quote:Heaven forefend a woman have an abortion and go on with her life thinking she was still a decent human being.
It just seems to be a "damned if you do" and "damned if you don't" proposition to the whole notion of procreation.
Single moms are condemned for being single moms. Women that abort are condemned for aborting. Women that have "too many" children are condemned for adding to the world's overpopulation. Women that choose not to have children are found lacking. Women that struggle to have children worry that they lack something. Women that want to adopt out find very little support for their decision. Women that know they are not ready or capable of being nurturing mommas find little to no support for being honest and finding an alternative route, be that route: --abortion --adoption --abandonment to a safe haven.
It just seems that women are held under the microscope and judged for so many decisions and choices along the way: to conceive or not, to carry or not, for breastfeeding, for bottlefeeding, for cloth or plastic, for weaning or not weaning, for every last little thing connected to the rearing of the child.
For as much time as this country spends loking at mothering/parenting, it always surprises me how little support or acknowledgement there is about the importance of the job.
Maybe we all just need to be a little less judgemental, a little more compassionate, a little more thoughtful about how to ensure that parents get to be parents when they are fit and ready, that parents are supported by community/famiy/friends in their critically important jobs, that biological parents are supported in their choice to not parent, if that's what they choose - up to and including using preventative methods such as abstinence, birth control, or abortion.
*ends speech*
*steps off soapbox*
Carry on. Sorry to derail the abortion discussion with a brief look at the social norms of today's society.
I must say that the folks here at Hatrack tend to be far more tolerant of people's choices and decisions than I see other places. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:that biological parents are supported in their choice to not parent, if that's what they choose - up to and including using preventative methods such as abstinence, birth control, or abortion.
The last is asking too much. I will not support anyone's choice to abort, in any way, shape, or form.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to abortion, I think it is completely up to the woman in question. It is her own choice and should not be regulated or restricted by anyone. I can completely understand someone not supporting another's decision to abort, but to forbid it is another matter.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evie3217: It is her own choice and should not be regulated or restricted by anyone.
That seems pretty extreme. Are you saying less restrictions than we already have? More access to partial birth abortion and third trimester abortion?
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see, you're a mind reader now. You know that the intent is to make someone feel a particular thing.
This is a poor argument, Dag. Surely we here on hatrack are allowed to make inferences and point out fallacies as we see them? It was clear to me, at least, that A) Sterling didn't intend a twelve hour video, but a video documenting twelve hours of labor and birth and B) his broader point was to show that maybe certain pro-lifers wouldn't be so gung-ho about "all the information" if "all the information" includes material that leans toward aboring the fetus. And I think you proved his point.
quote:What, are you saying if someone were to receive more accurate information than you are willing to provide them that they would automatically conclude they were doing something wrong?
No, they might conclude that it was the right decision, but still feel guilty over it. Most people will admit that our feelings aren't always rational. Some might even say that feelings are rarely rational. If a pregnant woman has already made a tough decision, throwing visceral imagery at her serves no point but to pique her guilt.
Edited for some grammatical errors.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my problem with the video idea is that labor is different for everyone. Some women use the old fashoned "lay flat on the bed with an epidural" method while many have moved to a birthing chair that allows her to squat. It is supposed to be a faster and less painful position. Then other women choose natural birth, underwater births, even Scientology's no screaming method.
On the other hand, abortion does the same thing for everyone.
And don't think for a moment that women don't know that childbirth is painful. Women love nothing better than telling other women how awful their labor was. I think it's some kind of female hazing.
As for the guilt, Jux, if you're so convinced women will change their minds once they see the baby, why do you want to deny them the opportunity to change their minds? A woman who doesn't go through with it can still get an abortion later. A woman who gets an abortion can't get her child back.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a poor argument, Dag. Surely we here on hatrack are allowed to make inferences and point out fallacies as we see them?
You are also allowed to be called on them when they are insultingly wrong.
quote:It was clear to me, at least, that A) Sterling didn't intend a twelve hour video, but a video documenting twelve hours of labor and birth and B) his broader point was to show that maybe certain pro-lifers wouldn't be so gung-ho about "all the information" if "all the information" includes material that leans toward aboring the fetus. And I think you proved his point.
He could have made that point. Instead, he said it was "deliberately trying to ensure that the abortion IS a traumatic event." Surely you can see the difference, and surely you can see why someone saying "Baloney" in response to a correction about SOME ONE ELSE'S INTENT is not something I'm going to accept. That's what motivated the mind-reader comment - his presuming to speak about what is essentially my intent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, I don't think anyone has said that here. Are your two hypothetical positions contradictory? Yes. Has anyone here said that? I don't think so; if you think pH has, please quote the exact passages.
No one has said that here specifically, no. But so far as I can tell, that is basically the stance of every pro-choicer in this thread. And outside of this thread, I have heard this argument many times. Disregard everything but the woman's choice, period. Furthermore, I said when I asked everyone that question that those were not her words specifically-so I don't understand why you're asking me to show where someone here has said it precisely.
quote:...I do not see the embryo as a child--thus making your "choice over the corpse of a dead child" seem ridiculously overdramatic to me.
