The big abortion rant thread.

Remove all ads!

OK, that's fair enough. I'm still of the impression that of those who find an attack against a pregnant woman repugnant, this attitude is due, at least in part, to the potential of harming the fetus, as many make the unconscious association that fetus = unborn baby.

Note that I never said that all pro-choicers believe X, but merely that belief X tends to permeate the ranks of pro-choicers. One could argue that religious dogma permeates the ranks of pro-lifers, and despite the fact that I am a dogged atheist and pro-lifer, I would be correct.

 

Can it not just be said that an assult on anybody is a pretty awful thing? Yes, count is pro-life, a lot of us are pro-choice but surely we are all adult enough to put that aside to see that an attack on anyone is not acceptable?

 

Chandos, I have repeatedly tried to pull this discussion back from the brink of death. I know you've ignored those attempts in your past posts, but could you at least not accuse me of the opposite? If you want a real discussion, how about trying to reconsile the pro-choice position with the legal status of a wanted, but unborn baby? Do you thing killing that foetus should be the legal equivalent of killing a newborn? If not, then by legal definition, and it's starting to sound like your own belief, an assault on a pregnant woman that results in the termination of the baby is no more serious a crime than an assault on an old man that results in a broken hip. I'm hoping you don't agree to that.

Mind, I'm not trying to dehumanize you or the baby, I'm just trying to reach a logical conclussion to this connundrum. As I see it, you must either believe that no unborn child has it's own right to live, or you must believe that all unnecessary abortions are murder. There's no two ways about it. If you believe the latter, then you are either a pro-lifer or you are condoning murder. If you belive the former, then you and I simply disagree. We can debate about the validity of each belief, and most pointedly, I'd ask you to defend birth as an initiation point for life-rights, but that's the only avenue I see to discuss.

Silvery, this is more an exploration of the impacts of the pro-choice logic than about the consequences of an assault. The real point is, is it an assault on the woman, or a murder of a child? I think we'll all agree that murder is more reprehensible than assault.

 

Actually, I think there are two ways to look at it - and the law recognizes it as such too. As I see it, there would be a great difference if the woman was say 1 month pregnant, as opposed to 9 months pregnant. Because at 9 months, it's already viable outside the womb, and there's no place to get an abortion when you are nine months pregnant. The law recognizes the rights of the unborn when you are talking about a viable fetus (26+ weeks), but currently a fetus of less than 13 weeks has no legal rights in any state. The law is variable from state-to-state for fetuses between 13-26 weeks.

That's why I don't think your choice is valid. I think you can disagree with both of those statements depending on the age of the fetus.

 

I think NOG's premise is quite valid -- the child obtains rights with it's first breath. That's the way most laws are written. You cannot be tried for murdering a fetus -- the child must be breathing to be declared "alive." There are some laws for harming a fetus, but they lack teeth.

There are huge ramifications to giving a fetus rights before it's first breath. I know many of the far right conservatives have been trying to give rights to fetuses in criminal cases, but I think that's really just a red herring. They are using the guise of crime to grant rights to fetuses and usurp Roe V. Wade. I think most of those laws will be seen for what they are and be stricken eventually.

The "viable outside the womb" idea is nice, but it's too fuzzy (even when a timeframe is associated) -- the government would need to first declare the fetus to be an individual with rights to give it "legal rights." Once the fetus is given rights, the rights of the mother will be significantly curtailed -- child advocates will be able to sue on behalf of the fetus to ensure the mother is doing nothing that could endanger the fetus. With fetus rights must also come an acknowledgment from the government the fetus is an individual -- think of the tax implications there (when will you get the write off?).

 

T2 brings up some good points. The only thing I disagree with him on is that he tries to raise a 'specter' of unborn rights, while I try to raise the hope of the same. Yes, the law varries from state to state, but they all come down to some point at which one must say, 'Now the thing has rights and can be called a child.' One important question is what you use as a distinguishing point. Is it an arbitrary trimester division? Is it viability outside the womb (which is constantly being pushed back)? Basically, what gives the 'living' the right to live?

