quote:If any moral question admits "right" or "wrong" then this one does.
I don't know. Some of them are clearer than this one. Where does the dignity in a human life reside. Is it just biology? I don't think so. If that were so, we could never countenance the killing of even the most hardened war criminal, as long as they were biologically human.
Aristotle does a decent job of understanding man as a progressing being, at first a man and always on the way to becoming man. (He didn't talk much about women.) There is a truth to that. There is a reason we don't afford five year olds voting rights, or sentence ten year olds to life in prison. It's because they haven't attained a full humanity in that second sense.
And then people start talking about all of these rights, Life, Liberty, etc, but I'm not big into them either. And I can't get over the sense that making a woman carry a baby to term is anything less than treating her like a beast. And while my views on the humanity of that fetus are mixed, I'm darn sure about the dignity that should be afforded to the woman.
quote: You could have said, "That's a ridiculously contrived analogy that only works in a universe of your own making."
Yes it is contrived, however I don't think that undermines the point that the government has no dominion over something as personal as our own bodily processes.
quote: 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.
At least one method for abortion includes taking the fetus out of the mother and then leaving it there. It is unable to survive on its own and quickly dies. I don't know if this is the most common method, but if so I think this could qualify as allowing somebody to die through inaction.
quote: The real question, legally, is whether abortion is murder or not.
I disagree. I think the legal question is whether or not the government has dominion over the internal processes of our bodies.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And can't get over the sense that making a woman carry a baby to term is anything less than treating her like a beast. And while my views on the humanity of that fetus are mixed, I'm darn sure about the dignity that should be afforded to the woman.
On the other side of the coin is the idea that it's not dignified to treat women as if carrying a baby to term is something that "just happens" to them. Usually there's a whole mess of voluntary behavior behind that, and often in the case of abortions there's a whole mess of either no forethought at all, or bad planning.
In what way is it dignified to shield a fully-grown adult human being from the consequences of their actions, possibly at the cost of a human life? Dignity is never something you can give to another human being. They must get it and hold it on their own.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the legal question is whether or not the government has dominion over the internal processes of our bodies.
The answer to the first question trumps the second question. If it is murder, then that fetus is a human being, and is not a slave to the whim of its host. If it's not murder, then the question becomes whether or not the government has legislative rights over "internal body processes". (Which are easily avoidable).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In what way is it dignified to shield a fully-grown adult human being from the consequences of their actions, possibly at the cost of a human life?
As to the first part of your question, I believe that bankruptcy laws are in place just for that reason. Jeniwren and I had this discussion before. I'm not big into natural consequences as a substitute for pedagogy, for children or adults.
quote:Dignity is never something you can give to another human being. They must get it and hold it on their own.
I'm not sure what this means, but it sounds awful violent.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The answer to the first question trumps the second question. If it is murder, then that fetus is a human being, and is not a slave to the whim of its host. If it's not murder, then the question becomes whether or not the government has legislative rights over "internal body processes". (Which are easily avoidable).
I think the term murder makes this too emotionally charged. I propose we instead use the question "Is the fetus a true human being?" If it is, the question becomes is a human being's life more valuable than people's autonomy over their own bodies.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am almost positive that I would support a reversal of Roe v. Wade IF birth control were freely available and while being educated about birth control people were also educated about what options they would have if they got pregnant.
I had a pregnancy scare a month ago. It was fairly minor, I had been really stressed, and symptoms of stress are very close to symptoms of pregnancy. But when you're a sophomore in college, the mildest possibility you might be pregnant is terrifying. I'm going to ask right now, I would prefer if no one judged me, or informed me that I shouldn't be having sex if I wasn't prepared to deal with the consequences. I made an educated decision to have sex, I've taken precautions to avoid getting pregnant, and the chances of my actually getting pregnant are tiny. I was terrified. I will never get an abortion, so I imagined all of the possible outcomes. There weren't many. I could attempt to raise my child while in school. I could drop out of school and attempt to raise it. And then there was the fuzzy idea of adoption, so fuzzy that it offered very little hope. Finally one night, I looked up adoption online, and amazingly it was easy, there were tons of parents who would love to adopt my kid. It was a huge relief. I found a family that I liked, and got a good night's sleep that night for the first time in a week.
The rather drawn out story is meant to illustrate simply this. I'm a fairly educated member of society. I'm also very well informed about birth control. But no where in my extensive reading about birth control, no where in any of the classes I'd taken on the subject was adoption mentioned at all. So while I knew it existed, that choice didn't really seem to apply to me. I think there's a good possibility that if girls who are considering abortions were more educated about adoption. Could see pictures and stories from families that desperately want to adopt, that a fair sized number of them would decide to carry to term and give the baby up for adoption.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
blacwolve, I think that's an excellent idea. Because the truth is, that for every couple that actively wants to adopt and is working toward that end, there must be a number of couples that would adopt if the opportunity dropped in their laps.
