Posted 4 years, 7 months ago late at night by HispanicPundit
Oso suggested I start off with abortion, so my first topic on abortion will be one of my favorite quotes from Alan Keyes1. For those of you that don’t know who Alan Keyes is, he is an African American Republican who ran for president in 2000. If memory serves me right, he holds a doctorate in Government from Harvard University.
He said this during his bid for President in 2000,
“You see, people wonder why it is Alan, everywhere he goes, he always brings up this issue of abortion and I never go anywhere without mentioning it. Why? Because abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required.
Slavery was what discarded and rejected and denied the fundamental principle of right and justice in America, and what was done in the name of slavery then is done for the sake of abortion now. And the paradigm of it is quite clear. What is it that is the argument made in favor of abortion? You can see it in Roe versus Wade and everything else. It’s a privacy argument, and privacy based on what? Well, this is the woman’s body and she has the right to decide what goes on with it. You start from that. And this child, this babe, this fetus in the womb, what is it? Well, it’s a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will.
We don’t recognize what that’s saying? What that’s saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother’s choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power.
Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust. And I see this all the time.
I was down in South Carolina not long ago. I was down in South Carolina not long ago and a young lady comes up to me after I had given a talk just like this, and she says “I was listening to your speech and I want to know how come you can prefer the rights of potential persons to those of actual persons.” I’ll never forget that moment because she was the very paradigm–if you want to think of some little slip of the thing that projected the very wonderful wholesome air of American womanhood. And she was speaking to me in what; in the chilling language of holocaust and atrocity. And she didn’t even know what she was doing. I looked at her and I said, “You know, I have a 17-year-old son. How old are you?” And she said, “Nineteen.” And I said, “You know, you make a very rash assumption in what you ask me there.” She looked me quizzically, and I said, “Because given my experience with my 17-year-old son, I have to tell you there are many days on which I am not entirely sure that people of your age are actual persons at all.” And then to drive the point home even further, I looked at her and I said, “I hope you don’t think that I will hear those words and forget that 120, 130 odd years ago Frederick Douglass had to go in front of audiences with a speech entitled “That the Negro is a Man.” To prove that he and others like me were actual persons.”
See, why do people forget this? They speak this cold-blooded language to people like myself as if we’re too stupid to remember that the day before yesterday we were not considered actual persons. And that if today we deny the principle on which we stood in order to demand respect for our humanity, if we deny it to those human beings in the womb, it will be denied once again to us and to others. Because then it just becomes a matter of who you can get on your side to draw the line between humanity and nonhumanity, personhood and nonpersonhood, and then the majority can oppress and the powerful can abuse. And those who end up on the wrong side have nothing.”
1 I realize that Alan Keyes is closely associated with the religious wing of the Republican party. However, even though he himself may be associated with that side, I take his quote to stand alone for its arguments, and is not meant to be seen as a religious argument against abortion. Since I strongly believe that abortion is not a religious issue.
[...] aws or contradictions. I’ve learned a lot this past week. Besides all the thoughtful comments that followed HispanicPundit’s post, IR [...]
[...] aws or contradictions. I’ve learned a lot this past week. Besides all the thoughtful comments that followed HispanicPundit’s
[...] picture1) deserves the same rights and protection as fully grown adults. In fairness, as HP points out, Susanne’s analogy between a fetu [...]
[...] ghts and protection as fully grown adults. In fairness, as HP points out, Susanne’s analogy between a fetus and an adult with “no b [...]
[...] picture1) deserves the same rights and protection as fully grown adults. In fairness, as HP points out, Susanne’s analogy between a fetu [...]
[...] hispanicpundit.com @ 1:05 am
It has been my experience when discussing abortion with others that most people in the abortion debate don’t tr [...]
I’m going to approach the moral argument of abortion in my own post, but what I want to emphasize here is that, at times, when government tries to enforce morality, it actually backfires.
An example – but not at all an analogy with abortion – is the Prohibition Movement. From a moral position, the illegalization of alcohol made sense:
The excellent CATO Policy Analysis goes on to say:
Now, as we discuss whether or not we want abortion to be legal or illegal in this country, I think it’s important to look at countries where abortion is currently illegal and do a comparative analysis.
Abortion was a huge topic in Mexico (where it is illegal) during the 2000 elections and it continues to be contraversial today. I’m sure that you, like myself, have spent a good amount of time in Mexico and can attest to the flourishing black market in dangerous abortion clinics. (my girlfriend has at least five friends who have gotten illegal abortions).
From a biased source:
I was listening to the Gilmor Gang yesterday at the gym and at one point they began to speculate what would happen if Roe Versus Wade was overturned and abortion were made illegal in some or most states. Now remember, these are internet geeks so they weren’t thinking protests or political movements. “100 anonymous websites would pop up over night advertising (and charging 10 times the price) for abortion either in another state or another country.” And they’re absolutely right. The internet is essentially a conservative device: it decentralizes and deregulates (at its best) down to the user. But this includes allowing each individual user to make moral decisions. Sure, I think child pornography is absolutey wrong. But the government no longer regulates it. It can’t. If I want to watch some 12 year old girl getting it on with an old guy, I am able to. I need to make the moral decision. And – according to me – we need to start working within that framework because there’s no way around it.
As always, apologies for the length (si, un doble sentido) and I’ll discuss the moral argument for and against abortion in my own post in a couple days.
I didn’t read any of the previous stuff, but I will later. I’d just like to chime in with a simple thought (and I know that the law is not always consistent):
How is it that an unborn fetus can be considered a “person” and therefore protected from a battery (for example, if a pregnant woman is injured in a battery and the fetus is stillborn, the woman can recover for the fetus as well as herself), YET a woman CAN have an abortion (read: “commit a battery”, in a way) because an unborn fetus is NOT a “person” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment?
THINK ABOUT IT.
Good response Oso. I’ve never seen the argument against Roe V. Wade argued from that angle. Kinda like arguing against a conservative belief based on conservative principles. You cornered me.
But there are three main reasons why I am not convinced.
The first is that there are currently close to 1.5 million abortions performed each year in the United States. I find it hard to believe that anywhere close to this number of women will die from illegal abortions if it were to be made illegal. I would predict some initial spike in deaths, and eventually have it level off to some overall low level(compared to 1.5 million). So on net balance, I see less deaths.
Second point is that it is the governments primary duty to protect its citizens. I see no other government duty at a higher priority than this. So if you are going to make the regulations argument against the protecting its most defenseless members of society(unborn), one can make it against any form of government law. Should we not make laws against rape, against child kidnapping, against molestations etc? The same logical conclusions can be made.
Third, evidence that I have seen suggest that pro-life legislation does reduce abortions.
The ability for abortions to be legal and you, as an individual, to maintain your morality and never get an abortion is wholly different from ascribing rights to fetuses.
That’s like saying the ability for slavery to be legal while YOU maintain your morality and never own a slave is acceptable because some people should be able to decide whether or not they want to violate the rights of another person.
(I don’t necessarily agree with this argument but I’d venture to guess that is how Keyes would respond. While abortion is a moral issue/decision, by making it legal or illegal it becomes absolute. As a government you are saying either “This is morally acceptable” or “This is not morally acceptable”. Keyes, I think, would argue that if our government puts its moral stamp of approval on abortion, it might as well put it on slavery and other institutions/processes/things that deny substantive rights to people. This all depends on whether or not an unborn fetus can be considered a “person”, however.)
To support Bobby here, whether or not the government or courts decides to “regulate” abortion (i.e. legalize it or illegalize it) they are making a decision as to rights. Just like in the “free” market (an oxymoron btw), non-regulation is in fact ascribing rights to one party. You have to think of it (as my contracts/torts professor loves to say) from the perspective of what would happen if somebody tried to defend the non-legalized right themselves: the government (i.e. police) would step in and defend the other side (arrest you). So essentially there is no way to “stay out” of the issue from a government perspective – the privacy argument does not hold water in this sense.
I take the policy tack, and I can see there is plenty of room for disagreement here, which is why my views on abortion rights are not as strong as others of my political makeup. Abortion WILL happen no matter what the law says (like prostitution, gambling, drinking and drugs). And as with all those other things I beleive government regulation makes them safer and blunts the deleterious effects that they otherwise have on society and the individual when pushed underground.
As with abortions specifically, if they are declared illegal in one state people will come to California or New York and get them. What does this mean? Two things: (1) the moral argument that Keyes is making is moot. It is the same as the slavery argument if Roe is overturned – it will still occur elsewhere so the problem is not solved from his perspective. Unless you are asking the Supreme Court to not only overturn Roe, but also to declare abortions altogether unconstitutional, the moral argument doesn’t work. (2) this means that only those with the financial ability to travel to another state and find a doctor (who with higher demand will charge higher prices) they can afford will have access to abortions. Policy implication: poor, young single mothers have more babies they can’t take care of who will be raised in inadequate environments – and the cycle perpetuates itself. Meanwhile, those who need abortions least will still have easy access – wealthy white daughters of senators, lawyers and CEO’s. I contend this would still be the case were abortions made illegal all over the country. There is always Canada, or Europe, or the Bahamas or some off-shore haven that would undoubtedly spring up for those that could afford them. Along the same lines, women ARE going to die getting unsafe abortions. Again, poor, young, scared women who believe they have no other options.
These are not the hallmarks of a rational, caring society. Nobody wants abortions to happen, but nobody wants women to die on the streets or in speak-easy clinics in their own blood either. If you accept my argument that abortions (like gambling, drinking, prostitution and drug use) are going to occur no matter what the law, and only the poor will be significantly incentivized no to get them (the very people who are incentivized now), then I don’t think it is a far step to say it is better to have regulation in place. Regulation can ensure counseling as to other options (adoption etc.) as well as ensure the safety and sanity of the process itself. Thus, purely from a policy perspective I support access to safe abortions, but I don’t see it as a Right.
Abogado, I think the core difference is that some of us see abortion not as a societal nuisance that must be avoided (like prostitution or gambling) but as something that must be protected *against* (like murder or theft — needless to say, abortion is seen as murder by abortion foes).
If one holds the belief that there exists a protectable individual in a fetus, one cannot also compromise the rights of that person for some sense of societal betterment. It would be similar to trying to argue for euthanasia of the poorest of the poor’s children. There is suffering in the world, and there always will be. HP’s point about 1.5 million abortions not being seen by some as deaths as well is well put. That we don’t see these dead before they die in strollers doesn’t make them any more acceptable than the odd child birth-related death (as callous as that sounds).
What nonreligious abortion foes like me believe is that there needs to be a philosophical revolution of sorts where the unborn are not looked at as subjugated to their mother’s will.
Don’t get me wrong. Abortion is not a subject I’ve taken lightly. It’s definitely something that has teared at me, and still does to an emotional, personal extent (e.g., if my daughter, sister, or mother was in a difficult situation).
Thanks to HispanicPundit for posting Amb. Keyes’s quote — I hadn’t read it before. Thanks also to Oso for opening this dialogue.
I no doubt should re-read everything six or seven times to make sure I’ve absorbed all the nuances of this discussion–and I’ll probably comment again after I do–but for now, some thoughts:
Abogado’s comment from a policy perspective echoed my thoughts on the issue, but I would have taken it in a different direction. If we know that this law will never be able to stop those who really want abortions from getting them–women who want it badly enough will bribe their doctors to say it’s “medically necessary”, fly to London or the Bahamas, drive to Canada, turn to unliscenced herbalists, or use a coat hanger if it gets to that point–is it really worth the effort to pass legislation and try to enforce said legislation when we know from the outset that it won’t work?
I can’t find anything to link to at the moment, but there is definitely a school of thought that asserts that unenforcable laws weaken the legal system. That doing so is not just a needless waste of resources, but that it diminishes trust and respect for the system itself. I’m not sure you can quantify such theses, but I certainly can see that logic–and find enough reason to support Roe versus Wade on that reason alone.
More will probably come later. I have several other half-formed arguments that I couldn’t work out to fit here.
Derek – you are completely correct. I was not presenting my argument to somebody who believed that abortion is murder. I can’t argue with that perspective. Their mind is made up. I was reffering to those people to whom the idea is unsettling and don’t think that their government should entangle themselves in deciding the issue. This may be a small group of people. I was avoiding arguing against the “abortion is murder” or “abortion is holocaust” stance.
And to clarify again: I take your point Derek. I am not trying to equate the morality of abortion with that of gambling et al. I was going more along the practical analogy with regard to enforceability and regulation. I can see how that is unacceptable to some people, and thus my argument is limited. Thanks for your input.
Great responses, all of them.
I just want to add a few things…
I agree with Abogado in the sense that his practical argument only works if you a priori assume that the unborn child is not a full person deserving of all his/her rights. For if you hold to the belief that the unborn child is a full person, Abogado’s response is tantamount to saying that because people die or are hurt while killing other people, the state should make it safe for them to do so. I think everybody would agree that murder is wrong, regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it.