I have been careful, I think, to be specific in pointing out that I don't know it's a dead child. I have been careful to point out it is a possibility.
quote:...a little extra knowledge for the woman, and a little bit of further hope for protection in the case of the possible-person.
&
...such as possibly destroying a child's life.
&
Why, if that choice is possibly made over the corpse of a dead child?
&
If pro-lifers are right-if as many of them believe, human life begins at conception (and we'll probably never know until, if then, after dying), then the choice to abort is being made over the corpse of a dead child.
&
If that is the reason, then why is it reasonable to err on the side of caution for women's rights and not for the life of a child?
...why do you care so little for the chance that children are being destroyed for convenience, to avoid consequences of stupid mistakes?"
My point stands until it can be proven that the clump of cells is not a true human life at some point. As far as I understand it, your response to most of my questions is simply, "I don't see it as a true human life, therefore I don't wish to prohibit it."
In what way is that different from the following?
quote:"I believe that the clump of cells becomes a 'true human life' at some point during gestation and prior to birth, but we cannot say when exactly, and it changes for everyone," and still say, "It should be the woman's choice, PERIOD."
You do believe that the clump of cells is a true human life at some point prior to birth. You do believe we cannot pin down when exactly that is. And you do believe that the choice should still be the woman's, period.
quote:*(Women's control over their reproductive systems is widely recognized as a major factor in allowing them to move from a subservient place in society into a more equal role. The right and ability to choose when to produce children is something I value immeasurably because it allows me to be a married woman and still pursue a career. For many, many people, this is why choice is that important.)
It is this argument that smacks of no-tolerance to me, of zealotry. See, women have massive control over their reproductive lives even before having an abortion ever comes up. The fortress of women's rights in this arena has a moat, it's got a drawbridge, a spiky portcullis, boiling oil, lots of archers, lots of food for a long siege. The argument you're making is that overkill is what's required to protect women's rights. Not only must the castle have all of that stuff, but it must have crocodiles in the moat, poisoned arrows, etc. etc. etc.
(I am not trying to mock you here. The imagery just occurred concerning something protected and overkill just occurred to me. Possibly because I was reading AFfC last night.)
quote:I think it honestly comes down to a difference of "I do not see the embryo as a child. A potential child, yes. Having equal rights with the mother? At that early stage, no."
It seems to me that we're regarding "rights" as a group of things that if one is threatened, all are threatened. This to me again seems overkill. I have the right to private property that I legally and honestly purchase being safe from people I have not invited straying onto it. If someone threatens that right by, say, parking on my grass to attend a party across the street, do I get to blow up their car? My rights are being threatened!
Obviously such a thing would be absurd. But when women's rights are threatened, this sort of reasoning is somehow valid. Why? Why is it a possible child's right to live-when it is defenseless and did not ask to be brought into that particular womb-does not overpower the woman's right not to be "forced" to carry a child to term?
In America in times of slavery, even then there were limits on what a white landowner could do to a black slave. Not many, but limits. Just because the white landowner has more rights than the black slave does not mean that in any situation, the white landowner's rights overpower every single one of the slave's rights.
That is the core of your argument. Not just that the clump of cells is inequal to the mother, but that the biggest possible thing for that clump of cells is insufficient to overpower the woman's "right" to avoid the consequences of a stupid mistake.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I completely agree Shan. Women's choices are always criticized, no matter what they choose.
Welcome to humanity. This behavior is by no means specific to women and reproductive issues. Happens all the time, even in mundane activities like football. Armchair quarterbacking, after all.
And while I wholeheartedly agree that more compassion and respect for the job that mothers do should be given, Shan...I say the same to you, as well. That's humanity for you. People are "judgemental" on issues they think are massively important. It seems to me that on the pro-choice side, a whole lotta people are "judgemental" to the point of regarding and opposition to abortion as a premeditated threat to women's rights, a plan to put women back in the kitchen.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'm starting to wonder whether it's possible for you and I to discuss this productively, because you seem not to be reading my posts completely.
quote:But so far as I can tell, that is basically the stance of every pro-choicer in this thread.
This proves it, since I have quite clearly said many times now that I don't have a problem with abortion not being allowed later than a certain point fairly early in pregnancy--a viewpoint quite obviously different than the viewpoint you're painting as belonging to every pro-choicer in this thread (unless you weren't including me in that, and I think that's unlikely).
quote:It is this argument that smacks of no-tolerance to me, of zealotry.
Of course it does to you--you have already decided that the instant a woman conceives, any of her needs take a backseat to the possibility that she could bring forth a child. You asked why choice was important; I answered. It's not my fault if you don't like the answer. I mean, heck, the pro-life viewpoint often smacks of a patriarchal need to control what a woman does with her body, but I didn't ask you about the reasons for your viewpoint, nor am I implying that your reasons have anything to do with that. I know them; I understand them; I respect them; I just don't agree with them. Can you say the same? Have you really tried to understand the opposing viewpoint, or have you just thought up different ways to say, "OHMYGOD, YOU'RE SO WRONG!!! HOW CAN YOU THINK THAT!!! BABY-KILLER!!!!"