I would, in a heartbeat. There's a huge part of me that would love to have more children, though I've almost no desire to ever be pregnant again.
addited: and I'm sorry to hear about your scare. Whenever I meet someone who admits they've had an abortion in their past, I think about the many scares I had in my teens and 20s and remember how easily it might have been me with their experiences.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My whole being rejects the idea that abortion should be looked at as merely another form of birth control."
I wasn't sure how to quote someone, so I just copy and pasted the relevant portion of the post.
Keep in mind, that the term you're using is "birth" control, not "pregnancy" control. I believe that they are two seperate ideas. The term "birth control" is used to encompass both ideas these days, which I believe misleads many debates these days.
Just my two sense.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: ... is a human being's life more valuable than people's autonomy over their own bodies.
It's certainly a sticky thing when it comes to things like kidney transplants or bone marrow transplants. That is, we have a heckuva lotta people very sick on dialysis right now, and there are a heckuva a lot of people with perfectly healthy extra kidneys.
Of course, then the issue come up of the fact that these people with kidneys haven't assumed some responsibility for those on dialysis (such as, say, being responsible for their existances), and so it is argued that the issue is more complicated than just life v. autonomy.
But then that gets us into some of the issues kmboots raised.
It just is never really distillable into a bumper sticker-sized sentence, at least not if you grant it the serious thoughtfulness and respect that I think we should.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, then the issue come up of the fact that these people with kidneys haven't assumed some responsibility for those on dialysis (such as, say, being responsible for their existances), and so it is argued that the issue is more complicated than just life v. autonomy.
It is indeed very complicated.
There's also the idea that the duty not to abort doesn't arise from responsibility that's been assumed - that the responsibility is created whatever the circumstances of conception.
Beyond that there's the action vs. inaction issue. Not donating a kidney is inaction; aborting a child is action. Some people see serious moral differences between the two.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
for New York City: Live births: 119,469 Induced abortions: 84,903
The abortion ratios are highest in the Bronx, by a very large margin!
The city dwellers have higher abortion rates (per 1000 live births) than the rest of the state, consistently in practically every category (where the counts in the raw data don't fall too low for meaningful ratios to be calculated).
Black women have a consistently higher ratio than the other ethnic groups listed.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is mentioned in this article is that New York city includes areas like the Bronx and Harlem which have some of the highest poverty rates in the country. In fact, with the exception of Manhattan, New York City suffers severly from low ratios of income/cost of living.
Poverty is the number one reason women seek abortions, not liberalism.
And Wonder Dog, your first question "For those of you who are pro-choice, is this encouraging?", is not only insulting but shows you know nothing about the pro-choice community. I would suggest you do a bit more research.
I consider myself both pro-choice and pro-life. I favor every possible measure to reduce the number of abortions except making them illegal. I'm disheartened by the statistics given in this article but not at all suprised. If the pro-life community would focus more on eliminating the reasons women seek abortions such as poverty, ignorance and intolerance and less on supreme court battles, I believe the abortion rate would be dramatically lower.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, Very interesting statistics. I wonder if there are any studies out there that investigate the reasons that city dwellers have higher abortion rates than other regions.
Perhaps it is because city dwellers are less likely to be part of a support extended family who can help then deal with the stress of an unplanned child.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I'm not big into natural consequences as a substitute for pedagogy, for children or adults.
I'm a big fan of natural consequences (to a point) as an essential part of pedagogy for both children and adults. I don't believe it's possible for children to truly mature into adults without its inclusion.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I didn't mean my questions to sound ignorant or insulting. I'm currently taking a Women's Studies class and I've heard many people who call themselves pro-choice talk about how a truly liberated women will have children only when she wants to, and how abortion is a fundamental way to assert that control over thier own lives. I assumed, then, that those who hold this view might read the abortion numbers in NYC as an indicator that more women were asserting thier right to choose when they give birth; these same people would say that this as a good thing.
quote: And Wonder Dog, your first question "For those of you who are pro-choice, is this encouraging?", is not only insulting but shows you know nothing about the pro-choice community. I would suggest you do a bit more research.
As you can see, I am in fact attempting to educate myself on this matter. That's one of the reasons I'm taking this class. That's one of the reasons I asked my questions to this community, which I hold in high regard. And from what I've read, there are a variety of views and positions occuping both the pro-choice and pro-life camps. I'm sorry you've percieved my curiosity as an insult - I meant no offense.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the distinction between "action" and "inaction" to be morally dubious although I recognize this is probably a minority opinion but I think I'm in good company. Jesus had a whole lot more to say about the immorality of "inaction" than the immorality of "actions".
The big problem with "natural consequences" is that the consequences of most choice affect many people. It is not only the mother who bares the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. Certainly the child suffers adverse consequences if the mother is unable to care for it. Other children in the family, friends, extended family, and the community also bare many of the consequences. In our society very few acts have consequences that are limited only to the actor. We are highly connected.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what this means, but it sounds awful violent.