Another point, I disagree with the implication that if you make abortion illegal it would not significantly improve things. Sure, there will be people who do them anyway, sure poor people will bear a greater responsibility disproportionately to rich people(On the other hand, one could make the argument that legalized abortion disproportionately hurts women compared to men, since they suffer the pain and agony and the guy gets away scott free). I agree with all that. But I still think that the amount of lives saved by making abortions illegal will be far more than the amount of lives lost. There are currently roughly 1.5 million abortions performed in the United States a year, do you honestly think that if abortion were to be made illegal, we would have even a quarter of those number in accidental deaths? I read a study once(I can’t seem to find it) that showed that a high percentage of people choosing to do abortions said they would have chosen not to had it been illegal to do so. There are those who will do an abortion no matter what, but I believe a high percentage of people currently undergoing abortions would not if the practice was illegal.
On the other hand, if pressed I would probably agree that there is a level where abortion laws become useless at best(Elenitas point), or harmful at worse. But I don’t think we are anywhere near that. Laws are so in favor of abortion that congress had to pass a law(Born Alive Infant Protection Act) to prohibit the murder of babies who had accidently been born while undergoing an abortion. To use Oso’s prohibition example, it would analogeous to having no drinking laws at all. A 13 year old should be able to go to the liquor store and buy as much hard liquor as an adult, and there would be no restrictions on what time to buy alcohol. Surely you would agree that thats too far in favor of alcohol. We are trying to find a happy medium. Current evidence suggests that pro-life laws do reduce abortions, which leads me to conclude that we are still at the point where moving towards pro-life laws still has a large benefit/cost ratio.
So what is my solution? Contrary to what you may think, I am actually not in favor of the courts forcibly overturning Roe Vs. Wade. Sure, I want it eventually overturned, but only through the will of the people, not the whims of some judge(I am against Judicial Activism in all forms). I agree with President Bush when he said the country is not ready to have Roe Vs. Wade overturned. The culture has to fundamentally change before we can undergo such a drastic shift in responsiblity. Which leads to how this relates to my conservative principles. I see only Republicans pushing a ‘pro-life’ culture. Both sides of the aisle will talk as if they want less abortions, but I see only conservatives doing something about it. Liberals will block any law related to abortion. They voted against the partial birth abortion law, they are against parental notification laws, they are against the Laci Conners law, they are against ‘right to know’ laws, a law that gives women information about the unborn child and different options she has so she can make an informed decision. I see only the conservative side actually trying to reduce abortions, while at the same time taking into account the mothers well being. It is conservatives that have taken on the responsibilty of opening up pregnancy centers all across the country. I’ve heard that there is now one for every abortion clinic. And this is done with their own money, not through some government funding. Also, I see only conservative organizations that are pushing for laws that make abortion unnecessary. Things like childcare in college, for example. They are tackling the abortion angle from the point of view that even while abortion is legal, women will have other options that make abortion unnecessary.
So in conclusion, it’s not outlawing abortion that appeals to me in the conservative movement. It is the general belief that abortions should be reduced, and evaluating which side is better at reducing them.
HP,
A really good comment man. I think we’re starting to get beyond a lot of the stereotypes that liberals have of conservatives.
Still there’s a few points I’d like to make, but I gotta run down to the train station and I’ll probably be out the rest of the evening.
I’d really like to hear from some of the female readers of the blog since abortion laws have the most direct impact on them.
As far as Keyes’ comments go – I’ve long felt that meat eating will be regarded as the Slavery of the 20th (and now 21st, since we don’t seem to be getting over it) century.
This awakening will come with much screaming, of course – but our descendants
will eventually regard us as heathens – "They raised animals in squalor
to consume them??? How barbaric!" will be their response, as they (in their
post-human state) silently complete the utterance with thoughts of They weren’t
so unlike animals back then anyway.
With regards to abortion, I feel that the whole thing will be moot soon, as
it would seem that we’re nearing the day when to have a child outside of the bounds of genetic manipulation (ie : Gattica’s Love Babies) will be considered immoral – if not in the future-present, then in the future-future’s hindsight.
Far from the coldness depicted in soft sci-fi, selected sperm-and-egg kids
will be healthier, stronger, more intelligent – everything we associate with
vivacity and joy. And to roll the dice with a potential mid-twenties exit via
genetic flaw, let alone to curse a life with less than optimum potential, will
and should be seen as far more immoral than the premature termination of a blastula.
Abortion will be small potatoes next to the bigger crime of spawning suboptimal
life. (On a scale of the To Cuss versus To Act)
Or to put it another way – if terminating a blastula is To Kill, then aren’t
on a slippery slope towards the merriment of Cleese & Co singing Every Sperm
is Sacred, Every Sperm is Great! governing our actions?
“She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will. We don’t recognize what that’s saying? What that’s saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will.”
i believe this is the hinge-pin in your argument, but i also believe there is a fallacy here, i just can’t find it right now. but i do believe that our country and our morals is founded on this principle – those with power decide what to do.
I’ve thought long and hard about whether I want to be a part of this topic. (As long and hard as someone who’s seven months pregnant can at six in the morning.) Bear in mind that I am full of hormones and thus not able to think as clearly as I often would. Since no one seems to have mentioned the human side of the issue, I wanted to make a few comments on that. I would like to point out several facts before I get jumped on (I am not really worried about being ‘jumped on’ since the conversation so far seems quite civilized). I have not read a huge amount of historical or political discourse on this matter. What I plan to write are my views, opinions and personal experience. I have long ago given up on trying to convince other people on the issue of abortion. I find it to be extremely personal and attached to extremely powerful beliefs. We can keep talking about it legislatively but the big issue will remain to be personal which is why I believe that the legislative aspect will always be a moot point.
As several people pointed out, laws will not stop abortions from happening. As a person whose friend grew up seeing his own mother perform an abortion in her own bathroom with a hanger, I am confidant that a mother who doesn’t want a baby will not have it whether the state will assist her in ‘getting rid of the baby’ or not. I don’t know of one woman who takes abortion lightly (I am not saying they are not out there, i am just saying i have never once met one in my life.). I’m told it’s an incredibly emotional experience and will haunt you for a long time, if not forever. Most people don’t take such an action without thought. (I will talk about those who do later) Thus a woman who’s determined to not have a baby will not have it, no matter what anyone else’s opinion on the matter might be. If the mother is well-off, she will fly to a country where safe abortions are legal and get one. People fly farther and spend more money for tiny plastic surgery today, they will not think twice about it. If the woman is poor and couldn’t afford to go anywhere, she will use her bathroom like my friend’s mother, or a backdoor operation that might end up killing not only the baby but her as well. Which I believe is the same thing those who do abortions for fun (assuming there is such a person) would do too. Since this is something someone can get away with quite easily (one doesn’t even look pregnant until the 5th month most often and thus no one would know that you did it. not to mention, there’s a higher chance of miscarriage within the first three months. these facts make it harder for anyone to prove that someone got an abortion as opposed to a situation like murder where there’s often a dead body, etc.) it’s hard to prosecute and will be extremely hard to track actual abortions in this country. Thus, no one will be able to say that now that the law is in effect, the number of abortions in the country have gone down.
I believe there are better and more constructive ways to get to the root of this problem. We have teenagers who don’t get an abortion but instead dump their baby in the trashcan after the baby is born. We have mothers who have 12 children from 12 different fathers. Mothers who have all their kids in the foster care system. (these are not made up, i worked in the public school system and there are too many such kids). The problem doesn’t start with abortion, it starts with lack of education. If all the money and effort that went into stopping abortion laws and doctors in this country went into educating young people on the consequences of their actions and either promoting abstinence or practicing safe sex (depending on your religious and personal preference) I truly think we’d have much fewer abortions and could then maybe start discussing this issue.
I think the personal side is very hard to discuss because until you’ve experienced being pregnant, you can’t say that you know how it feels to have another human being living inside you. I might have had philosophical beliefs and opinions on the issue, but when it comes to my world and my choices, having the baby inside me makes this a very personal decision. Whether you or the government think you have a right to say what i should and shouldn’t do with my baby, i promise you that you don’t get to find out or have a say unless i decide so. which is why i think education is at the root of this problem. you need to have people realize the importance and value of the life of the fetus/baby and they need to learn to want to keep the baby because, to them, it’s the right thing to do, not because some law says so.
I didn’t even get to the issues surrounding rape and incest but I think this is long enough for now. apologies if it was too rambling.
I haven’t commented previously because it is hard not to take this issue personally. Although I have not had an abortion, and couldn’t have one myself, I appreciate that there are others who have and will. I knew someone whose boyfriend used a condom, she was on the pill, and they still got pregnant. There was no way at that time that she could financially or personally afford to have a child, so she had an abortion. She did not take this lightly. I was the only one she talked to about it for a while. I am not really that close to this person anymore, so I don’t know if she thinks on her decision everyday. I do think that she probably regrets it, but there was really no other option in her situation.
There are many good points that can be made, but ultimately, this is a personal issue. It’s sad that stance on abortion can decide who a person votes on for president/senator/etc. I do know that making abortion illegal will not stop it from happening, as karen, Elenita and others have pointed out.
The monkey wrench that can be thrown into the issue is rape and incest. But I guess a pro-lifer would still be against abortion in these cases because it is the exercise of one person’s power over another’s life.
Regarding linkletter’s comment, yes those with power decide what to do, but other than the death penalty it has been a long while since those with power have decided what to do with the life of another person (read: slavery). That is a far cry from deciding what to do with taxes and Social Security.
Regarding Karen’s comment, it does seem likely that people will get abortions no matter the legal status of the issue. However I think the argument regarding education, while somewhat valid, seems to be an easy “out”. Everyone always points to education to solve the social problems of our society. Great. We have a lot of sex education and drug education in schools as it is. I’m not convinced that pumping more money into such programs is going to be effective. You can’t force students to (1) pay attention, (2) learn something, and (3) have those lessons affect their future decisions. Sometimes it just doesn’t work. I sat in DARE classes, I did drugs in college. I don’t think if they made me spend more time in DARE class in 6th grade it would have affected my decision to get high in college. I think our money would be better spent in programs that deal with abortion education, prevention, support, etc. for those experiencing the situation at the present.
Before I start in on my own post about my thoughts on abortion I want to kind of take stock on where we are. What we seem to all have in common and where there are differences.
It seems like there is a general consensus – to varying degrees- that there is a moral argument against abortion. That is, nobody would face getting an abortion like they would taking a shit. Obviously there are more moral implications involved.
It seems like we also all agree (though I won’t speak for Derek) that Roe Versus Wade shouldn’t be overturned because such a decision doesn’t reflect the will of the public.
To a much lesser degree it seems that there is some agreement that we should discourage abortions through other or “more constructive” means. HP showed us two different groups that reach out to pregnant women and pregnant female students to discuss other options besides abortion. Karen says that:
Bobby however is skeptical if any education program can really communicate that to young people.
There are some differences as well. I think the biggest one is when does a fetus become a human being. For HP and Derek, I assume the answer is after fertilization. Karen also described that thing kicking in her stomach as a “human being.” I sense that others feel you can’t identify a 4 week fetus as a full human being and demand it be treated with the same rights and protection.
Yet no one has suggested a point at where a fetus becomes a human and should be afforded the same rights that we give one year old babies. Four weeks? Three months? Six months? Only after birth?
Bobby and Karen also bring up another issue that has yet to be discussed and that is abortion in matters of rape and insest. I’d be curious to hear what both HP and Derek have to say on the issue.
And finally, there seems to be some debate on the consequences of illegalizing abortion and the comparative value of the loss of a fully developed human being and that of an unborn fetus/human being. That is what much of my post will center on.
I know a lot of you are eager to move on to the next theme or discussion, but we still obviously have a lot left to talk about regarding abortion. Peace y’all.
Two last technical notes. One, I tried installing threaded comments on here so we could each reply to a particular comment, but the code interfered with the “subscribe to comments” which is a function I really want to keep. I’m looking for a solution.
Second, I’d appreciate it if we used as simple language as possible in our arguments. For example, saying something like “already, without experience” for a priori of “applying it retrospectively” for ex post facto.
I understand that there is a reason technical jargon is used, but I think a sometimes-unintended consequence is shutting people out of a discussion.
Great overview Oso. I think you summed it up well. Let me just clarify one point so there is no confusion, I do want Roe Vs Wade overturned. I see Roe Vs. Wade comparable to Dred Scott v. Sanford. And therefore strongly believe that it should be overturned. I just don’t want it overturned by some activist judge. My goal would be to reach a point where the country willingly wants it overturned, whether that be 100% of the people, or 51%. Either way, I want it to be a reflection of the will of society, not forced down our throats. A subtle distinction, but a distinction that I feel is important.