Again, I'll repeat: I do not, and cannot, see the embryo in the first six weeks following conception, as a human being. Because of this, at that stage, I do not see a reason why abortion shouldn't be allowable. It is, to me, akin to any other morally neutral medical procedure that a person might undergo. Perhaps my mention of rights was specious because of this--in my mind, because the embryo is not a human being, I have no more trouble with early term abortion than I do with the removal of a mole.
I don't know if you're arguing to change my mind, or just arguing to argue. If it's the latter, continue on without me. If it's the former, then please take a second and try to understand my views.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This proves it, since I have quite clearly said many times now that I don't have a problem with abortion not being allowed later than a certain point fairly early in pregnancy--a viewpoint quite obviously different than the viewpoint you're painting as belonging to every pro-choicer in this thread (unless you weren't including me in that, and I think that's unlikely).
I noticed that, each time you said it. However, my statements don't stop applying before, say, the first trimester. That's why I haven't acknowledged it, really, because I feel it's not really an answer.
Perhaps the following is where you felt I wasn't reading your posts. I should've been more specific.
quote:And outside of this thread, I have heard this argument many times. Disregard everything but the woman's choice, period.
What I should have said and what I meant to say there was...
quote:And outside of this thread, I have heard the following argument many times. Disregard everything but the woman's choice, period.
So that's my bad.
However, there is still the possibility that prior to the first trimester, the "clump of cells" is a true human life. As I've said, we don't know and probably won't ever know until after death, if then. Your response to that has been to completely disregard the possibility based on your opinion that it's definitely not a true human life. Or probably not. Or likely not. Whichever shade of meaning most accurately describes your beliefs.
I am not talking about abortion in the third trimester. In almost all cases I regard that as so horrid and wrong, that on that issue there really isn't much room for productive discussion with me. With exceptions of the mother's life (definitely) being in danger and-possibly-serious birth defects being detected, I'm not decided on those last parts.
But on this issue-on the question of why precisely the woman's right to choose completely trumps the possibility of destroying a true human life-my questions have gone unanswered, Megan. I think they were fair questions. Let me be more specific, although honestly I thought this part was understood.
Why is it that the woman's right to choose should totally trump the possibility of destroying a true human life in the first and second trimesters? The only response you've given me is basically, "I don't see it as a true human life, and so that possibility doesn't enter my decision-making process, and there are other factors involved such as wider issues of women's rights."
Am I misunderstanding that response? I assure you I'm not trying to misrepresent you, but I've read your posts and in the process of talking to you, reread your posts. I don't think I'm missing anything, but it's possible I'm mistaken.
quote:you have already decided that the instant a woman conceives, any of her needs take a backseat to the possibility that she could bring forth a child.
I have decided no such thing, and I'm at least as irritated as you are that you would say I have. On many occassions I have said that in the case of rape, a woman should have the right to abort. In the cases of serious illnesses where treatment would likely kill the cluster of cells but save the mother, I think a woman should have the right to abort. I have said all of that many times in the past, in probably dozens of threads, and I believe in the nine pages of this thread, I've said all of that at least once.
But it's possible either I didn't and just assume everyone knew (which would be my mistake, obviously) or I did and you missed it, because there's lots of posts (which is possible, also), or you're deliberately misrepresenting me. I regard this last possibility as vanishingly small, but it grates when you tell me things like,
quote:"OHMYGOD, YOU'RE SO WRONG!!! HOW CAN YOU THINK THAT!!! BABY-KILLER!!!!"
Have I insulted you in this thread? You're certainly personally insulting me with this remark, Megan. You're characterizing me as some kind of abortion clinic picketing fanatic with a sign of a crumpled, destroyed fetus on a stick, shrieking at harried and unhappy women.
I don't appreciate that.
quote:You asked why choice was important; I answered.
You answered with things I already knew and had heard-and even said in the post where I made the question: you don't regard prior to the first trimester the clump of cells being a true human life, and there are lots of other issues involved such as women's rights.
Why are those two things-your opinion and the politics of women's rights-outweigh the very real possibility that it is a true human life being destroyed in a first trimester abortion? Are you disregarding that possibility altogether, or is there some other reason?
And as for women's rights, I believe I've made my case pretty well that in a world where a woman can ensure with 99%+ probability that she won't get pregnant in consentual sex even if she is sexually activer, women's rights are not seriously threatened by prohibiting abortions for the sake of convenience.
quote:Again, I'll repeat: I do not, and cannot, see the embryo in the first six weeks following conception, as a human being.
But haven't you said yourself that your positions on abortion have changed, going from believing abortions were reasonable and acceptable further along in the pregancy, to the point now where you oppose them after the first trimester? Doesn't that call into serious question the bedrock of your argument, that you just don't think it's a true human life?
I will tell you what I think. Please let me know what is different about what you think. I think that the only reason it should be acceptable to permit abortions for the sake of convenience is if we are certain that a true human life is being destroyed. And since pregancies are the natural result of overwhelmingly consentual behavior, I see no reason to call the vast majority of abortions something other than "abortions for the sake of convenience".
If I'm wrong? Then yes, lots of women will be "forced" to carry to term a child they would have otherwise destroyed back when it was a morally meaningless cluster of cells. But since that cluster of cells got there by their own choice (and choice and consequence cannot be seperated, in my opinion), that "forcing" is not so very troublesome to me. Regrettable, possibly.