This only follows if you believe dignity is something that is created by other human beings, who either give it to an individual, or have it taken from them by that individual. I do not.
Amancear,
quote:I think the term murder makes this too emotionally charged. I propose we instead use the question "Is the fetus a true human being?" If it is, the question becomes is a human being's life more valuable than people's autonomy over their own bodies.
Heh. Well you're asking the people who disagree with you to define their idea in a way that makes anything but your way of thinking incorrect.
No, if a fetus is a true human being, then killing it without asking it for the convenience of its host is obviously murder. If it is a human being, then the host has a responsibility to it akin to a parent to an infant. There's just no way around that. Personal bodily autonomy over a choice that could have been avoided does not trump a true human life, if that's what it is, especially since the host has decided to assume responsibility for that life in all but a rare few cases.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Bob's links, I found he following statistics for New York City
County Per Cap. Income % below pov. level abortions/ 100 live births Bronx ...........13,959....................30.7..................91.7 Kings.............16,775....................25.1..................73.5 New York.......42,922....................20.0..................61.1 Queens..........19,222....................14.6..................64.9 Richmond......23,905....................10.0..................43.3
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find the distinction between "action" and "inaction" to be morally dubious although I recognize this is probably a minority opinion but I think I'm in good company. Jesus had a whole lot more to say about the immorality of "inaction" than the immorality of "actions".
While the difference between inaction and action may be less important morally, the action/inaction distinction is incredibly important in deciding what to criminalize, which is the context in which I raised the distinction.
Forcing someone to donate a kidney - which would essentially be criminalizing not donating the kidney - would be criminalizing inaction, something rarely done for a variety of reasons. Further, how would we decide which person must donate a kidney? That's a practical problem not faced when deciding to criminalize abortion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The big problem with "natural consequences" is that the consequences of most choice affect many people. It is not only the mother who bares the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. Certainly the child suffers adverse consequences if the mother is unable to care for it. Other children in the family, friends, extended family, and the community also bare many of the consequences. In our society very few acts have consequences that are limited only to the actor. We are highly connected.
Indeed. I find this to be one of the strongest arguments for actually criminalizing abortion - ensuring that the law values human life consistently, not based on stage of development.
The bold part I find to be a reason for helping people who are unexpectedly pregnant, not for killing the child.
There are very few people who actually wish they weren't born, and many of the unwanted children would have a standard of living better than half the people on the planet.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, if a fetus is a true human being, then killing it without asking it for the convenience of its host is obviously murder.
Rakeesh, You are ignoring the obvious. There are no other situations in which a persons failure to provide for another human being is considered murder by our society. In the the case of a pregnancy, the child cannot live without its connection to the mother. Does this mean that the mother's failure to maintain that connection is equivalent to murder? The fact of the matter is that two lives (at a minimum) are entertwined here. To say that the fetus's life always trumps the life of the mother denegrates the mother. This is not to say that I believe abortion is a moral choice. In most cases, I believe it is not.
What I am saying is that abortion is a unique moral and ethical situation because two lives which are intertwined must be considered. To say that it is no different from murder, is intellectually dishonest.
In our society we make a distinction between many different kinds of killing, we have self defense, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homocide, negligent homicide, 2nd degree murder, premeditated murder and many more. We don't call running over a pedestrian murder, even though one person is killed because of the choices made by another. Certainly if we make all these distinctions, abortion should be considered as a distinctive case and not simply labeled as "murder".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the pro-life community would focus more on eliminating the reasons women seek abortions such as poverty, ignorance and intolerance and less on supreme court battles, I believe the abortion rate would be dramatically lower.
Rabbit, I find this to be a staggeringly statement. In what practical ways would you suggest pro-life organizations improve their work to combat ignorance and poverty that results in abortion? (Just out of curiosity, what does tolerance have to do with it? I'm curious as I thought it was a strange thing to include.)
Do you think prolife organizations should stay out of the courts entirely? If so, do you think NARAL and Planned Parenthood should stay out of the courts as well? What about lobbying? Do you think they should stay out of lobbying?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are no other situations in which a persons failure to provide for another human being is considered murder by our society.
That's actually not true. I can't link the source, unfortunately, but the cite is 40 Am Jur 2d HOMICIDE § 82:
quote:Neglect on the part of one charged with the duty of supporting another to provide the necessary food, clothing, and shelter to the dependent, resulting in the latter's illness and death, renders the person upon whom the duty rests guilty of culpable homicide, the grade of which depends upon the nature and character of the act or acts causing death.9 The crime is murder when the neglect is willful or malicious,10 as where a parent intentionally withholds the food necessary to sustain an infant's life,11 or abandons an infant in a remote place where it is not likely to be found so that it dies of exposure,12 or where a husband criminally neglects to shelter his wife when he is able to do so and knowingly leaves her to perish.13
Some of the cases cited to this proposition took place as late as 1993. The article was updated in 2004. Obviously, specifics will vary from state to state.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tolerance is very important because a serious consideration for many young women who are considering abortions is how they will be accepted by their family and community if they become pregnant. When a young woman finds her self pregnant and without means to care for the child, knowing that she will be shunned by her family and community if they discover she is pregnant plays a big role in the choice to get an abortion.