In addition, there is another very important part that is rarely brought up in discussions relating to abortion and should be included in our discussion. Karen touches upon it when she writes,
“I don’t know of one woman who takes abortion lightly (I am not saying they are not out there, i am just saying i have never once met one in my life.). I’m told it’s an incredibly emotional experience and will haunt you for a long time, if not forever.”
This is in fact one of the things that got me into the abortion debate. A really close friend of mine in college had an abortion. She confided in me how tremendously painful the aftermath has been. She literally couldn’t talk about it for more than a few seconds without completely breaking down crying. She had no idea how painful it would be, and wished several times she could take it all back. I never realized how painful this is to women before that.
Some people on my side of the political aisle are (rightly) reminded how abortion is something very personal to a women. How it threatens her sense of independence, or how its hard to know what its like to be in that situation. They often recommend trying to put myself in their shoes, and trying to understand the abortion angle from their perspective. Fair enough. But I claim that those on the other side of the aisle need to be reminded of the effects of abortion on women. It is severely underreported. Aside from personal experience, I’ve read books on it, and have on my website a link to this website, a place where women write in with their views (pro, and against) regarding abortion. The website gives you a chance to read the testimony of women who have had abortions, and what that has felt like to them. You than start to realize the importance of Karen’s statement, and how emotional abortion is to women, both before and after.
In other words, the emotional side in abortion cuts both ways.
I have a lot to say about what was posted but probably won’t be able to keep it all in my head so I have 2 main comments from all the various posts.
If you want to say that being against abortion is not a religious topic, then the determination of when life begins is either based on science or emotion. Science says cells begin to divide at the point of conception. It also says the brain does not create any synapses until 16 weeks (brain death of an adult is when there is no neurological activity – fetus has no neurological activity until 16 weeks). Reality and the current state of medicine show us a fetus isn’t really viable until at least 22 weeks, and that the child will have innumerable health issues as a result. With emotion, you can pick any timeline you want. Alan Keyes argument is based on the assumption that a PERSON exists at the point of conception. If you don’t subscribe to this, his argument is pure melodrama to incite an emotional support. If you believe it does start at the point of conception, then you are either using religion or emotion, imo, as we consider adults dead with no brain activity, so the same standard needs to apply. Otherwise, we are saying that we are “killing off” adults with no brain activity when we go ahead and bury or cremate them.
My second point argues the reality of the society we live in. We talk about doing away with abortion and forget what life was like before it and what it will be like if we do away with it. Survival in this society requires money – money for food, shelter, healthcare, etc. I’m not talking luxuries. If I have a baby that I can not afford, do neighbors automatically come in and watch my child so that I can continue school or work? Do I have a support framework to help me raise this child? Anyone that has children knows how much it changes your life. Imagine having much less resources than you might currently have and raising those children in this society. Is it possible? Yes, but it will go hand-in-hand with a very strong quality of life impact. The other option is have the baby and give it up for adoption. That is the answer most pro-lifers give. Let me tell you as an adopted person and an adoptive mother, this is not as clear an answer as you think it is. It sounds really nice, but there are SO many children who need adoption in this world and not enough adopters. What happens to those other children? And what if the child you give birth to isn’t so healthy and therefore less adoptable? You resign that child to a life of institutional living. Yah, that is SO much more decent to that person who is definitely alive and a person.
When I was 18, I had an abortion. The father was my husband, though he was a boyfriend at the time. I can’t tell you how much the emotional side of me came out as I tried to rationalize how we would raise this child. The actual abortion itself was not painful, but the heartbreak was awful. However, as I struggled between my rational and emotional sides, my rational side kept nagging at me that trying to raise a baby at 18 would dramatically change both of our lives, and the life of our child. My husband probably would not have finished college. We would probably be struggling financially to this day and not able to give our child all that we would want to in terms of education, healthcare, etc. Because let’s face it, this is a classist society, and being poor, we would be disadvantaged, including the child. So unless this society changes and really starts supporting people who have children at young ages or out of wedlock, etc., not just through a nominal welfare check and welfare life, the emotional argument against abortion just doesn’t play.
HP, you have yet to tell us where you stand on abortion in cases of rape and incest.
Hello Everyone,
Sorry for not responding sooner, it’s been a hectic weekend…
Susannity, you are correct, my main post regarding abortion stands or falls on whether the embryo is a person or not. I had avoided going that route since it is my belief that most people in the abortion debate acknowledge in their heart of hearts that the embryo is a person. Otherwise, why would the decision be so difficult?
However, I need to answer your questions since my arguments stand on the belief that the embryo is a person. You raised three objections. They were, twinning/recombination, brain development, and viability. For the record, I get most of my responses from Francis Beckwiths great book on the subject.
Twinning/Recombination
First, scientists are not agreed on many aspects of twinning. Some claim that twinning may be a nonsexual form of parthenogenesis or “parenting”. This occurs in some animals and plants. Others claim that when twinning occurs an existing human being dies and gives life to two new and identical human beings like herself. Still others claim that since not all human concepti have the capacity to twin, one could argue that there exists in some concepti a basic duality prior to the split. Hence, it may be claimed that at least in some incipient form two individual lives were present from the start at conception. In any event, the fact of twinning does not seem to be a sufficient reason to give up the belief that full humanness begins at conception.
Second, every conceptus, whether before twinning or recombination, is still a human individual who is genetically distinct from her parents. In other words, simply because identical twins result from a conceptus split or one individual results from two concepti that recombine, it does not logically follow that any of the concepti prior to twinning or recombining were not fully human. To help us understand this point, Robert Wennberg provides the following story:
“Imagine that we lived in a world in which a certain small percentage of teenagers replicated themselves by some mysterious natural means, splitting in two upon reaching their sixteenth birthday. We would not in the least be inclined to conclude that no human being could therefore be considered a person prior to becoming sixteen years of age; nor would we conclude that life could be taken with greater impunaty prior to replication than afterward. The real oddity – to press the parallel – would be two teenagers becoming one. However, in all of this we still would not judge the individual’s claim to life to be undermined in any way. We might puzzle over questions of personal identity…but we would not allow these strange replications and fusions to influence our thinking about an individual’s right to life. Nor therefore does it seem that such considerations are relevant in determining the point at which an individual might assume a right to life in utero”.(Wennberg, Life in the balance, 71)
Although identical twins are also genetically identical, this does not take away from my appealing to the fact that each is an individual human organism with a genetic code. It just happens to be in the case of twins(or triplets, etc) that the genetic code each posses is identical to the other. If such a fact counted against the full individual humanness of identical twins at the beginning, it would follow that it would also count against their full individual humanness after birth. But this would be absurd.
Brain Development
Brain death indicates the end of human life, as we know it, the dead brain having no capacity to revive itself. But the developing embryo has the natural capacity to bring on the functioning of the brain. That is to say, an entity’s irreversible absence of brain waves after the brain waves have come into existence indicates that the entity no longer has the natural, inherent capacity to function as a human being, since our current technology is incapable of “reactivating” the brain. However, the unborn entity that has yet to reach the stage in (his or) her development at which brain waves can be detected, unlike the brain dead individual, possesses the inherent capacity to have brain waves. She is like a patient with a temporarily flat EEG. The two stages of human life are, then, entirely different from the point of view of brain functioning. The embryo contains the natural capacity to develop all the human activities: perceiving, reasoning, willing and relating to others. Death means the end of natural growth, the cessation of these abilities but the unborn’s potency to develop is within itself ( intrinsic ).
To sum up, it is true that the early stages of pregnancy have no brain functionality, but it does have what will grow into a brain, just as an infant does not have speech but has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach. The personhood of the person is already there. One must actually be a human being, after all, to grow a human brain.
This again makes the fundamental mistake of forgetting we as humans go through different stages in life. To say a person must have brain activity when he hasn’t reached the stage of brain activity, is no more reasonable than to say a person must have reproductive abilities when that person has not reached that stage in her (or his) development(Adolescence). An embryo, in its earliest stages, does not need a brain to live, whereas human persons at later stages do. There is clearly a world of difference between no brain activity in the sense of ‘no more’ and in the sense of ‘not yet’. If a human being with irreversible ‘no more’ is dead, it does not follow that a human being whose lack of brain activity has the character of ‘not yet’ is dead, or otherwise not a human being.
Viability
There are a number of problems with the viability criterion. First how does viability transform the nature of the fetus so that the non-human being then turns into a human being? That is to say, viability is a measure of the sophistication of our neonatal life-support systems. Humanity remains the same, but viability changes. Viability measures medical technology, not one’s humanity.
Second, is viability not just an extrinsic criterion imposed upon the fetus by some members of society who simply declare that the fetus will be accepted at that moment as a human being? In other words, the viability criterion seems to be arbitrary and not applicable to the question of whether the unborn is fully human, since it relates more to the location and dependency of the unborn than to any essential change in her state of being. This criterion only tells us when certain members of our society want to accept the humanity of the unborn.
Third, the time of viability cannot be determined precisely, and this fact would create great practical problems for those who hold this opinion. For example, in 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion, viability was at about twenty-four weeks. But now babies have survived 20 weeks after conception. This, of course, puts the pro-abortionist in a morally difficult situation. For some health care facilities are killing viable babies by abortion in one room while in another room heroically trying to save premature infants (preemies). It seems only logical that if the 21-week-old preemie is fully human, then so is the 28-week-old unborn who can be legally killed by abortion. An early horror story from New York about nurses who were expected to alternate between caring for six-month premature infants and disposing of viable 24-week aborted fetuses is just that — a horror story.
Back to your other responses. I agreed from the beginning that my position stands or falls on the premise that the embryo is a full human being. If that premise is proved false, my whole argument becomes irrelevant. In that same fashion, your response and a lot of those I have seen posted here with regard to the emotional or circumstantial side of abortion also become irrelevant if my premise is proven true. If my premise is correct, it transforms abortion from a personal choice(should I wear pants or shorts today) to a global choice(should I murder). When someone who believes the premise that an unborn child is a full human being hears your rebuttal, it is almost like arguing that families in my hometown of Compton, California(an area very high in poverty) should also be given the right to kill their one year old infant, or their two year old infant, since it must be hard for them to support the child in such poverty. I know you wouldn’t agree to that, regardless of the circumstances or emotional experience they may feel. Well in the same way I couldn’t agree to abortion because of the emotional or circumstantial evidence. Once the personhood of the unborn is established, how difficult it would be to keep the child becomes secondary(Although still important).
As for adoption. You write, “Let me tell you as an adopted person and an adoptive mother, this is not as clear an answer as you think it is. It sounds really nice, but there are SO many children who need adoption in this world and not enough adopters. What happens to those other children? And what if the child you give birth to isn’t so healthy and therefore less adoptable? You resign that child to a life of institutional living. Yah, that is SO much more decent to that person who is definitely alive and a person.” The circumstances you describe here deal with non-infant children. Adoption agencies are overcrowded with kids who have already passed infancy. Infants, on the other hand, have a very high demand. Somewhere close to a 5 year waiting list for families that would like to adopt one. An even longer waiting list if the infant is a white healthy child. I know families at work that paid close to $40K to adopt an infant from Russia, or China, because the wait in the United States was soo long. If you are an expecting mother that can not afford the child, their are so many options available from adoptive parents that you can stipulate income level, religion, visitation rights, and practically anything else you can think of in deciding who is to adopt your baby.
But again, if my premise is established, all the above also becomes secondary.
To everyone else. I was finally able to track down my source. One of the more common arguments made here is that making abortion illegal would not significantly reduce abortions. However, the study writes,
“Given their doubts about the morality of abortion, most aborting women are strongly influenced by the legal status of the abortion option. When asked, “Did the knowledge that abortion was legal influence your opinion about the morality of choosing abortion?” 70 percent said that the law had played a major role in their moral perception of abortion…Asked whether or not they would have sought an illegal abortion if a legal abortion had not been available, 75 percent said they would definitely would not have sought an illegal abortion…(David C. Reardon, Aborted Women:Silent No More(Westchester,Ill.:Crossway,1987)13,15).
Which confirms with my belief that most people are law abiding citizens.
Furthermore, David C. Reardon also points out “studies in psychology of morality reveal that the law is truly the teacher. One of the most significant conclusions of these studies shows that existing laws and customs are the most important criteria for deciding what is right or wrong for most adults in a given culture.”
So the above study, along with others, leads me to believe that making abortion illegal would significantly reduce abortions.
Oh, and to answer Oso’s question regarding my beliefs on abortion in cases of rape and incest. Well, to be honest, since it’s such a small percentage of abortions performed(1% I believe), I haven’t given it as much thought. But if pressed, I probably would also be against them. However, the laws against them might fall within the lines that I mentioned above, unenforceable and maybe even harmful. So if abortion were reduced to levels of incest and rape, I would probably cease to make abortion such an important issue in evaluating whom I chose for President of the USA. For example, President Bush allows for abortion in cases of rape and incest, and I still consider him a very pro-life President.