If I'm right? Well if I'm right-and please, let me put that in bold-if I'm right, then millions upon millions of true human lives are being destroyed while they're defenseless for the sake of someone else's convenience.
I personally regard this kind of thing as a "beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of issue. And to me, it is reasonable to admit to the possibility that in the first trimester, a "clump of cells" is not just a tadpole, not just a mole. I cannot understand, given the constantly-changing discoveries in medicine and science, why it is not reasonable for you to admit the possibility.
Is, "I do not and cannot see it that way," still your response? If so, then we really have reached an impasse. But it's not because I'm just "arguing to argue", and it's certainly not because I'm a fanatical pro-lifer with a sign shrieking, and it's not because I'm not reading your posts. I resent that, Megan. I've read your words carefully.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right about me mischaracterizing your statements, and I do apologize for that. I have been under the impression that you were against abortion in all cases, for any reason; that was my misreading, and I apologize.
Is it possible that the clump of cells in the first trimester is a true human life? I don't know. Is my opinion that it's not based solely on my opinion? Yes, my opinion that has been revised, through the course of discussion and reading. I was never, for the record, a supporter of abortion as acceptable at any time, but I have definitely revised my "arbitrary line" (or at least, the point at which I'm no longer certain that abortion is unacceptable) downward. Could this change again? Absolutely. If abortion were banned wholesale for that reason--that is, just in case the clump of cells actually is a human life--I wouldn't be happy, but my reasons for this are purely based on the reading I've done and the opinions I've formed. I also wouldn't go burning any buildings down or joining any major protests, either--because it's just my opinion. Hopefully, a well-informed opinion, but just an opinion.
quote: But since that cluster of cells got there by their own choice (and choice and consequence cannot be seperated, in my opinion), that "forcing" is not so very troublesome to me. Regrettable, possibly.
This is troublesome to me, because what about the woman who takes every precaution to ensure that she doesn't conceive, and conceives anyway? Well, she just shouldn't have been having sex, then, eh? A while back, I posted this as a reason why that doesn't work in every situation, particularly mine.
quote:I personally regard this kind of thing as a "beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of issue. And to me, it is reasonable to admit to the possibility that in the first trimester, a "clump of cells" is not just a tadpole, not just a mole. I cannot understand, given the constantly-changing discoveries in medicine and science, why it is not reasonable for you to admit the possibility.
I do admit this possibility, but with a huge load of skepticism. Part of this is may be because I'm very doubtful about the definition of human life, particularly at that early stage. I'm not sure I would be able to see it as a human life at that stage without some sort of idea of a soul--and on a spectrum of belief/non-belief for that, I lean toward the non-belief. This may be the actual difference that causes the most trouble, though I could be wrong.
quote:I think that the only reason it should be acceptable to permit abortions for the sake of convenience is if we are certain that a true human life is being destroyed.
There should be a "not" somewhere in there, right? Anyway, I understand this, and I respect it; I agree with it. I just think that the definition of "true human life" is something we won't be able to agree on. This, I think, is my answer to your question about why I feel a woman's rights do trump the possibility of a human life in the first trimester. You may not see it as a sufficient answer, and I might be wrong, but I still cannot justify placing more importance on the possibility that my assumptions might be wrong than on a woman's right to decide when and if she's going to reproduce. (And we're back to the "she could've chosen not to have sex" bit, but I have trouble accepting that one for the personal reasons I mentioned in the linked post, above.) I know there's no way you'll agree with any of this, but can you at least understand why I would have difficulty accepting that a full-on ban of abortion?
Anyway, I apologize for overreacting and implying you were an extremist. I admit to getting a little frustrated with these debates when it feels like the points I'm trying to make are not being understood. I let that frustration rule me in the last post, and I'm very sorry for that.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are also allowed to be called on them when they are insultingly wrong.
Hmm. You've stated your desire to restrict access to abortion, so it would seem reasonable to expect that something you suggest along those lines proceeds from that intention.
Further, the definition of "informed consent" generally consists of making a patient aware of risks and medical facts, and forcing a woman to view a sonogram of her fetus provides neither- at least, beyond providing a picture of a fetus in a similar level of development.
It does provide a disapproving emotional context, which I suspect is the goal.
Either that (in the context of preventing abortion) is the aim, or there is an element of willful ignorance with regard to the effect.
quote:It was clear to me, at least, that A) Sterling didn't intend a twelve hour video, but a video documenting twelve hours of labor and birth and B) his broader point was to show that maybe certain pro-lifers wouldn't be so gung-ho about "all the information" if "all the information" includes material that leans toward aboring the fetus. And I think you proved his point. He could have made that point. Instead, he said it was "deliberately trying to ensure that the abortion IS a traumatic event." Surely you can see the difference, and surely you can see why someone saying "Baloney" in response to a correction about SOME ONE ELSE'S INTENT is not something I'm going to accept. That's what motivated the mind-reader comment - his presuming to speak about what is essentially my intent.
Actually, that was my intent. Could it be you were <gasp> misreading my intent?
And I'm sure you're aware the intent of a law is irrelevant to the effects thereof.