As far as practical things pro-life organization could do to combat poverty, how about support for an increase in the minimum wage, support for universal health insurance, support for extended family leave with pay, support for raising the poverty level, support for increased welfare assistance for families with children, and decreased taxes for families with children. Everyone of those things which would help poor women with children has been opposed by the right wing. There is ample evidence to suggest that support for these types of liberal innitiatives makes more difference in the abortion rates than laws which try to ban abortion.
I think that the best way to reduce the number of abortion is to reduce the reasons that women seek abortions. Passing laws that criminalize abortion will cause enormous harm to women and is unlikely to make a big difference in the real abortion rates.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neglect on the part of one charged with the duty of supporting another to provide the necessary food, clothing, and shelter to the dependent, resulting in the latter's illness and death, renders the person upon whom the duty rests guilty of culpable homicide, the grade of which depends upon the nature and character of the act or acts causing death.
But there are legal means by which a parent charged with the duty of supporting a child can transfer that duty to another. Pregnancy is fundamentally different in this respect. That difference is real and important and is the reason that abortion needs to be treated uniquely. It is not the same as murder, or child abuse, or neglect. It is unique because the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are in a direct conflict which cannot be simply resolved.
To say that the mother's needs and desires are always superceeded by the fetus's need to receive life support from the mother's body is a denial of the mother's personhood. Likewise, the argument that the mother's desires should always take precident of the fetus's needs is a denial of the fetus's personhood.
I should also add that I view carrying a child to term as an action. The choice to have an abortion is not a choice between action and inaction, it is a choice between two actions. A law prohibiting the act of car theft, does not implicitly require any other action. One might choose instead to buy the car, but this is not required by the law. A law prohibiting the act of abortion, makes the action of carrying a child to term a legal requirement. In this respect, laws prohibiting abortions are fundamentally different.
Please note that I am not argueing that abortion is an ethical choice. I am simply argueing that it is a complex moral issue which needs to understood and treated as the unique ethical issue it is.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are no other situations in which a persons failure to provide for another human being is considered murder by our society.
This isn't conclusive of anything but itself, really.
quote:In the the case of a pregnancy, the child cannot live without its connection to the mother. Does this mean that the mother's failure to maintain that connection is equivalent to murder?
Since the mother-ultimately-is almost always the one who invites that connection, yes. There are obviously exceptions, such as rape or failed birth control. But almost always the mother has invited and started this connection, without ever asking the fetus if it wants the connection or not. If the fetus is a true human being, then to terminate it for convenience is murder. That's something that's done to slaves.
quote:The fact of the matter is that two lives (at a minimum) are entertwined here. To say that the fetus's life always trumps the life of the mother denegrates the mother.
This is true, but as I've said, the mother almost always has the opportunity to proactively avoid te intertwining altogether. The fetus-whether it's a true human being or not-has no such option. Furthermore I have not said that the fetus's life always trumps the life of the mother. However I have said that the life of the fetus always trumps the mothers convenience, since the mother-in America at least-has a thousand and one opportunities to avoid creating the fetus.
In the morally correct and most desireable of situations, the man of course will also be proactive and add another thousand and one methods of avoiding this creation as well.
quote:What I am saying is that abortion is a unique moral and ethical situation because two lives which are intertwined must be considered. To say that it is no different from murder, is intellectually dishonest.
I disagree that to say it's no different from murder, not because I'm sure of that, but because to many people, failure to provide lifesaving help when possible is murder. Particularly when the person actively failing-not just neglecting to provide, but actually flipping a switch, so to speak-to provide that help is the one who brought the life in in the first place.
Anyway, I have not said, "Abortion is murder." I have said, "If a fetus is a true human being, then abortion is murder," and obviously that is true. It's certainly murder in some degree.
quote:Certainly if we make all these distinctions, abortion should be considered as a distinctive case and not simply labeled as "murder".
Well, murder requires intent, first-degree murder at any rate. I'm certainly not labeling someone who really thinks that a fetus is a lump of tissue a cold-hearted murderer. I will say to that person, "You cannot possibly be sure, you're basing that belief on your faith that it is a lump of tissue. Since you could have avoided creating the life, you should have done so rather than gambling that your faith is correct, because if it's not correct, then you are killing another human being for your own economic, social, educational, romantic, whatever, convenience."
quote:Tolerance is very important because a serious consideration for many young women who are considering abortions is how they will be accepted by their family and community if they become pregnant.
I wholeheartedly agree. Tolerance is important because shunning-whether outright or in some degree-has the possibility of making abortions more likely. Some people will have unprotected sex and get pregnant, no matter how much you strive to advocate abstinence until marriage (note: I do not think that's a reason not to advocate such a stance). Given that, intolerance will make people want to hide their pregnancy, and there's only one sure way to do that.
quote:When a young woman finds her self pregnant and without means to care for the child, knowing that she will be shunned by her family and community if they discover she is pregnant plays a big role in the choice to get an abortion.