Holy guacamole, lots to respond to. Here goes: =)
HP, I disagree that most think an embryo is a person. I’m not sure what the stats are, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that “most” do not feel that way.
You bring up the topic of twinning in response to my “cells divide at conception” I’m assuming. I was saying that at the point of conception, all science says exists is dividing cells, nothing else. I had not thought of the “twinning” concept. To me, twinning, the number of embryos, etc is irrelevant if you consider a clump of cells nothing more than a clump of cells, not a person.
The brain development section sounds good in theory, but the main difference we speak is really potentialism (is that a word? lol) vs actualism. The dead person is dead and has no potential to you, and the embryo does have potential to you so should be treated differently even though they share the same lack of brain activity. The problem with that as I see it, is that you can’t do things according to potential but what actually is. Look at this way. Let’s say that embryo has a 90% chance of having a “normal” and healthy brain, 10% for some disease or injury that would impair or kill the embryo, as not all embryos develop into a healthy viable baby. If you can accept this basis, then look at other “potentials” in this world. A child of 2 alcholic parents is 90% likely to be an alcoholic (that is according to current studies I’ve read). Should we enroll them in AA at the age of 6? Recividism of sexual predators is extremely high so they have a high potential to do it again, sh
all we castrate them now? There are certain classic psychological signs of serial killers, so should we incarcerate or monitor the child who exhibits 10 of the 12 factors since he has the potential to be one? I have the potential to be a doctor, so can I perform a heart transplant? Those are some harsher examples I’m using, but hopefully you can see what I’m getting at. Ascribing potential as a rationale for doing something at this point in time doesn’t philosophically translate to any other topic nor in our current laws.
Lastly, on the viability criterion, I do not believe it to be arbitrary. If we pull a 20 week old (i haven’t seen the 20week done yet, but will take you at your word) fetus out of the womb, and do everything we can medically, that fetus will die. So it’s not arbitrary to me. My fear in the area of viability, for down the road some years ahead, is when we can sustain and grow an embryo from the point of conception. The argument will then be that the embryo is viable and therefore should not be killed. Of course, this then leads to the woman’s rights over her body and child. That will be a whole new fun bag of worms when that time comes. =) As for the 28 week old fetus abortion, pls read my “Voting for Abortion” entry on my blog (there is a link to it from my El Oso’s Abortion Discussion entry). There is SO much misconception about partial birth and late term abortions.
Lastly, to the adoption response. It’s hard to pinpoint statistics as there is some variance, but the averages that I find are that there are around 9000 orphanages worldwide. There are approximately 40 million orphans worldwide. You’re right, there are waiting lists for infants because certain infants and non-infants are considered less adoptable. Want to adopt a black infant, no real line there. Not too long a line for all the infants born with health issues. Lines are getting shorter for the Russian babies as an alarming percentage of them are getting diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome years after adoption. There are so many children of all ages available for adoption around the world, and in the US. You don’t get to choose how healthy and good-looking your baby is when you give birth, but we want perfection and only infancy with adoption, so the less than perfect fill up the orphanages. I know I sound a bit bitter right now, but it’s one of my pet peeves when I see so
many children in the world who need a family and people only want to adopt a baby or will spend a lifetime’s fortune to become pregnant. Ignore my rants. =)
As for the lessening of the number of abortions if it was illegal, I agree that is true. We will have more babies born and put up for adoption or families forced to raise that child for lack of any other options. I do not believe because of the morality taught by the law, but out of fear of breaking the law and being punished. Remember the movie John Q with Denzel? You look at his situation and think, yah, I would want to put a gun to a surgeon’s head if he refused to give my son an operation. But the reality is we don’t, no matter how much the alternative may be outrageous, because we are afraid to break the law. I hope the women of the US aren’t forced into breaking the law or trying to take the matter into their own hands.
Hey Susannity, just stopping by to say I didnt forget about you…I will respond more tomorrow…
Hey Susannity,
Glad to see your post was restored…
You write,
I agree with you that most people don’t *consciously* agree that the embryo is a person. But I do believe that they, in their heart of hearts, do agree that it’s a person. Otherwise, why would the decision be so difficult? Why would it(as Karen has acknowledged) cause so much emotional pain afterward? I know of no other ’surgery’, especially a ’surgery’ with so little risk that involves anywhere near the level of emotion that abortion does. Do you find anything emotionally comparable in say removing your tonsils as women do in deciding to have an abortion? Why do you think there is such a drastic difference in emotion? I believe(merely a theory) it’s because their motherly instincts tell them abortion is something much more serious than simply removing your tonsils.
You also write,
Can’t one make the argument that essentially all of us are nothing more than ‘a clump of cells’? But I digress…
At conception you have something much more than ‘a clump of cells’. First, that human conceptus — that which results from conception and begins as a zygote — is the sexual product of human parents. Hence, insofar as having human causes, the conceptus is human.
Second, not only is the conceptus human insofar as being caused by humans, it is a unique human individual, just as each of us is. Resulting from the union of the female ovum and the male sperm, the conceptus is a new — although tiny — individual. It has its own unique genetic code, which is neither the mother’s nor the father’s. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique individual human. Her (or his) genetic make-up is established at conception, determining her unique individual physical characteristics — gender, eye color, bone structure, hair color, skin color, susceptibility to certain diseases, etc. That is to say, at conception, the “genotype” — the inherited characteristics of a unique human being — is established and will remain in force for the entire life of this individual. Although sharing the same nature with all human beings, the unborn individual, like each one of us, is unlike any that has been conceived before and unlike any that will ever be conceived again. The only thing necessary for the growth and development of this human organism (as with the rest of us) is oxygen, food, and water, since this organism — like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent — needs only to develop in accordance with her already-designed nature that is present at conception.
So we have more than ‘a clump of cells’.
You also write,
This is not the case at all. Let me try and explain myself better. What separates a human from other animals? I would answer, along with many other things, the ability to reason, the ability to comprehend good and bad, the ability for language, the ability to reproduce other human beings, the ability to walk…etc…All of these things we call ‘human functions’. These human functions, classified together, are what define a living human. However, not all of these functions are present at the same time. The infant, for example, does not have the ability to reason, or the ability to reproduce. Yet we still classify the infant as fully human, and deserving of all her rights. Why? The answer is because even though the infant does not presently have these functions, we know that it has the inherent ability within. So it isn’t necessarily the presence of the functions themselves that make us humans(the smoke), it is the inherent ability to perform those functions that makes us humans(the fire). (Don’t confuse the smoke for the fire)
And this is why we use brain activity as a measure of human life. The reason is that brain activity is the most efficient measure of ‘inherent ability’ to perform human functions that we have. We know through science and experience that once brain activity has ceased, that human has lost that ‘inherent ability’ to perform human functions. In other words, that human has ceased to live. And is classified as dead.
However, in the case of the embryo, this is not the case. The embryo poses ‘inherent ability’ to perform human functions within herself(or himself), so you can’t use the brain activity test.
Let me try and clarify this with an example. Lets say that in a few years, my engineering abilities lead me to invent a new tool that is able to revive patients who have had no brain activity for a short number of days. The patients were able to go back to everyday lives, and perform all human functions normally. What do you think would happen? If I invented such a device, it would completely revolutionize the medical industry. Lack of brain activity would cease to be the mechanism by which we classify a human as alive or not. Since we now have instances of humans still alive(still possessing the ‘inherent ability’ to perform human functions) while momentarily having no brain activity. The new mechanism for defining death would probably be lack of brain activity plus failure to be revived with my new device.
The pre-brain activity embryo is analogous to that temporarily brain inactive person. Although it shares the same characteristic, having no brain activity, with a brain dead adult, the two situations lead to completely opposite conclusions. In the case of the adult, no brain activity means loss of life, but not so in the case of the embryo.
To state it another way, when the doctor tells you that her patient has ceased to have brain activity, you translate that to mean that the patient has lost all his/her abilities to function as a human being, and is therefore ‘dead’. In other words, you translate that to mean that the patient has lost the ‘inherent ability’ to perform human functions. However, the embryo, much like the infant with regard to human reason, has that ‘inherent ability’ to perform human functions’. The embryo has just not reached the stage in life where brain development is materialized, but the embryo, like all human beings, continues to poses that ‘inherent ability’ to perform human functions. The embryo, like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent – needs only to develop in accordance with her already-designed nature that is present at conception.
So to answer your statement directly, the embryo has the potential to have brain activity, but the embryo currently has personhood.
With regard to viability, you write,
Hmm. I did not mean to imply that viability is arbitrary in classifying when the embryo becomes ‘viable’. I meant that viability is arbitrary as a criteria that ascribes personhood to the embryo.
To see this arbitrariness for what it is, lets say for the sake of argument that viability is at 24 weeks in the United States and at 32 weeks in some underdeveloped country. If that is the case, than you would be forced to conclude that our 25 week old unborn children are persons, while the underdeveloped countries 31 week old fetus’s are not.
Clearly, the arbitrariness shows through in our absurd conclusion.
And as far as adoption goes, I did not mean to deny in any way that orphanages are severely overcrowded. I completely agree with you that there is a crisis in our orphanages and the children that are raised their are probably suffering irreparable harm. My only point in that discussion was to point out that it is not infants that are overcrowding orphanages, but children beyond(often well beyond) that stage of development(2 year olds and beyond).
But again, as I mentioned above, if the unborn child is a person than all of that becomes secondary.
You also write,
I’m glad to hear that, maybe you can talk to some of the other people on here that have commented otherwise. They seem to disagree with you.
Since I have some extra time, and since Oso just linked to this again, I thought this is a good time to clear up something that has been bugging me for a while now. When I re-read this post, I realized how unclear and seemingly contradictory I sounded when I was giving my views on roe vs. wade. In one post I said I didn’t want roe vs wade overturned, in another I said I did. What the heck did HP really mean in all of this? Probably nobody knows. So I thought I’d spell it out now.
There were two ways in which I was using roe vs wade, in the first instance, where I said I didn’t want it overturned, I was using the term to mean allowing abortion. In the second sense of the term, where I said I did want it overturned, I was using it as forcing abortion. So while it may be hard for you to get the gist of my meaning, it is in there, albeit hidden.
In other words, I don’t want a society in which abortion is illegal or legal without the say of its citizens. What roe vs. wade did, was make abortion legal in all states without the citizens voting on it. Roe vs. wade bypassed the democratic process. It forced the availability of abortion down the throat of every state, regardless of how its citizens may have felt about abortion. On the other hand, what I was trying to say when I said I didn’t want it overturned, was that I wouldn’t want the opposite of roe vs wade either, meaning, I don’t want a federal law that completely bans abortion in all states, without the say of its citizens.
So in conclusion, what I am trying to say here is that in my ideal world, if pro-abortion advocates want to allow abortion, they should convince their fellow countrymen to vote in favor of it. If, on the other hand, anti-abortion advocates want abortion banned, they too should convince their fellow countrymen to vote to ban it. Abortion laws should come through legislators, by the democratic process, reflecting the voting preferences of the citizens, not the personal opinions of 9 justices sitting in a courtroom.
So how does all of this specifically relate to roe vs wade? Contrary to what some people think, if roe vs wade gets overturned, that does not necessarily make abortion illegal. What it does, essentially, is make it a states right issue. If, for example, California wants to allow abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy, it would have a right to do that. On the other hand, if Texas wanted to limit it to certain stages, again, it has the right to do that. In other words, abortion laws would start to reflect the moral convictions of its citizens, and not be forced down our throats. This is what I prefer, just like I don’t like roe vs wade forcing abortion down every states throats, I also wouldn’t like the opposite of roe vs wade, a supreme court decision that completely banned abortion in all states. So since overturning roe vs wade would put abortion laws back in the hands of the people, I am in favor of overturning it.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
The short version: When the law and / or moral authority says that she must have that child, no matter who, what, when or where – the law and moral authority are subjugating that woman’s life to an idea. The idea of family, the idea of motherhood, the idea of relationships, and the idea of morality.
The long version:
I cannot even continue to read the last few comments here, so i appologize if i am about to be redundant but – it is absolutely incredible to me that the words “moral” and “invidividual rights” is being used to argue against abortion.
To speak about might-makes-right in regard to abortion is to utterly ignore the fact that women are at the mercy of impregnation. Their chemistry changes and impacts their flesh, emotions, and mind. Their organs move around, enhance and decrease functions, their inner tissues soften to allow bone adjustments, and progressively rising hormone levels changes their hair, nails, skin , teeth, eye-sight, and well, influences every cell in their bodies.
