't inherently moral, and that there are many other laws that aresimilarly morally neutral.
posted
Everyone is free to disagree with me. I'm just stating how I feel and why, to go back to that whole "how can you be pro-choice and saddened by abortions" thing. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots: Why do you think there's a waiting list for infant adoptions in this country?
EDIT:
GRRR. Anyway, it hardly matters. I reiterate-- if the anti-abortion crowd is right about abortion = like-unto-murder, then any hypocrisy on their part about post birth care is immaterial to the wrongness of abortion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even the laws concerning violence are more or less to protect our freedom and property, not morals.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:GRRR. Anyway, it hardly matters. I reiterate-- if the anti-abortion crowd is right about abortion = like-unto-murder, then any hypocrisy on their part about post birth care is immaterial to the wrongness of abortion.
I don't know if this question admits "right" or "wrong" unless you believe in a supreme adjudicator, and then, well, it's His decision.
I'm pro-choice, but not haughtily so anymore. I could be wrong.
posted
Lemme rephrase - not to sidetack. Why is freedom and property worth protecting? There's some [value judgement] there.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: kmboots: Why do you think there's a waiting list for infant adoptions in this country?
Lots of reasons including:
Babies from poor or minority mothers, or babies with health problems may not be what people are waiting for. I don't know if there is a waiting list for those, I could be wrong. I know they have ads on TV trying to get people to adopt them.
Some mothers may try to keep their children once born and fail, so their children wouldn't be infants when they come up for adoption.
Getting pregnant is seen as so shameful that women who get pregnant out of marriage are afraid to have people find out.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the entire basis of laws are basically the pursuit of life, liberty, and property. (pursuit of happiness makes it sound more noble). Morality doesn't really enter into it. The real question, legally, is whether abortion is murder or not.
Edit: I think it's worth pointing out that I oppose it morally, but you can't impose morals on others.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All you said is that laws are based on value judgements. If laws were founded on objective, neutral things, everyone would probably have the same laws. Thing is, we don't. Some Islamic laws are based on the value judgement that men are superior to women, correct? Some of our laws are based on the value judgement that men and women should have the same rights.
This is off topic, I apologize.
[Edit: I'm just saying that the majority of laws are value judgements (ie, morally based).]
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the US has worked to not make them value judgements. Some laws may have originate there, but if I'm remembering my gov't classes, they're supposed to be based on life, liberty, and property. At least in this country.
I'm not sure it's that off topic, since we are discussing the legality of abortion as well, I think.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