It is this sort of language that I think contributes to unwanted pregnancies. Young women don't "find" themselves pregnant and unable to provide financially for their impending child. They have unprotected sex without the proper financial safety net to take care of the child that could quite possibly result from that unprotected sex, in the majority of unwanted pregnancies.
A pregnancy that results from unprotected (or improperly protected) sex can only be labeled "unwanted" if you can have an "unwanted" injury from playing football.
quote:As far as practical things pro-life organization could do to combat poverty, how about support for an increase in the minimum wage, support for universal health insurance, support for extended family leave with pay, support for raising the poverty level, support for increased welfare assistance for families with children, and decreased taxes for families with children.
With the exception for the first idea-increasing the minimum wage makes everything cost more, it is only a band-aid for the people actually earning minimum wage-I agree. Furthermore I believe that right-wing Republican organizations traditionally do oppose such efforts, and I believe that is a wrongheaded thing to do, particularly as far as decreasing abortions and increasing standards of living are concerned. One of several reasons I am a registered Independant, actually.
quote:I think that the best way to reduce the number of abortion is to reduce the reasons that women seek abortions. Passing laws that criminalize abortion will cause enormous harm to women and is unlikely to make a big difference in the real abortion rates.
I think that the best way to reduce the number of abortions has as a part of the overall plan the things you've mentioned. If there is a problem with things that some human beings want and you want to correct the problem, any effective solution must address both demand and supply. It's a lot like illegal drugs, actually.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But there are legal means by which a parent charged with the duty of supporting a child can transfer that duty to another. Pregnancy is fundamentally different in this respect.
True. But it is, by it's nature, limited in duration.
quote:To say that the mother's needs and desires are always superceeded by the fetus's need to receive life support from the mother's body is a denial of the mother's personhood.
I don't think many people say this at all. For example, I don't personally know any pro-life activists who don't want a life of the mother exception. And I know lots of pro-life activists. The true question is which needs of the child supercede which needs of the mother and vice-versa.
A parent has a duty of care. Yes, it can be transferred. However, if it is physically impossible to transfer care, the parent continues to have the duty to act to care for the trial until such time as care of the child can be tranferred.
quote:I should also add that I view carrying a child to term as an action. The choice to have an abortion is not a choice between action and inaction, it is a choice between two actions. A law prohibiting the act of car theft, does not implicitly require any other action. One might choose instead to buy the car, but this is not required by the law. A law prohibiting the act of abortion, makes the action of carrying a child to term a legal requirement.
I agree carrying a child is an action. But that's not where I was using the inaction/action distinction. I was comparing the act of not donating a kidney to the act of abortion.
The act of carrying the baby to term is analogous to the act of carrying for a child in ones custody.
quote:Please note that I am not argueing that abortion is an ethical choice. I am simply argueing that it is a complex moral issue which needs to understood and treated as the unique ethical issue it is.
Understood. I, too, argue that it is a complex moral issue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Yeah, I think it will help a lot. I might even support an abortion ban if fetuses could be safely transferred to artificial wombs instead.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I have tried to rewrite this in a non-snarky way, but I give up.)
I have to ask many of you who argued about my statistic, did you actually READ the article? The 74:100 stat is deliberately inflammatory, and highly misleading. (It's one of those third-kind-of-lies statistics.)
The reason why there are that many abortions in NYC is due in large part to the fact that women who do not live there go there to have an abortion. Those 34% are people who do not live in the city, and the article makes that fairly clear.
While the 100 births they are being compared to are almost certainly all -- or darn close -- women who do live there. While many women will (due to availability mostly) travel an hour or two to have an abortion, it is unlikely they are doing to so deliver!
The actual 40% is horrible. Why make an artificial comparison -- is 40% not horrifying enough?!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Heh. Well you're asking the people who disagree with you to define their idea in a way that makes anything but your way of thinking incorrect.
I disagree. I was trying to side step the question of murder because I do not know that I agree that that term is appropriate or that the question is necessary to the debate. At no point did I ask anybody to define their idea in a way of thinking that makes me right. In fact, you answered the question I asked when you said, "Personal bodily autonomy over a choice that could have been avoided does not trump a true human life." I do not think that there is a clear cut answer to the question I posed. While I understand and respect that you value human life over personal bodily autonomy, I am not certain that I do.
quote: If the fetus is a true human being, then to terminate it for convenience is murder. That's something that's done to slaves.
I think that a mother who unwillingly carries a baby to term is having her will and body subjugated to another. This is also something that is done to slaves.
As to your other statements, I am largely in agreement with Rabbit.
quote: It just is never really distillable into a bumper sticker-sized sentence, at least not if you grant it the serious thoughtfulness and respect that I think we should.