They are faced with a dramatic, life changing, highly implicating and complicated situation that (no matter what they do about it) will change them in some way – forever.
They will face a fellow, who may find joy in the news, may loose his mind, run for the hills, have a nervous breakdown, turn into a jackass while trying to be responsible. They will face their family, their neighbors, their collegues, mates etc. They WILL be judged for being pregnant – either favourably or with disgrace. However they are judged will place them in society, they will be alternatively rewarded and punished in life for a very, very, long time, due to this placement. It will affect what they can achieve as a character, among others and financially – and what they cannot.
And for these reasons, they will almost always search themselves with every bit of intention to truly understand what the pregnancy means to them, their future, their relationships, their place in the world.
And as noted, they will be hyper-aware of the circumstances that led to the pregnancy. Love, fun, rape, incest. Money, past, hopes, dreams for the future, expectations all play into these reflections.
If a woman is in a more fortunate position in life, in all the above mentionned scenerios, she will most likely look forward to being a mother. But let us reflect on that a moment, just for the sake of arguement. Who is raising the children of the world? She is. According to stats, she is raising them. When she has a partner, she is raising them, and she is raising them after a divorce, and she is raising them alone where there was “no father” at birth. And lets not forget that more than half the population of N. America is divorced and she is raising more than half the population of children in N.America in her home, not his.
Are you arguing that her individual rights (from the time of conception to the end of her or her childrens life) should be subjugated to the rights of a cellular growth that hasn’t even established a heart-beat in the first five weeks of pregnancy?
When the law and / or moral authority says that she must have that child, no matter who, what, when or where – the law and moral authority are subjugating that woman’s life to an idea. The idea of family, the idea of motherhood, the idea of relationships, and the idea of morality.
I am among the many women raising this planets children, alone. I made the choice to do so and I am thankful for the amazing journey I have embarked on since my son’s arrival – there is no love like that i have for my child. But this is a tough job, a huge, larger than life, nothing-could-ever-equal-it journey. Until you have done it, there is no way to imagine how integral the experience is. It impacts everything inside and outside your personal world, and it is immensely challenging.
The implications of telling women they have no choice reverbrates beyond the important issues of poverty and education, and swells into a world of imposed durress – which translates into mental and physical health issues, which translates into the very core-well-being of both the parent/s and the children. Which swells into the health of families, communities, cities and societies.
No woman should have no choice. It is in everyones interests – as well as the interest of invidivual rights – that women have the moral and legal souviernty to choose.
- That. Is, the longest blog comment I have ever written. Thanx for reading it.
Rica,
Great response. However, there are some problems I have with it. First off, while you make the anti-abortion argument sound very complicated, it basically boils down to one simple rule, ‘do not murder people’. Period! Nobody should have the ‘right’ to murder, simple as that. You may refer to this as ‘morality’, or as ‘imposing ones will on another’, or whatever, but this is essentially the anti-abortion argument, and it is a fact that all societies must enforce this rule. So it is not the religious argument you make it out to be.
Second disagreement has to do with your constant reference to choice. You claim to give women choice, but I also claim to give females choice as well. However, the focus of who gets the choice is drastically different. You are advocating giving choice to the mother, I am advocating giving choice to the child. In other words, we are both referring to individual rights here, we just disagree on who gets them. The difference is that your choice would result in the murder of the child, in forever removing someones individual rights, where my preferred choice will result in both parties living.
Which brings me to my third disagreement. While I agree with everything you say about pregnancy, there is something that I would like to add. Pregnancy, for all the complications and burndensome involved, is still a normal common occurance in society. A occurance common enough that it stretches the imagination to refer to it in the vague language of ‘an idea’. This is ‘an idea’ that we were all a part of, an idea that is rooted in nature, and an idea that involves family.
A fourth point I would like to make here is that there is still the option of adoption. Adoption, while something very difficult for the mother to go through, would be a loving act of the mother towards the child. Not only does the mother avoid murder, but she gives the child the most precious gift, the chance to grow up and enjoy life. Also, while adoption agencies are certainly crowded, they are only crowded with older children, say 4 and above. Infants are in such a high demand that there is more than a five year waiting list. Some families even go to other countries and pay very high amounts of money to avoid the waiting process.
I think this pretty much answers your response, but I’d like to focus your attention on something you said, you write,
Are you arguing that her individual rights (from the time of conception to the end of her or her childrens life) should be subjugated to the rights of a cellular growth that hasn’t even established a heart-beat in the first five weeks of pregnancy?
Ignoring the individual rights argument that was answered above, I must ask, would you than, based on your criteria for abortion, restrict abortion only to the first five weeks, after which the child does have a heartbeat? If not, than what is your limit?
it’s funny, i just wrote about the misfortunes of reducing the issue of abortion to that of murder… if i say it’s not murder because an embryo is not a person yet, we will simply pull out all the various data refering to this topic and debate that until someone pipes up and says that ‘i guess it depends on what u believe’. by having this debate (a debate about an idea, instead of one based on real life) we dive into a non-discourse about the issue of choice.
by having a non-discourse we are no closer to having new awarenesses or understandings and much further away from envisioning a society that serves the best interests of the most of those involved.
it is readily accepted by scientists in the West, that a fetus is not ‘a person’ for up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, some argue up to nearly 5 months. yes – christian scientists disagree entirely, for obvious reasons.
i had not refered to religion at all until now, if fact. the word “morality” does not belong to a religious vocabulary (exclusively or otherwise) nor does the words’ definition infer anything to do with religion. that is why i was shocked to see the word used to defend a extraordinary infringement upon womens rights.
oh – sorry – last thing that i forgot to answer
there are many reasons that orphanages are crowded with older children
(who were infants once)
the biggest reason is that the parents (usually a single mother) could no longer provide for that child (mentally or emotionally or physically)
which supports what i meant by the swelling of the issue
mosts parents try, but not everyone is meant to or able to be parent at every or any moment in their lives
k – now i am done, promise
Hey Rica,
Ok, good, were finally getting somewhere. We both agree that this whole abortion debate turns on whether or not the unborn ‘entity’ is a person or not. Now, we can move past all the ‘choice’ language and move to answer the fundamental question, is the unborn entity a person or not. I think it is, you think it’s not.
You write,
it is readily accepted by scientists in the West, that a fetus is not ‘a person’ for up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, some argue up to nearly 5 months. yes – christian scientists disagree entirely, for obvious reasons.
I completely agree with you here, Rita. However, your not being completely upfront here, not only is what you say true, but it is also readily accepted by scientists in the West, that there are animals that classify as persons, and certain human beings that don’t, a fetus being just one example. Modern day scientists have rejected the sanctity of life ethic, and have adopted the quality of life ethic. In other words, they seperate human beings from persons; not all human beings are persons, and not all persons are human beings. In other words, there are some members of the animal kingdom, say certain members of the monkey family, that would be considered a person while newborn infants may not be.
So while scientists will fully agree that the fetus is a human being, they will say that that still does not make it a person. This change from the sanctity of life ethic to the quality of life ethic is a dangerous turn, IMHO.
For example, Peter Singer, professor of ethics at Princeton University, is someone who has fully accepted the new quality of life ethic (and a good example of how modern day scientists view things), he writes:
Pro-lifers are almost prophetic in that they predicted, a few decades ago when the abortion debate was just starting, that allowing abortion will lead to allowing infanticide, since the two rest on the same principles. Peter Singer confirms this when he writes, with regard to healthy infants:
Notice that he grants something that you, and a majority of abortion advocates, don’t grant, that “in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it”. In fact, he uses this as a basis for not killing the newborn infant. Since you don’t grant that premise, and you would be hard pressed to classify the infant a person, on what basis do YOU disagree to killing that newborn infant?
On the other hand, the pro-life position is very simple. Pro-lifers don’t divide human beings and persons, and consider the two overall synonymous. In other words, we consider ones stage of development an arbitrary divider between persons and non-persons. Much like ones skin color was an arbitrary divider in the past, much like ones gender was an arbitrary divider in the past, and much like ones nationality and religion was an arbitrary divider in the past.
Or to put it another way, to a pro-lifer, the elderly is just as much of a person as an adult. The adult is just as much of a person as an adolescent. The adolescent is just as much of a person as an infant, and the infant is just as much of a person as a fetus. We as human beings go through various stages throughout our life, and in each stage we may gain or lose certain functions, but in each stage we still are considered a full person.
The pro-choicer does not, and can not say the above. To give another example, we pro-lifers think that a healthy newborn infant born to a family in Compton, regardless of whether that infant is loved by the parents, regardless of whether there is a loving home for that infant, and regardless of the newborn infants current lack of adult functions, we pro-lifers think that that infant is valuable within itself, by the very fact that it is a human being, and has an inherent value apart from that given to it by society. Pro-choicers do not!!
This is the fundamental difference in this debate, not one of choice or non-choice.
Damn, what’s up with my typing skills today, ricia, sorry for referring to you as Rita, Rica, or whatever else I may have called you. Please substitute ricia where ever you see Rita or Rica above.
i agree that there are very dangerous implications to the definition of “persons”, but i do not agree with your analogy of the fundamental differences betweeen pro-lifers / choice advocates
pro-choice does not advocate abortion specifically, pro-choicers are forced to argue for the option of abortion as it is integral to providing the CHOICE… which is not a flippant arguement but one made upon review of a broad range of issues and contexts surrounding impregnation and child-rearing
as of yet, there are no other definate means of avoiding ill-timed chance of pregnancy… if stats are of any worth, most men still refuse to use condoms while most women (in the west) are using birth control and even with the advent of both, there are still pregnancies. more women will opt for surgery than will men, tho the prior is irreversable and the latter is not. and as i stated, most children are raised by women, whether there is a father present or not. this is because (regardless of education and social training, but that which is important) men are not forced to deal with the potential / circumstances in the same manner that women are. in the face of this reality, both men and women are at differing disadvantages in regard to childbirth, that which must be considered along with those issues of the rights of children, to the matter of ‘quality of life’.
as it is with the same-sex marriage debate, those who raise their ire over providing rights and freedoms through law (that they themselves usually do not need access to) argue that there is a ’slippery slope’ to fear in establishing those laws… for eg: same sex marriage willl lead to marriage with animals, off-spring etc.. your comments point to the freedom to choose abortion leading to infanticide
firstly, where the concept of a spirit is not raised in debate among scientists, they all agree that a embryo is not an infant. we can see this growth, we can measure it and define it. it is not an infant.
secondly, it is positive that concerns over slippery slopes are expressed as it offers debate and context and establishes parameters in regard to liberties – that can be developed to serve the most of society….
but thirdly, there is a presumption often too inherent in such arguements that those argueing for an extension of rights and freedoms are unprincipalled, immoral / degenerate, less humane naives with no common sense or genuine wish for the well-being of the many! i have never met a pro-choicer that would argue for the option of abortion beyond the 1st triamester and there are rare exceptions to this regardless of scientific theory (and that are not taken seriously by the majority of pro-choice advocates).
the objectives of maintaining choice, is to try to provide balance in a humane sphere.
I and most other pro-choicers would certainly join the ranks of anti-abortion advocates if infanticide was on the legal table for debate – but it is not and it isn’t because it wasn’t fought for or demanded or even insinuated. the right to choice did not and does not include this demand, so why is it included in the debate? this is a reactionary and mute point in the eyes of pro-choicers.
just as pro-same sex marriage advocates are not promoting anything beyond an extension of rights to those who dont’ have them, pro-choice advocates are not promoting anything but the right to equal status and potential for quality of life between men and women within the parameters of balancing such rights with the rights of all (including infants and children).
think of it in reverse; hetersexuals are not forced to marry anyone of the same sex, women who are ready and willing to have children are not forced to have abortions. couples have the added option of adoption. the word “moral” is often used to debate both in a seemingly predjudiced and extraordinarily narrow definition of what is moral – this is a complicated word that requires an expansive investigation into a broad range of circumstances and experiences that are human. not theoretical.
do the math, half the population can give birth.. if adoption is the only alternative option to parenting… where will all these people come from that will adopt? the rise of grown children without parents as a result of such restriction quickly outnumbers those even willing to adopt infants – such is the dilema in many industrial / 3rd world countries to this day. in some countries this problem is so pronounced that children become strays in the streets.
when all the factors are reviewed (and they have been, are and will continue to be due to the contentiousness surrounding these issues and others), freedom of choice serves the most of the many and restricts the level subjugation of the ‘any’…. whereas no choice diminishes the law to the rights of the fewest in the most select circumstances and assumes that there is one Truth in creating only one narrowly defined ethical solution – without reflecting upon the broad realities of the matter.
so yes, if u are considering all the factors and persons involved, and not narrowing the debate to one fragment of the whole issue, the fundamental difference lay in the resounding implications of choice or no choice.
i’ve had a thought, cannot help but to share it:
what if we suggest that, by law, all male children must have their inner-most parts tied up until the day the couples who decide to have children together, undergo a public ceremony that reveals a legal agreement (that has been reached to both their liking) in regard to the parenting of those children including all potential circumstances and future outcomes.
if we implimented this law, abortion would be largely unnecessary even in cases of rape/incest et al… because there is far less chance of unplanned pregnancy when men have that surgery, than there is using the pill or condoms.
isn’t that a viable option / alternative to the abortion debate? now (whether u like the idea or not) ask why it is that this option / alternative has never entered the frays of this debate (in history or currently around the globe)….
this concept may or may not be popular among either pro-choice or anti-abortion advocates, but the point being that it isn’t even debated. it isn’t debated because we are conditionned to think in terms of restricting, judging, moralizing and regulating womens role in society. it doesn’t occur to us to place the emphasis of restriction on mens bodies and lives.