I think many of the laws governing harm to foetuses that Bruno is talking about are perfectly innocent and only have their face-value intent. I know some staunch leftist groups are arguing for them. They want a man who beats a pregnant woman into a miscarriage to be tried for murder, and I agree. This isn't a right-wing only movement. The extension of that to a pro-life position would be tentative, but unavoidable, and I don't really see a problem (being pro-life).

Bruno, all in all, I think you'll find the rights of the mother not nearly as curtailed as you suggest (certainly not 'significantly'). Arguably, she has the legal right to do just about anything she could do with a 1-month-old, which means drive, see movies, whatever. The only things I can see possibly being 'curtailed' are access to drugs known to harm foetuses, such as alcohol and a slew of illegal drugs. There are probably some prescription medications, too, but I'd bet the doctors would take her off them anyway. Before any other rights could be taken away, you'd first have to prove the woman to be an unfit mother, which is not as easy a task as is frequently suggested.

 

So?

A woman's right to convenience and comfort is trivial in comparison to the right to life of a human being. Trying to make the issue solely (or even primarily) about women's rights demonstrates a blatant disregard for the human life at stake, where the fetus is considered nothing more than a freeloading disposable possession, simply because it is in a developmental stage where it is required to obtain nutrition and oxygen from a woman.

The 'viable outside the womb' idea is a red herring. Viability outside the womb is not an indicator of life value. Born babies are dependent on parental assistance for survival, renal failure patients are dependent on dialysis for survival. Big deal.

 

I'm sorry, I truly am. Life value is a hollow, meaningless expression if economical perspectives are not taken into account.

A full-grown woman is economically more productive than a baby she carries. Her convenience and comfort do matter only as much as any single individuals comfort, whether man or woman, able or disabled, young or old.

Of course morality can't be taken out of the question since many feel that it is so important, and by neglecting morality you're neglecting what they feel important, and thus neglecting them. But should morality come before action? Does it? No.

Being economic is being practical. Roe vs. Wade's impacts on demographics are economically very interesting.

On right to life I'd say that nobody has the right to live in crime, misery and poverty. One's right to live does not supersede the right to live one's life as one would want to choose if able to do so. Considering them as separate abstract entities leads to much confusion.

Should a right to live be considered as one of the most obligating rights, then there is much work to be done. Merely by existing each and every one of us are ensuring that others will die. The ties between our lives and those others are not as obvious as a pregnant mothers and the life which she carries, but they are there and they are as much important as the ties between those of same blood.

So what most people do is that they prioritize. Which one is more productive to the society as it is right now? A woman with a child or a woman without? There is plenty of labor available. There is plenty of human baings to meet society's needs. There are plenty of mouths to feed already. Is it cruel that a child will never be? Most assuredly. We cannot save everyone, no matter how much we'd like to.

Last year "only" (roughly) around 9.7 million children under five died of causes that could have been easily prevented. They didn't have the chance to get a life. What is a right to live in a world where one can be condemned to die under the age of ten, by the society, by the living conditions, by the disease contracted from the mother during childbirth, by the neglect we do all the time by just looking away or not caring enough?

If right to live means a right to live in misery and a right for a very short life, the right for disease, malnutrition and war, while one is still a child, then this 'right for life' is an empty concept. What are the choices? Abortion, as horrible it might be, is one. It does not ensure that there will be a better tomorrow, but it is an option that should be used to make sure that tomorrow is not far worse than it already is.

 

So Iku, you advocate the extermination of the homeless, desperate, or simply less fortunate? They aren't contributing to society, certainly not as much as others could with them out of the way. Hey, maybe we can cook some of them to feed the rest! Anyone fancy a hobo-skin coat?

Forgive my coarse statements, I was trying to bring back images of a certain English writer of a about a century and a half ago (I think). At the time, the conversation was about all the poor Irish babies, I believe. His statements were made in morbid jest as well.