Very well, my error. The intention was that following the viewing of her sonogram the potential mother-to-be would in an entirely intellectual manner choose whether to undergo abortion, free of emotional bias or any trauma.
Incidentally, the yelling thing would be a lot more effective if you'd do it less often.
quote:And don't think for a moment that women don't know that childbirth is painful. Women love nothing better than telling other women how awful their labor was. I think it's some kind of female hazing.
All I can gauge is the reactions of the women in my childbirth class. Hearing about it is one thing; seeing it is another.
Epidurals or other anesthesia can reduce pain to a certain extent. But it's been noted that one of the most important aspects of pain control is having a loving person present for support at the birth, a factor many women considering abortion lack.
edited to provide context for quotePosts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't have time for a lengthy reply, but don't worry about it, your apology is accepted, and it's not a big deal anyway. I've certainly flown off the handle on many occassions, on issues much less passionate than this. For my part I should not have called you on it so aggressively.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: (I haven't forgotten about you, Irregardless -- just a really busy day. And it's started to snow! So I'll catch up on the weekend.)
No problem -- it's going to take me a while to catch up reading this thread.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will not support anyone's choice to abort, in any way, shape, or form.
Do you mean this? Would you really oppose a woman's choice to abort under all circumstance -- including when the life of the mother is at risk? Your statement implies you make no exceptions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Adoption would be a process without a lot of beuraucracy and hassle, but still manage to weed out unfit parents. It would take only weeks to perform the process of adoption, instead of marching out for months or years.
Sex education would be broad, and cover all safe sex options including abstinence, and include discussions of sexuality in the media and whether they accurately portrayed sexual relationships.
Everyone would have ready access to birth control methods, and all pregnant women would have the best in prenatal care.
Law would truly make men responsible for their offspring. Paternity tests would be easy to obtain. Courts wouldn't so readily reduce child support payments.
And no child would ever go hungry.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you mean this? Would you really oppose a woman's choice to abort under all circumstance -- including when the life of the mother is at risk? Your statement implies you make no exceptions.
Rabbit, there's a difference between "not oppose" and "support."
Theaca has described the distinction I find to be most morally important, between treatment that results in the death of the fetus and simply killing the fetus.
quote:And I'm sure you're aware the intent of a law is irrelevant to the effects thereof.
Were that really true, you wouldn't have framed your response as being about intent, but rather about the effects. You were making a very different point from "they want to discourage abortions" - something I've never denied is my main purpose for informed consent requirements. you were saying that people who favored such things wanted to make sure the abortion was traumatic.
Wrong. Flat out wrong. I, and presumably Belle, want there not to be an abortion. Our intent is not to "deliberately ... ensure that the abortion IS a traumatic event."
quote:Actually, that was my intent. Could it be you were <gasp> misreading my intent?
Possibly. You'll note I didn't use a polite form of the word bulls$%# when you clarified your intent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That definition of informed consent is a huge stretch, since the information conveyed is irrelevant to the risks or facts of the procedure. The only "information" attempting to be conveyed is of an emotional nature. And the tool being used to attempt to prevent the abortion is emotional trauma, or the threat thereof.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, there's a difference between "not oppose" and "support."
So if your wife were lying in a hospital death bleeding to death and the only way doctors knew to save her life was an abortion, you would not oppose it but you also would not support her in making this choice.
Did I get that right.
I'm sorry Dag., but unless I'm misunderstanding you I find your position abhorrent.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the tool being used to attempt to prevent the abortion is emotional trauma, or the threat thereof.
Then make that case. Don't tell me what I intend.
quote:So if your wife were lying in a hospital death bleeding to death and the only way doctors knew to save her life was an abortion, you would not oppose it but you also would not support her in making this choice.
Did I get that right.
No, you absolutely didn't.
Perhaps Theaca can chime in with more detail, but in such situations the treatment is not an abortion, but a surgery that results in the death of the unborn child, a morally acceptable course of action.
Even a hysterectomy - which would absolutely kill the child - would be morally acceptable.
quote:I'm sorry Dag., but unless I'm misunderstanding you I find your position abhorrent.
I'm pretty sure you are misunderstanding me based on your example and the fact that you didn't quote the actual part of my post that made the distinction.
Frankly, I find your position that even if an unborn child is fully human it should still be up to the mother as to whether or not it is killed to be abhorrent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I will of course yield to the medical professionals on this one, but I think that the treatment for a uterine hemorrhage (whether or not the woman is pregnant) is the same procedure as an early-term abortion. Assuming that is the case, isn’t saying “we didn’t have an abortion, we treated the hemorrhage” a matter of semantics? I understand the matter of intent, but what is the distinction, for you, between calling it a medically necessary abortion and calling it a treatment that also results in the death of the child? Assuming that the actions of the medical team in performing the procedure are identical either way.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming that is the case, isn’t saying “we didn’t have an abortion, we treated the hemorrhage” a matter of semantics?
Technically, the abortions at issue in this entire discussion are "induced abortions." Perhaps keeping the adjective for this particular part of the discussion will help make my point clearer. When I say "I will not support abortion" I mean "induced abortion." I think induced carries the intent with it.