Hey ricia,
Assuming one agrees that it is always wrong to commit murder, than yes, my analogy of the fundamental difference betweeen pro-lifers / choice advocates is correct. The only way you can get away from advocating murder, is to classify the unborn entity as a non-person, and the only way you can do that is to adopt the quality of life ethic, as opposed to the sanctity of life ethic. And the minute you adopt the quality of life ethic, you are left with all sorts of other problems, all mentioned in my previous post; infanticide being one of them.
All your talk about what pregnancy will do to the mother is, frankly, irrelevant. It would be like arguing for slavery (another area where Democrats were historically ‘pro-choice’) on the basis of what freeing the slaves would do to families that have their wealth dependent on the slaves labor; in other words, irrelevant. I agree with you, in the sense that it is a hard thing for women to go through, which is why I am for making the impact lighter. For example, requiring Universities to provide day care to single mothers etc…but all of this is secondary to the issue of abortion.
firstly, where the concept of a spirit is not raised in debate among scientists, they all agree that a embryo is not an infant. we can see this growth, we can measure it and define it. it is not an infant.
Right, and all scientists agree that an infant is not an adolescent, and an adolescent is not an adult, and an adult is not an senior etc…I never claimed that an embryo was an infant, I claimed that all human beings are persons. All scientists would agree that the embryo is a human being, they just won’t classify it a person. But if personhood is what you care for here, than pray tell, why are you against killing infants? Remember, these same scientists you use to justify killing embryos would also not classify a new healthy infant as a person. So if you are going to use these scientists to justify killing embryos, than why do you ignore what they say with regard to infants? In other words, why embryos but not infants? That sounds a bit selective, don’t you think?
That question is easily answered to us pro-lifers, we find it absurd to think of an infant as a non-person, and therefore also find it absurd to think of an embryo as a non-person; all your talk about ‘individual rights’, ’slippery slopes’ and ‘choice’ notwithstanding.
Hey, something is wrong with the posting order here, I posted the above response before your latest post, but somehow it now shows up before mine. WTF?
Anyway, I’ll answer your response here,
it isn’t debated because we are conditionned to think in terms of restricting, judging, moralizing and regulating womens role in society. it doesn’t occur to us to place the emphasis of restriction on mens bodies and lives.
But in the abortion debate, we are not talking about ‘out of the ordinary’ things like what you mentioned, were talking about a simple rule that all societies enforce; murder is wrong. Everybody, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the times, and regardless of ones gender, must obey this rule; there’s no sexism about it.
By the way, I’m still waiting on your answer, why embryos but not infants?
heya
i think i did respond to your question, but i cannot see my last posts here… i did recieve a note stating that my submission was recieved as spam but would be reviewed by the administrator… maybe u will see this, maybe not?!
ok, so my posts are not coming back… so i’ll try again
on the issue of murder:
When we go to the garden centre and pick up packets of seeds, we select them according to what they are called; carrots, peas, lettuce, apple, tomatoes (for example). The seeds are scientifically and linguistically categorized as fruits and vegetables, and further referred to as the particular fruit or vegetable that their cellular make-up describes.
But we do not come home and empty these packages out on to dinner plates as part of a balanced diet because, though they are categorized as the same thing, the seed and it’s latter form are not actually the same thing. It is for this reason that we sub-categorize and we call it the germ or seed of that particular fruit or vegetable.
The scientific and legal categorization for the cellular make-up of an embryo, enfant, teen, adult or elderly human being does not differ. however, like the germ/seed and it’s latter form, we have sub-categorized to define the distinctions between the various phases of development. Thus an embryo is not the same as an enfant. These are two distinct forms due to the stage of development and are not the same though they are categorized under one heading.
This is why the courts, science and most individuals do not argue for infanticide while it is they may or may not argue for freedom of choice.
There was more… but I cannot currently recall what it all was.
Your turn now, how ’bout my proposal to bypass the issue of abortion laws altogether and instead advocate vasectomy laws?
My point in that regard, besides really meaning it, is that it is sexist that such a law has never entered the larger debate on childbearing issues (in history, in the world, among ourselves).
Hey ricia,
That sucks your response was never found, maybe Oso can help find it for us?
The scientific and legal categorization for the cellular make-up of an embryo, enfant, teen, adult or elderly human being does not differ. however, like the germ/seed and it’s latter form, we have sub-categorized to define the distinctions between the various phases of development. Thus an embryo is not the same as an enfant. These are two distinct forms due to the stage of development and are not the same though they are categorized under one heading.
I fully agree with categorizing human beings differently. Nobody here is arguing that an adolescent is the same as an adult, or that a fetus is the same as an infant. Human beings go through various stages in their lives, and throughout each stage, they gain/lose certain human functions. My only point in all of this is to say that if one kills an infant, it is just as much murder as if one kills an adult. If you agree with that statement, you are pro-life, if you don’t, you are pro-choice. The reason being that pro-choice advocates must adopt the quality of life ethic to justify abortion, the very ethic that allows them to disqualify fetus’s from personhood. The problem is that the same quality of life ethic that allows them to disqualify fetus’s, also forces them to disqualify infants from personhood as well. This is why I have repeatedly asked you why you don’t support the mass killing of newborn infants. The quality of life ethic you have adopted says that killing infants is not killing a person, so therefore, like abortion with fetuses; people should have the ‘right’ to kill infants. Do you support the right to kill infants? If not, why not? What happened to individual freedom, to the women’s right, to freedom of choice, etc?
The proper analogy you should give between a fetus and an adult is not the seed analogy above, but the endangered species list. Say for example that I kill an adult bald Eagle, and my friend only kills perfectly healthy bald Eagle eggs, has one of us really done less harm than the other? No, we have both committed the crime of killing an endangered species, albeit at different stages in life, but endangered species nonetheless.
This is why the courts, science and most individuals do not argue for infanticide while it is they may or may not argue for freedom of choice.
This is actually not true ricia. Here in the United States, some pro-choice advocates have argued for precisely that. In fact, the President had to pass a bill titled “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act” to stop infanticide from happening. What would happen is that in late term abortions, since the fetus is so large, they could only perform the abortion by removing the fetus from inside the mother, than performing the abortion (during which a baby is delivered feet first until all but a portion of the skull is outside the mother, then its skull is punctured, its contents vacuumed, then collapsed – with no anesthesia). However, since this involved removing the child, sometimes the child would be born without the abortion taking place yet. So the Dr’s would instead starve the infant to death, and argue that they were intended for an abortion anyway. Some nurses that did not approve found out, and they notified congress.
Some proponents of abortion have been forthright in their support for infanticide, for example, conservative columnist George Will, journalist for Newsweek writes,
So I ask this again, for the third time now, do you support infanticide, and if not, why not?
Your turn now, how ’bout my proposal to bypass the issue of abortion laws altogether and instead advocate vasectomy laws?
There are all sorts of regulations against men as opposed to women. For example, during a draft, it is men that are called to serve in war, not women. In fact, for most of history, it was men who had to perform the more dangerous tasks of working in the fields, mines, and railways, in addition to fighting wars, all things that were considered the most dangerous.
On the other hand, the prohibition to commit murder is universal, applies to all alike, and is not sexist in its application.
firstly, your historical references must be very limited
secondly, i’ve already stated that i (among the rest of us) are not advocating infanticide – and i have answered the question as to why
thirdly, no offense, but the u.s. of a can really be a wacky place
in canada there is a more regulated system re: term of pregnancy and how late you can have an abortion, due to a somewhat universal health care system
and u will be charged with murder for ending a life after a specific timeframe of pregnancy and after birth…. all this to say, that these kinds of questions have been debated and legally approached here, to the degree that laws have been established based upon information that most involved agree upon
not to say that abortion isn’t regularily debated to this day, of course.
u sustain that the issue of the definition of murder is vital to the arguement of abortion
as i sustain that is not, because in many states and in many nations, a definition has been arrived at and applied to the law – already
so where that takes us is back to the issue of whether or not u agree with those definitions…. and since the most recent definitions were developed with and among experts who study closely the fields required to make informed judgements, for any of the rest of us to disagree ultimately boils down to misinformation, education and what u believe.
and this leaves your arguement in the vortex of opinion while leaving us where we started
as for camps – well the short of what i wrote before is that real life doesn’t actually see people divided into so few camps. by presenting the two that u have u are simply narrowing the debate down (and to serve your views). pro-choice advocates also fought for the rights of people of colour, disabled persons and of course, for women to be defined legally as “persons”
u will, of course, see this as irony or as a contradiction. but only because u have chosen to round everyone up into two tidy concepts. which takes me back to the statement that ideas are not realities. as it stands, in our various realities, anti-abortion laws subjugate women to ideas.
i have offered a legitimate proposal and potential solution to the issue of abortion – and lets recall that abortion is only on the table because (as i said before) women are at the mercy of pregnancy (and thus they fought for the right to choice).
so if we look toward resolving that issue, rather than just have circular arguements that go no where, we could sincerely open up the discussion to alternative solutions that may even benefit the many complicated issues surrounding pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing. Why not consider vasectomy laws?
Hey ricia,
secondly, i’ve already stated that i (among the rest of us) are not advocating infanticide – and i have answered the question as to why
I realize that you are not advocating infanticide, that is why I asked why would you be against infanticide. In other words, lets say that I wanted to establish a law that allows infants to be killed, what rationale would you use to prohibit me from doing this? I am curious, and I have asked this four times now. Hopefully you will answer the question this time.
u sustain that the issue of the definition of murder is vital to the arguement of abortion as i sustain that is not, because in many states and in many nations, a definition has been arrived at and applied to the law – already
Right, but again, they use a philosophical system that not only justifies abortion, but also justifies infanticide; hence, the relevance of my question above.
pro-choice advocates also fought for the rights of people of colour, disabled persons and of course, for women to be defined legally as “persons”
Actually this is not true. If you look at Peter Singer, for example, he has been the focus of intense protests by disabled groups, for his labeling the disabled non-persons. In addition, virtually all feminists of the past, including the most famous ones like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Wollstonecraft, were all pro-life. Pro-choice ‘feminism’ didn’t start until after the 1960’s.
In addition, it was pro-choice advocates who advocated for slavery, for sexism, and for all sorts of atrocities throughout the world. They justified it on precisely the same justification you use now, ’scientists currently don’t classify them as equal to us in personhood’.
so if we look toward resolving that issue, rather than just have circular arguements that go no where, we could sincerely open up the discussion to alternative solutions that may even benefit the many complicated issues surrounding pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing. Why not consider vasectomy laws?
You don’t have to use vasectomy laws to eliminate abortion. There are many other laws that would achieve the same goal, laws that encourage Universities to have day care for single mothers, right to know laws, fathers rights, pregnancy centers, and yes, laws against abortion. These are all things, btw, that are primarily pushed by the pro-life camp, not the pro-choice camp.
So I ask you again, for the fourth time now, would you support the mass killing of infants, if not, why not? I am not asking you if it is currently being supported, or if anybody is arguing in its favor, I am asking you if you would support it, and if you wouldn’t, why?
I am a big believer in logical consistency ricia, if you want to use a philosophical principle to justify the killing of fetuses, you must accept that philosophical principle for all its shortcomings, Peter Singer and all the scientists who support your claim have, I want to know if you do as well.
“Feminism” has a history linked with women’s activism from the late 19th century to the present (regardless of the examples you have noted). Following up on the French term “féministe” that had already defined itself in the 18th century after three centuries of women’s movements. Some deem it useful to distinguish feminist ideas or beliefs from feminist political movements, for even where there were no significant political activism around women’s subordination, there were highly debated concerns surrounding justice for women (and in this case you can skim a great deal of written history if so desiring). And yes, the feminist movement has a diverse and culminative history – but we can save that for another debate.