I agree that abortion is an incredibly complicated issue. As this thread has shown there are multiple ways to view it from moral, legal, spiritual, economic, and psychological perspectives. When it comes to whether it should be legal or not, the most important question to me is whether a human being's life is more valuable than people's autonomy over their own bodies. People's reactions to my statement suggest that they perceived me as thinking the answer was obvious. I do not think it is obvious.
quote: I have to ask many of you who argued about my statistic, did you actually READ the article?
I did read the article and I'm sorry that I tried to correct you. As others pointed out, I was wrong and you were right.
If you believe abortion is murder, then abortion is murder.
It doesn't matter if the mother properly or improperly used birth control.
It doesn't matter if the mother was raped.
Because neither of these things were within the control of the "child".
If you want to make the case that abortion should be illegal because abortion is immoral, there aren't half-measures to that stance. You make your bed and you lie in it. And you accept that a certain number of women are going to be put through a terrible and traumatic experience because of the need to exert what is viewed as a moral position.
I do not believe that abortion is murder. I believe abortion is the destruction of the potential for a human life. The availability of that process is something I believe is sad, but necessary.
My position is unlikely to change.
I could have been aborted. My mother was advised by one doctor to abort me in the wake of her suffering a cereberal hemorrhage; the doctor in question felt that carrying me to term might put an excessive strain on her and put her at risk for her life. According to family lore, the look she gave said doctor would have cracked stone. The fact that my mother decided not to abort me has always allowed me the certainty that I was completely wanted, and a certain belief that perhaps there's a reason I'm here. I would not have denied my mother the ability to have an abortion for anything. I have no memories before the age of two; questions of "would I actually prefer to be alive" or not, I don't exactly believe that I would have "missed" much. That's the sort of perspective we have as adults.
Secondly, be aware that my spouse is a doctor who is willing to, and may some time in the future, perform abortions. This is a moral position. It is, in fact, a courageous moral position, seeing as how abortion providers in every state are the frequent recipients of death threats.
This is not an intellectual exercise in moral uncertainties for me. And I should probably drop out, because this is quite frankly so intensely personal that I'm likely to lose sleep, and quite possibly the ability to remain borderline civil, if I continue.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Since the mother-ultimately-is almost always the one who invites that connection, yes. There are obviously exceptions, such as rape or failed birth control. But almost always the mother has invited and started this connection, without ever asking the fetus if it wants the connection or not.
I was halfway ready to write a scathing retort to this. It would have included veiled accusations of sexism, and overly-lame metaphors like, "it takes two to tango." Fortunately for everyone, I stopped to think a bit, and realized that of course you - and everyone else here - knows that the father is responsible too. However, the lack of dialogue on the subject leads me suspect that many view the issues of abortion and paternal responsibility seperately, or with the latter as an afterthought. Or maybe it's just that the debate is complicated enough without this element included. Regardless, this train of thought led me to think up an argument in favor of legalized abortion on the basis of parental responsibility that I haven't heard before. I think it's interesting, but I have a sneaking suspicion it won't hold an ounce of water. Oh well, here it is:
1. Father and mother are equally responsible for conception. 2. Discrimination on the basis of sex is unconstitutional. 3. Women are physically tied to children, whereas men are not. 4. Therefore, this situation is inherently unequal, as "ownership" defaults to the mother. 5. Enforcing child care with an unwilling father is notoriously difficult. 6. Therefore, legal abortion is the only way to remedy this situation.
Have you heard this argument, or one like it before? Either way, please, rip into it.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was trying to side step the question of murder because I do not know that I agree that that term is appropriate or that the question is necessary to the debate.
If the fetus is a true human life, then of course the term is appropriate, and where murder is concerned, it's necessary to any debate if it's actually happening. That's why you can't just negotiate it out of the discussion by changing the terminology. It's wrong (I believe, obviously), and furthermore it's simply not going to work. People will not accept it, the people who believe it's murder, that is.
quote:While I understand and respect that you value human life over personal bodily autonomy, I am not certain that I do.
But, see, in almost all the cases, personal bodily autonomy is not being violated. Because the woman could have chosen to have their autonomy unchanged by preventing the pregnancy in a host of ways. So too could the man (and so the man should, if he is not certain that he and the woman both want and are prepared for a child).
You are suggesting that this personal bodily autonomy trump everything at all times, with layers of repetition. Even when respecting that autonomy requires letting someone kill another person-if in fact that's what's happening.
Pretty much the only time the law actually permits someone to kill another person is if that other person is committing a crime against oneself, or a loved one, or an innocent bystander.
quote:I think that a mother who unwillingly carries a baby to term is having her will and body subjugated to another.
Who is doing the subjugating, though? In the majority of situations, she is. Unprotected sex or improperly used birth control are usually the causes of unwanted pregnancies. I see no reason to want to redress this "subjugation" at the cost of-possibly-a human child's life when the "subjugation" is temporary and easily avoidable.