To be clear, if the actions are being taken to directly repair damage - including necessary steps to make the damage accessible - then I'm not considering it within the boundaries of "induced abortion" and therefore it is not within my earlier statement about what I can't support.
quote:I understand the matter of intent, but what is the distinction, for you, between calling it a medically necessary abortion and calling it a treatment that also results in the death of the child? Assuming that the actions of the medical team in performing the procedure are identical either way.
At this point, I think it's clear what I mean. I don't particularly care how the semantics are termed except insofar as the use of the term abortion in such circumstances is not used to support induced abortions that are notpart of actual treatment. The chemotherapy example is a good place where I find the distinction to be terribly important. Aborting a child because it will die or become disabled due to chemo is not "medically necessary," and I want no confusion on where I stand on that point.
When I made that statement, it was concerning abortions used in the context of a women choosing when she gives birth - a clearly elective procedure.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I’m getting the impression that you think I'm picking nits. I was (still am) genuinely curious whether you would term the situation I described an induced abortion or a treatment that resulted in a <non-intended but knowingly unavoidable> abortion. Not trying to score points, just interested in your thinking on this.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I’m getting the impression that you think I'm picking nits. I was (still am) genuinely curious whether you would term the situation I described an induced abortion or a treatment that resulted in a <non-intended but knowingly unavoidable> abortion. Not trying to score points, just interested in your thinking on this.
"treatment that resulted in a <non-intended but knowingly unavoidable> abortion"
Edit: and that phrasing makes it clear why "induced" is the critical word.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please tell me you clicked the wrong emoticon.
Nope, that was most definitely the right one.
So a group of people discussing a very serious issue which implicates some of the most important issues in the world is roll-on-the-floor-laughing funny to you?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So a group of people discussing a very serious issue which implicates some of the most important issues in the world is roll-on-the-floor-laughing funny to you?
I should have been more clear: this issue is so emotionally and spiritually charged and wrought with the potential for deep offense that really, my only recourse is to laugh at it, to keep from getting sucked into the argument, and/or saddened that so many brilliant, caring people could stand so very divided on something that is, as you said, "a very serious issue which implicates some of the most important issues in the world."
I'm sorry about the lack of clarity - I really wasn't trying to make you upset, and probably should have included this reply in my previous one.
Edit for further clarification: I'm subscribing to Valentine Michael Smith's idea behind laughter.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:that biological parents are supported in their choice to not parent, if that's what they choose - up to and including using preventative methods such as abstinence, birth control, or abortion.
The last is asking too much. I will not support anyone's choice to abort, in any way, shape, or form.
Sorry to throw your words back at you Dag, but I went to Catholic school myself, and I remember there being justifications for abortion. Namely, an impending threat to the life of the mother with no hope of the child's ultimate survival, ie. Tubal Pregnancy, or a blood disorder, or the need for chemotherapy for a dying mom, etc. Surely you don't mean "and way, shape or form?" If you do then, what of these unsurpassable situations (which are very frequent occurences).
edit: Though I see youve answered the question partly, you haven't really answered this one yet, which is an induced abortion with cause.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry to throw your words back at you Dag, but I went to Catholic school myself, and I remember there being justifications for abortion. Namely, an impending threat to the life of the mother with no hope of the child's ultimate survival,
I believe you are wrong. The difference is between treatment which results in the death of the child and treatment intended to kill the child. Here's one example:
quote:First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect." For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.
There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section.
quote: ie. Tubal Pregnancy, or a blood disorder, or the need for chemotherapy for a dying mom, etc. Surely you don't mean "and way, shape or form?" If you do then, what of these unsurpassable situations (which are very frequent occurences).
Hence, removing the fallopian tube or the embryo in the tube is not an abortion.
I'm not sure which blood disorders you mean.
Finally, I have extensively dealt with the chemotherapy issue (in fact, I've dealt with all this in the thread except blood disorders). An abortion because chemotherapy will harm or even kill the child is not treatment. Surgery to remove a tumor that kills the child is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, I find your position that even if an unborn child is fully human it should still be up to the mother as to whether or not it is killed to be abhorrent.
This is a fairly gross over simplification of my position. I do not know when an unborn child becomes "fully human". I don't believe that anyone on this planet knows the answer to that question. The scrictures and prophets I recognize are silent on this issue. I suspect that if we were to poll the American public, we would not get even close to a simple majority consensus on when a fetus becomes a full human.
I recognize that the leaders of your religion have weighed in on the subject, but to the best of my knowledge they have never claimed that their position on this subject was infallable. Even Catholics must admit there is a possibility that the fetus is not "fully human".
I believe that living beings which are not even partially human still deserve life and humane treatment, so whether or not a fetus is "fully human" is to me not the sole consideration.
I believe that in any pregnancy their are two living beings involved. The mother, who, hopefully, we can all agree is "fully human", and the unborn child, who may or may not be fully human. Because of the bond between these two lives, there are cases when the needs and desires of these two living beings will come in direct, irresolvable conflict. For at least the first several months of the pregnancy, the life of the unborn child is inseparably bound to the mother. It is an obligate parasite.
When I consider all of these facts, I conclude that the Mother's needs should be given greater weight under the law than those of the unborn child.