Shorter to the point is that even tribal societies had abortion methods, norms and ethics. Written and even pictorial histories portray various abortion methods – and of the countless billions of women that have carried that ‘option’ forward throughout known history, how many of them can u confidently stick into the ‘sanctity camp’ or ‘choice camp’… ? The issue came to public debate when the issues of legally regulating the function and morality of women’s bodies arose. This arose out of and due to sexism. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. You and others may not generally subscribe sexist viewpoints, but the debate and legal conundrum has its origins there. You will be pleased to know that the western, contemporary feminist movement includes bioethics and the ‘status of the foetus’.
It is hilarious that u insist on asking a question over and over again and ignore the answers given to it, only to isolate (and in the process, support) your philosophical principals. I have not been arguing a philosophical principal (though I am about to) and that has been THE POINT to my argument (as well as the pivotal difference in our views).
So here you are, I shall role play, as it appears that you absolutely insist: Yes, I would be against infanticide as a general rule, if I were in the position of needing to so do. Notwithstanding (and as I said) an embryo is not an infant. An embryo is cellular material that is inherently and inseparably connected to the flesh and vitals of its host, and can be spontaneously expelled / aborted without cause but for that which is occurring on a cellular level. It is (by all definitions) a different form, a seed. Thus regulated abortion does not lead populations to infanticide. And is not legally equated to definitions of murder. If it was, then there is much that we do in the world today that would infringe such a law because there are many such life forms that are more overtly threatened, on the planet. To answer the meant-to-be sensational question of why not babies too? Well then, why not teenagers, why not adults and the elderly, right? Because, of course, we must measure the implications / role of justice and balance it with the value of life. And we all generally value life – as much as we value quality of life. So we draw lines and parameters around and within our realities to encompass both. We measure necessities and rights and it’s not surprising that the equation generally works out for infants, children, youth, adults and the elderly too. So why have women been practicing abortion, well, forever? Perhaps, just maybe and, probably, this is because the equation doesn’t work out as well for cellular material.
I’ll consider changing my position when ‘actually’ new approaches to the whole concept arise (such as my proposal, that you don’t seem to consider worthy of discussion). My logic is consistent from the viewpoint of societal and humane justice that encompasses as much and as many individual rights as possible.
I’d also like to take a moment here to address this concept you have of consistency. Do you take prescription pain killers? Are you a vegetarian? Do you wear leather? Do you walk through flowerbeds? Do you own a car? Do you buy products made through slave-labour or made of plastic? Do you support the preservation of swamp land and rain forests? Did you vote Republican even if it supported the ongoing murder of faceless humans across the globe? Because these (among many countless other) habits and choices contribute to the death of living matter. Is this not contradictory when residing in the “sanctity of life” camp?
Ok, I’m done with your ‘two camps”. Now, let us review facts of the issue at hand shall we?
The concept of a foetus having legal standing is often traced to rights of inheritance cases. In the 1880’s, courts would allow a claim upon a deceased’s estate by a person who had been conceived before a deceased’s death but had been born thereafter. It was pushed into the forefront of the law after the Roe v. Wade case. Since, a number of cases have raised the rights and the interests of the foetus in being born healthy over the autonomy and wishes of the mother. Some have also employed the Roe v. Wade ruling to do so. Most sensationally, that of children being entitled to sue the mother for experiences while en vitro, and forced caesarean cases.
Joan Mahoney points out that no court has ever made an order attempting to enforce a competent adult to donate an organ. The case of In re Pescinski in which a U.S. court refused to make an order permitting a kidney to be removed from a mentally incompetent person in order for it to be donated to that person’s sister. The refusal was made on the basis that there would be no benefit to the mentally incompetent person. She also refers to the case of Winston v. Lee where the court concluded that a criminal defendant was could legally refuse surgery, even when it was the only way to obtain evidence necessary to the trial. Then there are all the suits against those wanting surgeries or treatments when their families are opposed (usually based on faith) that have also, ironically, employed the results of the Roe case. These laws cannot stand for two opposite propositions – one upholding privacy if you are not a pregnant person, and one denying privacy if you are pregnant.
Reversing women’s right to privacy, bodily integrity and autonomy will change these same concepts for everyone – n’est-ce pas? It’s a pretty tricky wee complication, wouldn’t ya say? Do you yourself value the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights?
Attempts to emphasize early foetal rights at the expense of individual rights is a determined attempt to impose control over procreation. With it (whether you like it or not, wish for it or not) comes control over women. The gender bias of outlawing abortion is impossible to ignore (if you are versed in reality). As you must be fully aware, an extension of legal rights to the foetus above the rights of the mother will reposition women as vassal possessions wherein the lifestyle, diet, and conduct of the mother can also be regulated, monitored and criminalized under the same pretenses. This is not as simple an issue as you continue to insist it is.
As it has best been said: It is ludicrous to believe that we can, within a single moral framework, answer to both individual and collective responsibility.” – Or something to that effect. Do me a favour and remember to go back to the comments that refer to this being a complex human issue? This debate has been quite typically reduced…. poo.
I’d have to write a thesis or two in order to thoroughly address how narrow focussed your arguement is. A worthy debate, yes. But I’ve definately said all that should be said – by me – at this point.
ricia; out.
ok, i’m already feeling sorry for getting hyped up – hope least to offend. But I stand by my arguement.
Good stuff ricia. I will respond tonight, I am headed to class in about an hour….
He ricia,
Sorry for taking so long, I have a cold, and have been using alot of my free time to rest. But I did find time to respond, and I appreciate your patience.
Feminism” has a history linked with women’s activism from the late 19th century to the present (regardless of the examples you have noted)….And yes, the feminist movement has a diverse and culminative history – but we can save that for another debate.
I agree with what you say above, my only point here is that the early feminists, specifically the ones that fought for the right of women to vote, were pro-life, not pro-choice.
Shorter to the point is that even tribal societies had abortion methods, norms and ethics. Written and even pictorial histories portray various abortion methods – and of the countless billions of women that have carried that ‘option’ forward throughout known history, how many of them can u confidently stick into the ‘sanctity camp’ or ‘choice camp’… ?
I don’t see why you bring this up. For example, lets again say we were discussing slavery, would you consider it an argument in favor of slavery for the proponents of slavery, the pro-choice advocates, to (correctly) argue that slavery has happened in all continents and have included practically all people in one way or another?
The issue came to public debate when the issues of legally regulating the function and morality of women’s bodies arose. This arose out of and due to sexism. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. You and others may not generally subscribe sexist viewpoints, but the debate and legal conundrum has its origins there. You will be pleased to know that the western, contemporary feminist movement includes bioethics and the ‘status of the foetus’.
Oh great, the “I have been oppressed” argument. Yes, you are right ricia, this all probably has to do with ‘the mans’ ultimate goal of controlling women, and keeping them bear foot and pregnant, working in the kitchen all day.
To say that abortion has always happened and it wasn’t until sexism got involved that it became wrong, is about as narrow as someone saying that slavery has always happened and it wasn’t until the anti-property rights advocates got involved that it became wrong.
I’ll stick to the ‘murder is always wrong’ argument.
Yes, I would be against infanticide as a general rule, if I were in the position of needing to so do. Notwithstanding (and as I said) an embryo is not an infant.
But why ricia, don’t you realize how hard it is for a mother to raise a child? How high a toll it takes on her? What about the mothers ‘right to choose’, aren’t you being a bit moralistic, or to use your words, “the law and moral authority are subjugating that woman’s life to an idea”? Aren’t you really just trying to oppress women? Infants have been killed throughout civilizations since tribal times, as well. How dare you force your morality on the mother!!!
As my comments show, it is whether or not this is murder that is of paramount importance, and only after that is decided can one move to other discussions of oppression and so forth. So lets stick to the core issues, and leave all that secondary stuff out, shall we?
An embryo is cellular material that is inherently and inseparably connected to the flesh and vitals of its host, and can be spontaneously expelled / aborted without cause but for that which is occurring on a cellular level. It is (by all definitions) a different form, a seed.
Aren’t we all, scientifically speaking, cellular material as well? And how does being “inherently and inseparably connected to the flesh and vitals of its host” deem anyone a non-person? Doesn’t this go back to my original post, the pro-choicers belief in “Might Makes Right”? In addition, the infant is also very dependent on the mother for survival, and throughout history and in several countries, say for example Africa, it is highly likely that the infant will also spontaneously die, yet you still classify the infant in the same category as you do an adult (person). If you accept this comparing an infant to an adult, than why can’t I do it comparing an embryo to an infant? Certainly the gap with dependency and spontaneous death is alot smaller when comparing an embryo to an infant than it is when comparing an infant to an adult (especially in underdeveloped countries), yet you allow the (large) gap when you compare an infant to an adult, so by your logic, I should be allowed the same thing when comparing an embryo to an infant, hence the personhood of the embryo.
In addition, all scientists would also consider an infant a ’seed’ of an adult as well, the infant does not currently posses the functions that make one a person. Now, granted, the embryo may not look like an infant, but the infant doesn’t look like the adult either. We each look different at various stages of our life, and that is expected, but the point here is that the stage of our life does not make us person or non-person, it is being a human being that makes us a person.
Remember ricia, to use your own words, “firstly, where the concept of a spirit is not raised in debate among scientists, they all agree that a” infant is not a person. In other words, while you personally may consider the infant to be a person, the very scientist that justify the killing of embryos would not consider the infant a person either. So your justification for classifying the infant a person, or atleast one who is not to be killed, is just like my justification for deeming an embryo a person. Thus, your dilema.
The very same Dr’s and scientist you quote to support abortions, the ones that classify the embryo as a non-person, also classify the infant as a non-person. So, like the pro-lifers predicted years ago, your justification for abortion must necessarily go too far, it must necessarily justify infanticide. As Professor Of Philosophy at Boston College, Peter Kreeft said, “I know of no argument justifying abortion that does not also justify infanticide”. Many in the science community fully accept the logical conclusions of their new quality of life ethic, and do not find it morally repugnant to kill an infant, you obviously do.
I’d also like to take a moment here to address this concept you have of consistency. Do you take prescription pain killers? Are you a vegetarian? Do you wear leather? Do you walk through flowerbeds? Do you own a car? Do you buy products made through slave-labour or made of plastic? Do you support the preservation of swamp land and rain forests? Did you vote Republican even if it supported the ongoing murder of faceless humans across the globe? Because these (among many countless other) habits and choices contribute to the death of living matter. Is this not contradictory when residing in the “sanctity of life” camp?
If abortion is murder, it is of the worse kind. Not only is it the direct intentional killing of an innocent person, but it involves both, the most innocent of people (children) and is done by the one who should care the most for those innocents (the mother). As Mother Theresa said, “If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong”. So when I say consistency, the better question is why do people who, for example, support animal rights, why aren’t they also pro-life, not the other way around. Or to say it another way, you can be against killing infants, but that doesn’t necessarily make you against killing chickens, but if you’re against killing chickens, that should necessarily make you against killing infants.
Since, a number of cases have raised the rights and the interests of the fetus in being born healthy over the autonomy and wishes of the mother. Some have also employed the Roe v. Wade ruling to do so. Most sensationally, that of children being entitled to sue the mother for experiences while en vitro, and forced caesarean cases.
One could turn this around, and say that abortion laws have given handicapped children the right to sue their mothers for refusing to abort them when they could have. In fact, France just allowed this very thing to take place. So this threat does not seem to be a pro-life or pro-choice specific issue.
Joan Mahoney points out that no court has ever made an order attempting to enforce a competent adult to donate an organ.
The ‘being forced to donate an organ to someone else’ argument doesn’t cut it in the abortion discussion. I’ve blogged on this before, but here, allow me to paste the relevant material here.
In addition to being anti-family, it also has other problems. For example,
In other words, pregnancy, unlike removing someone’s kidney to save the life of another, is a fact of nature, it is such a normal occurence in everyday life that it lays certain responsibilities on the people involved. We are not asking the mother to do something out of the ordinary (donate a kidney), we are asking her to do something that is done everyday in society, to be a good mother.
Things become even more problematic when you factor in that in most cases the mother had something to do with the pregnancy herself:
So if abortion laws are really just sexist laws against women, than by that same logic child support laws are really just sexist laws against men. Are you with me in fighting against child support laws, being that you support gender equality and all?
As you must be fully aware, an extension of legal rights to the foetus above the rights of the mother will reposition women as vassal possessions wherein the lifestyle, diet, and conduct of the mother can also be regulated, monitored and criminalized under the same pretenses. This is not as simple an issue as you continue to insist it is.
This is also not true. Beckwith writes, “My view on this is the same as the one proposed by Schwarz in “Moral Question of Abortion”. Schwarz draws an analogy with the “born child [who] has a right to good health care, proper diet, protection from harmful effects.” He points out, however, that although “to some extent this right can be enshrined in law, to a large extent it cannot. We cannot have police at the family dinner table ensuring that the child gets all the nourishing food and vitamins he needs. Nor can he be protected from all harmful effects in the home, parallel to the harmful effects for the preborn child from his mother’s smoking[or drinking, or whatever diet]“. Yet, Schwarz concludes, “surely the born child’s right to live must be enshrined in the law, and given the same legal protection the rest of us enjoy. Exact the same applies to that child before he is born”.