I suppose I should be protected from the "subjugation" of my body when I eat spicy foods. Or the "subjugation" of my body when I suffer an injury-it's not fair that I have to lie up in a hospital if I drive without my seatbelt on!
In those cases, too, I'll be fighting against the "subjugation" imposed by simple biology and laws of probability.
As for Rabbit's statements, you'll notice that I agree with many of the things she said too.
----------
Juxtapose,
Thank you for rethinking that. I wholeheartedly understand your initial anger. Obviously the man does carry a great portion of the responsibility. If, for instance, the man does not want a child, it is his responsibility to make sure that correctly-used and highly-effective birth control is being applied. It is also the woman's responsibility as well.
I think that paternity laws should be severe and enforced (and fortunately nowadays, often they are). I think deadbeet dads should be tracked down and either forced to pay their share of the financial burden, or face jailtime (nowadays, frequently they do). And the thing that nowadays doesn't happen so much, I think sperm donors who cut and run-even if they do pay-should face a social stigma as strong or stronger as young women with an "unwanted pregnancy" face.
There's not much I can do about that last though, except express my own personal contempt for such a man when I meet him, and tell him I think that's a crappy thing to do, and that he should be a man, and do the right thing. I've done that before, on more than one occassion.
As for the argument, there are at least two problems. One, tracking down deadbeet dads is difficult, it's true, but it's not impossible-more and more deadbeet dads are forced to pay or are jailed every day. Two, nowhere in your arguments do you address the lost human life-if that's what is lost.
Any argument which fails to address the idea that a fetus is a true human life will probably (almost certainly) fail to sway the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers. But to be fair, there's little persuading them, because they're pretty convinced that it's a true human life being terminated. Or else they'll not be convinced until it can be proven it isn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I'm sorry I upset you. I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't do anything about abortion becuase people have miscarriages. It just seemed odd to me that we as a society spend so much time trying to change the minds of women who conciously chose to terminate their pregnancies when almost as many women have their babies taken from them by nature. I thought I remembered from one of the miscarriage threads that little is understood about them.
quote: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.
I had no idea, Belle. Chet works with a gal who's had half a dozen miscarriages. I'll have to pass that along.
I think what bothers me most about abortion can be summed up nicely in a single poster. When Chet was in the hospital with food poisoning, I remember seeing a poster in the emergency room: "Not ready for a baby? Your parents don't need to know."
All I could think was how dare they deliberately come between a parent and their child? How can they possibly justify encouraging kids not to talk to their parents?
The worst part is knowing they want young girls to get surgery by themselves after seeing the way they treated Chet. The morons couldn't write anything down. They never had the doctor's orders that we had written down in our notes. He got his blood transfusion at the wrong time. We were routinely given the wrong test results. And they want to get 16 year olds who don't know any better there by themselves? They probably encourage it to keep down the number of malpractice suits.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I actually don't think there was much argument about the statistics. And the online data from NYS Health Department show the same ballpark figures that your article showed.
The 74:100 thing is one way to express the data that is only misleading if people try to turn that into a percentage, which it ain't. Yeah, it can be alarming, but, yes, so is a rate of 40%, as you've said.
Anyway, I did want to quibble with on thing. It appeared that the article said very few women were coming in from outside NYC to get an abortion.
That was my first hypothesis and I rejected it ultimately because the number of people not from within the 5 boroughs was something well below 10%.
I think they changed the denominator in reporting that stat in the article...I'd have to check again, and I'm needing food now instead.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
AvidReader, tell your friend to see a specialist, usually they are with fertility clinics, who can work with her. In my friend's case, it was certain hormone deficiencies that were treatable. I'm not saying every miscarriage can be prevented, mind you, or that every woman can be helped but it certainly is worth looking into.
And, quite frankly, not every miscarriage should be prevented. In many cases, studies have shown that the fetus that was miscarried was not viable, because of some genetic problem or something else. It doesn't mean it's less traumatic or tragic for the parents that want that baby, but remember that many women who have miscarriages go on to successfully carry to term later on and have healthy babies. There have been several miscarriages in my family and I may have had one myself (we chose not to have tests to definitively find out if I had been pregnant, but it was very likely an early miscarriage) and in each case we all had healthy children afterwards.
So while there are certainly women like my friend and yours that need help carrying to term, most women who suffer a miscarriage don't need additional medical intervention.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know, the one thing I truly don't understand in logical stance of the general pro-life position is the "rape" exemption. I understand "life of the mother" clauses, but not the "ok in case of rape" standpoint. It just doesn't seem consistent to me.
If the fetus is a person at conception than it's a person regardless, and shouldn't have to pay the consequence for other people's actions, even if it was an unconsenting action.
I think I'm personally coming to the point where I believe a "chemical" type abortion is much more morally acceptable than a surgical one. I know that may seem like an odd position, but I really can't find a lot of fault with the morning after pill, nor any process that mimics early term miscarriages.