I believe that there are cases where abortion is a moral choice, even if the unborn child is fully human. We recognize as a society many instances where it is moral to kill a "full human", including self defense, defense of others, etc. I believe that there are gray areas, cases where I am unable to judge. How much sacrifice does God require a woman to make to bring her unborn child to term? I do not know the answer to this question.
I believe that God reveals the answers to such questions to the individuals who have direct stewardship for the decisions. That is why I support a woman's right to choose. The mother knows not only how much sacrifice she is willing to make, but because she has been given stewardship for the unborn child, she is able to know how much God expects of her.
I believe that most legal abortions today do not fall in these categories. It sickens me that so many woman seek abortions for selfish and silly reasons. I also have a great deal of sympathy for women who are pregnant with a child they believe they can not adequately care for.
My heart is torn in two on this issue. As a woman who has desperately wanted children, but has been unable to have them, it grieves me deeply that any woman would be willing to kill her unborn child. I am as hurt by the deep problems in our society that drive women to such desperate straights, as I am by some women who seem to make such choices lightly.
I believe that there are cases where a mother should not be trusted with this choice. This is after all a weighty decision and individuals who are not generally considered competent under the law to make such decision, should not be trusted with this one.
I believe that there are many things we can do as a society to reduce the number of woman choosing abortions. I think that criminalizing abortion is the worst option. Since it is unlikely to actually reduce the number of abortions, I view it as symbolic gesture that will inflict real harm on people.
If you find my beliefs abhorent. So be it.
[ January 23, 2006, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I recognize that the leaders of your religion have weighed in on the subject, but to the best of my knowledge they have never claimed that their position on this subject was infallable. Even Catholics must admit there is a possibility that the fetus is not "fully human".
I know this doesn't change your position, but yes, they have.
quote:This is a fairly gross over simplification of my position.
If this is an oversimplification of your view then I apologize. I was recalling a thread before last election in which you stated, in reference to Kerrey's view that 1) a fetus is definitely fully and completely human and 2) that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion during at least the first trimester with no justification, that this was a moral position. It is the combination of these two that I find to be abhorrent. If it's not yours, I again apologize.
Certainly it's less of an over-simplification than your restatement of my position.
quote:I think that criminalizing abortion is the worst option. Since it is unlikely to actually reduce the number of abortions, I view it as symbolic gesture that will inflict real harm on people.
First, I seriously doubt it wouldn't reduce the number of abortions.
Second, the symbolism here is critically important. If abortion is not criminalized, then a particular class of human being is being dehumanized.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm away from the pro-life movement in three ways.
1) I seperate sex from procreation. This is deep, so when anytime someone talks about someone having to carry the baby as a penalty and a consequence of sex, I'm not compelled.
2) I don't consider unborn children full people.
3) And most importantly, I'm not going to treat a woman like a beast of burden, even if I treat the unborn child like an animal.
That said, I understand that none of my positions are infallible and all of my assertions could be wrong. God need not seperate sex from procreation, deem unborn children full people, and women beasts of burden. I'm not indifferent to the idea that I could be wrong on all three counts in the eyes of the Almighty, but my position still stands.
Truthfully, I do believe that if you want lower the number of abortions, eliminating poverty and supporting education would do it much more elegantly than a law.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that would pretty much divorce you from the pro-life movement, Irami. Although a less biased spin on those points would be welcome.
1) You don't recognize that pregnancy is a default consequence of sex, and that even careful sex can result in pregnancy.
2) You don't consider unborn children to be full people.
3) You don't believe that women should have to carry children to term, even if that means killing the infants.
--------
I find it particularly interesting that you believe it's necessary to view women as "beasts of burden" to believe that their children should not be killed to spare them the indignity of pregnancy, or that this opinion constitutes a desire for "punishment."
Consequences are not punishment. Punishment is something that comes IN ADDITION to a consequence, to further deter an action. If you rob a bank and get caught, you are imprisoned; if you lie to your mother, you might get grounded. These are not consequences; they're punishments.
But some actions also have natural consequences. If you jump off a cliff, you might well break your leg. This is not a punishment; it is a consequence. You might ALSO receive a punishment, if your parents ground you or take away your skateboard or something, but the actual leg-breaking is a consequence.
In the same way, becoming pregnant is a consequence of having sex. And denying someone the freedom to abort a child is not a punishment for having sex.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) You don't recognize that pregnancy is a default consequence of sex, and that even careful sex can result in pregnancy.
2) You don't consider unborn children to be full people.
3) You don't believe that women should have to carry children to term, even if that means killing the infants.
I'll accept 2 and 3 as friendly amendments. I'm still not happy with the wording of one.
quote:In the same way, becoming pregnant is a consequence of having sex. And denying someone the freedom to abort a child is not a punishment for having sex.
It seems to be a punishment by ommission. For example, if someone jumps off a cliff and the government has the opportunity to put an air mattress to soften the fall, but chooses not to, then it becomes a sort of crime of omission. In this case, as with the case of pregnacy, the line between consequence and punishment is blurred with respect to government intervention.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Were that really true, you wouldn't have framed your response as being about intent, but rather about the effects. You were making a very different point from "they want to discourage abortions" - something I've never denied is my main purpose for informed consent requirements. you were saying that people who favored such things wanted to make sure the abortion was traumatic.