In addition, this doesn’t help you, since even pro-choice advocates claim the fetus is a potential person. So whatever the mother does to the child, regardless of your position on abortion, will still affect the child after birth. In other words, even with laws that allow abortion, one could still make laws that state that if a mother is going to have the child, she should watch what she eats, smokes, and drinks, etc. So if this is a slippery slope argument, it is a slippery slope argument for both of us, since we both agree that after birth the child is a person.
As it has best been said: It is ludicrous to believe that we can, within a single moral framework, answer to both individual and collective responsibility.” – Or something to that effect. Do me a favour and remember to go back to the comments that refer to this being a complex human issue? This debate has been quite typically reduced…. poo.
I still completely disagree, I see it as a simple question of, is murder right or wrong, simple as that. Just like the slavery debates of the past, while the people at the time may have thought slavery was more complicated than it really was, pro-choicers giving historical precedence for slaves, arguing that abolishing slavery will wreck havoc on private property laws, etc, in the end, it was a simple question of whether owning another human being is right or wrong, simple as that.:)
heya
i won’t have time to reply to this; mid-terms
but to say that i’ve addressed each of your points
and the bottom line is: you “believe” in a certain perspective
no matter what the complicated and diverse issues surrounding the issue are
and this makes the whole debate one that is anything BUT directed toward problem solving
u say murder must defined, i say it has been, then u say it must still be defined, and i say it already has been… questioning law is good, yes… but the extent to which this particular law has been examined is beyond that of most any other ever implimented – because the diversity of what people believe is overtly implimented in the investigation… the subject of whether this is murder of not has been and con’t to be thoroughly re-investigated is not neglected nor are such laws arbitrarily constructed
one more thing: when comparing pregnancy issues to that of slavery, look up the definition of slavery, look up the process of pregnancy (not to speak of parenting) and tell me that the definition isn’t most similar to the relationship that women have with pregnancy… the foetus is not enslaved by the mother – precisely the opposite is biologically, psychologically and emotionally true. The foetus dependency is (to a large extend) not one that the host voluntarily agrees to, the foetus TAKES and the host body involuntarily provides. if the health of the mother is in question, the foetus will in fact suffer LAST as it is automatically provided what it is needed FIRST.
its not a sufficient (logically) comparison or metaphor to start with – but since it is paramount to your view it seemed to warrent comment.
i’ll come back when there is more time to
a bientot…
actually, i think i’m best to go with my initial feelings on this
to conclude my participation in this debate at this time
your arguement is designed to funnel the debate
narrow it down to one fundamental arguement
and ignore all other input, perspective, experience or concern
only ONE attribute of the debate is legitimate and the approach is intended to isolate and distinguish this attribute from any other
fundamentalism is radicalism, and like all forms of radicalism
it deserves inspection and has value when considered among other logic processes – in fact i believe radicalism is provacative and incites necessary debate
but is no-less a dangerously exclusive and mongering logic and method if it defines the parameters within which any dialogue or debate can occur
by ignoring all other attributes and realities that do not fit into the ‘box’ / parameters created by fundemental logic, the benefit of dialogue and debate is irraticated.
i could go onward from here and continue (more thoroughly for that matter) to address each one of your points and references as countless others have before me, there is enough material out there to provide us each side of this arguement because the mandate of this arguement has been set and continues to be compelled by fundamentalist logic over and over and over again
what i am arriving at is, that there is no benefit to the nature of this debate
the benefit and purpose of debate is to include all views and logic processes, experiences, implications and consequences with the outcome being that common concerns are factored in, diverse concerns are addressed and solutions are presented that (through the course and process of the information sharing) come to exhibit and engender the most of the many implicated and/or involved in the issue at hand
a debate that is reduced to a fundamental fragment of the issue, is less likely to result in solutions but in the case that it does it will be a solution that represents the fewest and the least
if we (herein) debating the issue of abortion outside that box, with the purpose of constructivism, the whole debate would have curtailed into a discussion about the potentials in the proposal of regulated vascectomies – because this proposal engenders and meets the concerns of both of us (involved at this time in the debate)
however, solutions do not appear to be the purpose of your need to debate the issue – so that means that i’m engaged in a counter-constructive and (sorry but) meaningless debate
though i highly appreciate your intellegence and that of those who provided input throughout this string, and i respect that anyone who would engage with this debate obviously has an interest in hearing a variety of views – the fact is that we could on for years in the box you have created surrounding these issues and all the while bounce up against those walls without ever dismantling the barriers between semantic football and progressive comprehension that leads to new and gratifying solutions
the debate we are now having is merely a replication of a debate
the recounting of a ping-pong match confined in a small (very small) room
and does not attempt to expand or transcend the conundrum that is confined within the walls of that box
i am more interested in having a new mandate and compelling reason to have this debate… i am more interested in learning something new and arriving at new ways of thinking about things… i am more interested in dynamic debates that work toward solutions – than i am in arguements that aim soley to prove that one viewpoint is more ‘correct’ than another
why not assume that the ‘two camps’ you say we represent have common interests and start there?
for now i MUST go be a responsible student, parent, individual – and blog off
my regards,
[...] [...]
Heya HP… I see you are up to arguing the anti-abortion topic..
I’m sorry but knowing that your stance is that ALL abortions are wrong and should be done away with is clearly a close minded type of mentality.. considering you are not affected in any way directly.
Too bad our old arguements are no longer available since DD’s site got raped and is now gone.
But just to toss in a lil tid bit for the heck of it..
You have made it clear in previous posts (haven’t read all of the above) that you are against abortions which would save the woman’s life. You feel she should just be let to die… period.. but you never explained how you would cope with such a huge negative backlash from that.. considering in our surrent society.. most households require both adults in a household (assumeing they are married and all) are income providers.. due such a harsh law implication.. to not abort and well let die anyways (the fetus would die without a living woman) both the fetus and the woman would cause a very negative result for her (the woman) family being her husband, already born children, parents, etc…
Also another negative result that would happen.. and you’ve always dodged this one too..
Our social services system (welfare and food stamps) is already overloaded.. who is gonna support all the abandoned children.. you can’t force a mother who delivers a baby to keep it… or support it.. What put her in jail.. our jail/prison system is overloaded too (if you didn’t notice) and it would be worse.. considering the would be illegal abortion giving docs would be there too.. and their nurses.. and what about he foster homes? do yu see a decrease in their head count?
I agree with you think we need to maybe give the abortion thing a revision.. and maybe tighten up the requirements (due to current and evolving technology and medical advances which would allow a fetus to survive if removed from a woman at an earlier stage in devlopement) but to remove the ability to choose all together has too much a negative affect which overshadows any possible gains you and your group is seeking.
The benefit of a few should never outway the benefit of the masses.
Hey Izzy,
Well I’ll be damned, imagine the chances of us bumping into each other all the way over here. If I remember correctly, in our last abortion discussion, you refused to give your reasons for wanting to limit abortion. I would give you mine, but when pressed, you wouldn’t give me yours. You would only say that it is because you personally don’t like them at certain stages, but won’t explain why. Do you still respond the same way? If so, than based on that response, I could equally say the same thing, and this discussion would go nowhere. So if we want this discussion to go somewhere, we both have to give reasons for our views, just as I have to defend and give mine and can’t simply resort to “because I personally don’t like them at that stage”, you also have to give reasons for your views, and can’t simply resort to “because I personally don’t like them at that stage”. So again I ask you Izzy, what are your reasons why you want to limit abortion?
With that out of the way, allow me to respond to what you said, and give you my reasons why I believe as such, you write,
You have made it clear in previous posts (haven’t read all of the above) that you are against abortions which would save the woman’s life. You feel she should just be let to die… period
Where did I say this? This is not true, and in fact most (all?) pro-lifers make exception in cases where the mothers life is truly in danger. So I do believe in allowing ‘abortion’ if the mothers life is truly at risk, but this is not really an ‘abortion’ in the normal meaning of the word. When the mothers life is truly at risk, the goal is to save both lives, but because saving the babies life will cause the death of the mother and in doing so also put the babies life at risk, it is better to save the mothers life so as to increase life, and the chances of someone living. It is like a medic in war who only has one life saving syringe yet two patients, he is going to choose to use that syringe on the patient that has the highest chance of living, and in this case, that would be the mother.
Contrast that to what abortion really means, in an abortion, the mother is not going into the abortion clinic to save a life, but for the sole purpose of killing her unborn child. So in one case your goal is to save lives, in the other your goal is to end them.
Second, you ask, Our social services system (welfare and food stamps) is already overloaded.. who is gonna support all the abandoned children..
All of these questions are secondary to the issue of abortion. If abortion is wrong, than it should be stopped regardless of how packed our current welfare system is, or how expensive it would be. To argue in favor of abortion based on how expensive it would be to support all of the children that may result, would be like arguing in favor of slavery based on how expensive it would be to re-educate all of the slaves, or support such an uneducated citizenry. Clearly, as in the case of slavery, the expense to society is secondary to the much greater issue of abortion.
Izzy, you keep saying that I “always dodged this one too” over and over again, yet those who remember our discussion on abortion would say that it is you who dodges questions, not me. So since I directly answered all of your questions above, and did not ‘dodge’ any of them, can you please now tell me WHY (I want to know why you have your limits, not what those limits are) you believe abortion should have certain limits? Why shouldn’t abortion be allowed for any reason at all, at any stage of pregnancy whatsoever?
I trust that you will answer these questions directly, and not dodge them.
Keep that studying up HP.
Like I said above… I am referring to your comments that used to be on http://www.latinorepublican.com you had stated that ALL abortions should be made illegal.. even after pointing out that abortions in which the woman was at risk was wrong IMO, you had stated otherwise.. Even in your response above you say only if the woman is “truly” in harms way… who is to decide this? a lawyer? a judge? by the time this goes through the legal system to determine if she is truly in harms way.. she will have died, burried, and you and you group moved on to the next victim.
I never understood what you were asking for and tried my best to explain what I thought was fair and what I thought the limits should be.. You kept trying to imply that I had some hidden reasoning behind it.. My beliefs are personal.. not some generated from a pamphlet or derived from someone elses beliefs directly or indirectly…
I think that if the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman carrying the fetus.. then abortion should be an available option in ALL cases…
I think that if the fetus is in a stage where it cannot survive (and this would be a gray area which would need to be adjusted to reflect current medical advances) then it should be ok to have an abortion.
If a pregnancy is achieved through rape, incest, or other methods deemed illegal.. then abortion should be an available option.
I think that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus then child and undergo the whole pregnancy phase of life to make someone else happy.. is wrong. Mistakes happen.. (an this is not counting illegal forms of achieving pregnancy) and yes if women/men abuse the system, they should be held accountable.. how? This is where we should focus and make it an unwanted option. Just like the 3 strikes law in california or the driving under the influence law… Deter would be abortion seeking woman away.. but do not remove the option all together.
Removing abortion as an option will have an impact against the social services and the legal system… if you wish to ignore them by wearing tunnel vision goggles then be it… but reality still exists and those issues will arise.. and yet you have never or anyone who is in the anti-abortion community ever addressed. You can educate everyone all you want.. It’s a mute point if they don’t listen. How do you enforce them to listen? You cannot.
Hey Oso,
Nothing like a good abortion discussion to get me out of studying.
Izzy,
You must have read wrong, I have never said, nor do I believe, that the mother should die to avoid an abortion. In case you missed it the first time, let the record be corrected with this. As far as who should decide, that’s easy, her doctor. If her life is truly in danger, and abortion is the only option to save her life, than an abortion should be allowed to save her life.
Again Izzy, you’re response just gives me your limits, but doesn’t explain why you have those limits. I gave you my reasons above, now I want your reasons. You write,
I think that if the fetus is in a stage where it cannot survive (and this would be a gray area which would need to be adjusted to reflect current medical advances) then it should be ok to have an abortion.
Why should abortion not be allowed if the fetus could survive outside the mother? Please explain why, not just restate your beliefs. Afterall, even if the fetus can survive outside of the mothers body, by making abortion illegal at that point you are still, to use your words, “forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus then child and undergo the whole pregnancy phase of life to make someone else happy” So why in this case is this okay?
Remember Izzy, I don’t want your limits, I want to know why you have those limits. To simply say they are ‘personal’, and you don’t want to give them, is to avoid the question, and why even have an abortion discussion at all if both sides don’t have to give their rationale for having their limits.
I eagerly await your response.
Hi All… Did something change around here?… It doesn’t look the same.