I realize that with actual later term miscarriages, sometimes labor is forcibly induced in order to deliver the fetus. However the early term misccariages, are more along the lines of having a heavy period with cramps. No labor is specifically induced, the hormones levels are simply imbalanced for whatever reason and can no longer sustain the pregnancy.
Yeah it's a wierd shade of grey, but it seems to be the shade that I feel the most logically comfortable with.
Speaking for myself, I view it as this. Rather like Amancear has been talking about forcing a woman to carry the fetus to term, I view being raped as actually forcing a woman to carry a child to term-i.e. she just didn't have any choice at all in the matter.
The real reason I'm pro-life is because I think there's a strong possibility that a fetus is a human life, that possibility growing daily right up until birth at which time it's a certainty. Mixed in with that is the knowledge that with just a little inexpensive planning, the possibility can be avoided entirely without risking the destruction of a human life.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, For me, I still hope any individual who is pregnant would protect the life of the child, no matter how they got pregnant; but I recognize the difference between becoming pregnant due to the choice to have sex, and becoming pregnant because you were forced and had no choice. I would hope no one would terminate that kind of pregnancy, but I would not want to legislate against it in a case where the mother has already had her choice taken from her.
It's not to say I think abortion is okay, in those circumstances; but I think in those cases the decision should be made by the mother, since it's only after the fact that she has any choice. So in this instance there's a difference between thinking it's morally okay, and thinking it should be legal.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh... so there really is a shade of grey in the pro-life stance already then for some choice... never really looked at it that way before. But to me it dilutes the strength of the total argument, since there's already a "choice" exemtpion in there.
I'm not sure what you mean, if you were speaking to me or JennaDean.
If you were speaking to me, all I can say is that my discomfort level rises dramatically when someone is actually forced-as in the case of rape-to bear a child they in no way asked for.
Perhaps a little contrived analogy will make things clearer. If I invite my neighbor over to my home and tell him, "I will take care of you. I will sustain, clothe, and shelter you," and he has no way of living without my support...and then I withdraw that support, to me that's murder. But if someone blunders into my home when there's a "No Trespassing" sign posted, then things are quite different. I am not responsible for that person's life. I did not ask for that person to be in my home, he forced his way into my home.
(I realize there's some squicky metaphor there-sorry about that).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: 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.
As some others have suggested, there is a fairly significant distinction (legally, if not morally) between a passive failure to do good and and an active attempt to do harm.
If people were trying to pass laws requiring pregnant women to eat only certain 'approved' healthy foods, abstain from alcohol, etc., I'd oppose them. But deliberately seeking an abortion is fundamentally different, IMO. In the one case, perhaps the mother doesn't care about the child she carries and is not going to be bothered with changing her lifestyle; so be it. It's a huge jump to go from that to essentially hiring an obstetric hit man.
I'm also not sure that your example is true because the "government does not have domain over our own bodies." Certainly, irresponsibility as a driver can lead to being fined, jailed, sued for civil damages, etc. The reason why one's blood is not demanded in your scenario may be that legally establishing criminal or civil liability takes a lot longer than the window of time in which your 'victim' will be in need of blood. Certainly, if the victim has perpetual medical expenses related to the accident, the courts can take that out in lieu of physical blood.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 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... (snip) ...BUT. I would not force someone else to make the same choice based on my personal beliefs.
Legislating anything curtails personal freedom, and legislating is always based on some moral judgment. Tax laws, traffic ordinances, environmental statutes -- all curtail freedom, and all are based on some kind of morality.
quote: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.
Is it your contention that government is only bound to protect people with souls? That is a very odd standard for a secular nation, particularly when the existence of a soul cannot be proven or disproven in the first place. It also sounds a bit like you want public policy on this matter to conform to *your* personal beliefs (or the ambiguity thereof).
The fact that a fetus is a living human organism is a concrete biological fact. Nebulous musings about whether it has a soul may be interesting from a religious standpoint, but have no place in American public policy, IMO.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Y'know, the one thing I truly don't understand in logical stance of the general pro-life position is the "rape" exemption. I understand "life of the mother" clauses, but not the "ok in case of rape" standpoint. It just doesn't seem consistent to me.
quote:Ahh... so there really is a shade of grey in the pro-life stance already then for some choice... never really looked at it that way before. But to me it dilutes the strength of the total argument, since there's already a "choice" exemtpion in there.
Many pro-life people do not want such an exception. Some of those are willing to compromise in order to obtain a law that target 97%+ of abortions.
I, for one, would vote for a law with a rape exception in a second, assuming it was that or nothing. I'd be up front about thinking the exception is wrong, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi, Irregardless! Did you get a chance to puzzle through the list we were putting together for you, up back a little in the thread? Was it what you were looking for?
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: The fact that a fetus is a living human organism is a concrete biological fact.
I'm not sure I would agree with that statement, and I'm pretty well-trained in the area of concrete biological facts.
Do you mind if I ask you some questions to try to unpack the meaning of the sentence, or would that be too bothersome?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Why make an artificial comparison -- is 40% not horrifying enough?!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