Wrong. Flat out wrong. I, and presumably Belle, want there not to be an abortion. Our intent is not to "deliberately ... ensure that the abortion IS a traumatic event."
The bolded text shows exactly why information about abortions should be given/written by pro-choice people. I find it intellectually dishonest that you would be willing to give out biased information under some kind of "informed consent requirements" while rejecting opposing arguments out of hand.
Here's where Sterling and I disagree with you, I think. Say you have a young woman who has weighed her options, and decided that an abortion is the best choice for herself. She then has to run through a gauntlet of anti-abortion material, including sonograms of her own fetus. It has no medical impact on her health, and unless divine intervention is involved, she is conscious of the debate on the issue, aware of the opposing arguments, and has reached her own decision. I don't see a possible reason for this, except as emotional blackmail against the young woman.
Of course your intent is to, as you see it, save the life of the unborn child. As I see it, however, you also intend to do it by giving pregnant women a choice, either don't abort, or experience further trauma in an already emotionally wrenching experience. So basically, I'm left with no choice but to infer that you would be actively trying to punish those who believed differently than you. That this punishment is not in fact the ultimate goal, but one that must be acheived in order to accomplish the greater goal, does not change the fact that the this program would have, as one of it's intended effects, the emotional punishment of women who go through with an abortion.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, if someone jumps off a cliff and the government has the opportunity to put an air mattress to soften the fall, but chooses not to, then it becomes a sort of crime of omission.
I'm not sure this is necessarily equivalent. If you choose to jump off a cliff and the government has the opportunity to manufacture a mattress out of the flesh and sinews of an innocent bystander -- but chooses not to -- has it committed a crime of omission?
In the case of abortion, you're actually injuring a third party in order to protect someone from the consequences of her own action. I don't think "omission" works in that scenario.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure this is necessarily equivalent. If you choose to jump off a cliff and the government has the opportunity to manufacture a mattress out of the flesh and sinews of an innocent bystander -- but chooses not to -- has it committed a crime of omission?
Then it becomes an issue of the dignity of the bystander. The more I think about it, the more I think that human life is dependent upon accepting a public presence, understanding itself as something in the world. I'm getting a little bit fuzzy, but its what I see.
We don't try to save every living organ for its own sake. We don't talk about the dignity of a liver, or try to preserve the placenta for its own sake, and I'm pretty sure that there isn't a movment to rescue all of the appendixes that have been removed. I think that we protect babies out of respect for the people they become when they start becoming aware of themselves as people in the world, and I don't think we protect babies merely because they happen to be alive.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed, and these are the sorts of issues where reasons matter, not just the final outcome.
HUGE ASIDE:
There is an argument for plurality that states that people with different faiths can live under one government, as long as their disparate reasons lead them to the same decision.
There is another argument saying that any government made of plural religious people is only a contingent mass of allies, not one people. This mass is unstable, they aren't even rightly considered one people, rather they are a strategic confederacy of clans using each other for economic reasons.
I'm not sure where I stand, or what the United States of America is.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then make that case. Don't tell me what I intend.
I tend to make the assumption that those presenting a particular view-point are aware of the context in which they make their point. If you are claiming that forcing medical personnel to show a pregnant woman considering an abortion their sonogram would be a good thing, let along "informed consent", I tend to presume you're aware at the least of the punitive consequences of such an act toward the women who choose to go through with the procedure and choose to emphasize what _you_ see as the positive outcome in the face of- actually, because of- that negative aspect.
I can go into matters presuming you've given so little consideration to the ramifications of your suggestions that you're completely unaware of this context if you'd really prefer.
quote:Here's where Sterling and I disagree with you, I think. Say you have a young woman who has weighed her options, and decided that an abortion is the best choice for herself. She then has to run through a gauntlet of anti-abortion material, including sonograms of her own fetus. It has no medical impact on her health, and unless divine intervention is involved, she is conscious of the debate on the issue, aware of the opposing arguments, and has reached her own decision. I don't see a possible reason for this, except as emotional blackmail against the young woman.
"Yes", but actually "Yes and then some."
First, this proposition puts the medical practitioner in a mandated role as a sort of "disapproving parent"- and that's a position a medical practitioner should never be in. People who feel their doctor looks down on them don't come in for return visits. The mother who didn't get her child vaccinated doesn't get her child looked at when they come down with a cough, the smoker doesn't come in when he starts coughing up blood, the pregnant woman who feels her doctor disapproves of her premarital intercourse doesn't see someone when she starts bleeding vaginally. The medical community has enough barriers between them and proper care of their patients without putting up new ones like this for the sake of a particular narrow agenda.
Secondly, I would argue that it's recognized as the function of law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Abortion remains legal, and a law such as this would function to punish the innocent for going about legal business. The onus on the law is to protect, not punish, the law-abiding.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to respond to you, Irami, but I can't take seriously anyone who compares a fetus, or even a zygote, to an appendix. That's like comparing an acorn to a leaf.
Call it a parasite if you like, but not an organ. It's human, it's alive, it's got a unique genetic makeup, and in 20 years, it'll probably be able to kick your ass. Show some respect. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