Perhaps the thing I find most interesting is your statement that one's 'right to live life as one would want to choose to if able to do so' superceeding one's right to life to begin with. For the first problem, since when did we all get to live our dream lives? That's not a right, not even close. That's something to be earned, if even that is possible, and I'll bet most of the rich will tell you it isn't. The second problem is that, even if it were a right, it would necessarily be subserviant to the right to life. How can you have a right to live the way you want to if you don't have the righ to live to begin with? What happens when someone else's righ to live the way they want to requires you to die? Is their right to live the way they want to greater than your right to live to begin with? And lastly, and perhaps most significantly, who the h*ll do you think you are deciding whether people would rather live in poor conditions or die, without even asking them, or for that matter trying to ask someone who has led a life similar to theirs? I'll bet you my life savings that if we go around asking homeless and drug addicts if they'd like to die to get away from it all, they'll tell us to f*** off at the least. We'll probably end up with some knives in us. Regardless what the picture is painted as, suicide is rare. The vast, vast majority of people would much rather live in squalor than be put down like dogs. And yet you want to go around deciding what conditions are worth living in and killing off anyone who won't get there? Or do you really want to base it on how productive one is to society?

The idea that life value is purely monetary is demeaning, degrading, and ridiculous in the extreme, and I seriously hope you don't believe it. You do realize that, on many levels, what you're advocating here is called Eugenics, right? Take those that don't produce and don't let them breed, while those who's offspring are statistically likely to make a sizable contribution are. That may be a touch more extreme than what you suggest, but not much.

 

Which must absolutely dwarf the number of abortions performed each year. To put some perspective to it, there were about 4 million people born in the US last year. While I cannot find a number for abortions, I'd imagine the number of births to be far greater than the number of abortions.

I don't think he's calling for people who are unproductive to kill themselves, or to be exterminated by the other members of society. I think you're reading a lot into his post that isn't there. I think he's saying that people living in those conditions should have the option of not bringing another human being into the world that would also have to live in those conditions. Advocating for the right to chose to get an abortion is not the same thing as eugenics by any definition. To paraphrase from Pulp Fiction - It ain't the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it's not even the same sport. Heck, even if he was actively encouraging people to get abortions (which he is not IMO) it would not constitute eugenics.

 

Thank you Aldeth. Post well read and point well taken.

@NOG: No morbid jests.

Exactly. The right to live for millions is taken away all the time, by the politics of our countries. We're all in it, it's the daily choices we do in the grocery store for instance that determine this. Small things tend to escalate into such a symphony of misery that no morbid jest makes it funny anymore.

That's not a choice. I don't know about the poor in our parts of the world, but in the majority of this whole wide world living in poor conditions that most of us wouldn't give to our pets to live in is a death sentence. Not for all, not by far, but for far far too many and not for homeless, not for drug addicts, but for normal innocent children who just happened to be born in the wrong side of the globe. Speaking of one's right to live a dreamlife, I can tell you that there's kids on streets that are and have been put down like dogs, who's dreamlife is to get their bellies full and perhaps something else than huffing on burning styrofoam to make the life more bearable. It's not a right to live, it's not a choice.

I think there are worse atrocities than an abortion. One would be the treatment of baby girls in somewhere else than in our cozy little western homes. To be born a girl into a poor family is to be born less than human. Born, not valuable enough to be kept, too expensive, disposable. They're already born and they're disposed as unwanted things. Some of them are lucky just to get to develop as adults, luckier if they get to be healthy adults.

As I said, abortion is not the answer. You can be quite justified to think that it is evil. I think it's an evil we have to live with, until there will be an answer. Eugenics is not it. It might begin with answering to your own quoestion:

9.7 million very brief lives of misery and unnecessary, untimely, preventable deaths. Every year. That's what happens.

 

I'm not entirely sure where I lie in this debate. It's too delicate a subject to put so vividly as pro-life and pro-choice, though I'm certain extremes of both will beg to differ.

What strikes me though it that some people seem to see abortion as a simple decision, (almost) made out of spite

I've personally only ever seen one instance where the choice to terminate a pregnancy was an easy one, the baby wasn't developing properly, further complications also lead to the mother becoming seriously ill as well.

I can partially understand the position of "You've never been there, you couldn't possibly understand" I'll empathise as best as my little aspie brain can though

I'll say outright: In the position where I would have to decide whether or not I should abort, I could not go through with it. I would simply have to see if I could have the child at all. However I am also doing everything in my power to ensure I do not reach the point where I am required to make such a decision.

For those that reach the unfortunate proposal however, there are so many physical, mental and moral implications. For one pregnancy is by no means an easy state to be in, as I'm certain many men on here will know from their partners and the delivery room, as well as the women. There is also the fact that the longer you are pregnant the more 'damage' occurs to the body, organs that get pushed aside during the nine months don't always return to full function or ability, imbalances within the chemicals in the body are not always righted. Eighteen years of responsibility coupled with troubles during the time in term are sometimes just not possible for some people.

I'm not talking about athletes worried they'll lose their peak, I'm talking about average people who can have trouble that is aggravated or caused by a pregnancy. Doctors will, and do, advise people to abort based on evidence of probably organ damage. The chemical side is often too difficult to predict until too late. In general in the UK (nowadays!) there is enough assistance to providde for parents who cannot work, in the case of atheletes and similar physical professions, most know well enough how to handle their body to return to peak form in simple and relatively quick measures.

Considerations for severely handicapped children. I believe somebody touched upon this but I am afraid I cannot find the post right now some people, knowing they will create a life of pain and suffering for a person, cannot go through to term. There is only so much the realms of medicine can do for people who live in pain or serious impairment and sometimes the kindest thing can be to prevent a life of pain before it can truly occur. People compare abortion to murder. Taking the life of another human being. But I can't really compare it in an instance such where the child would suffer so greatly.

Abortion is not, and should never be handled, as a method of contraception. It is the last resort of desperate needs where there is so much at risk it would be unfair to both the mother and the child. There is not enough help available to expecting parents, many more seeking it are simply turned aside. For people treated in an unfair and unjust manner while in such a delicate state there is sometimes just not enough strength to bring an innocent into the same situation.

 

'The right to life' does not equate to 'The right to live in the conditions you so please', no matter how much you wish to conflate the two.

However, it is important to note that once one is an adult, then you can choose your environment.

Abortion kills the entity before it has the right to choose. As I stressed earlier: If the born individual is that unhappy, then they are welcome to take their own life. It is the height of obscenity for you, or anyone else, to make your own subjective value judgements as to whether a human being's life is 'worth living'. Many people have lived in crime and misery, and yet despite this found joy, and even ascended to a rich and law abiding life. Being born into poverty and civil strife isn't the death sentence you make it out to be.

To be honest, your approach is rather absurd. "Since this child won't have an unlimited number of choices, we won't give him any choices at all!" Not existing with zero choices is far worse than existing but living in the ghetto with limited choices, and the fact that African Americans children of the lower socioeconomic don't kill themselves in droves is testament to this fact.

Are you referring to third world countries? Because I can't think of how the above description fits a first world country. If children did indeed exist in such conditions, they would become wards of the State or adopted out.

But in regards to children in third world countries. These children still struggle to survive, so clearly they value their own life. Simply because you cannot appreciate a life under hardship demonstrates that you have been excessively pampered. If the right to life under hardship was indeed an empty concept, then those in third world countries would have much higher suicide rates.

 

Iku, I understand your anger and frustration at the conditions in third-world countries. They're terrible, and there are things you can do to aleviate them. Unfortunately, in appartent morning of a gross and often unconscious corporate sin of the western world, you are actively advocating a conscious and willful commition of a far more personal sin that, though somewhat less common, is no less detestable. This makes no sense. Yes, life in some places sucks, welcome to Planet Earth. Yes, people die. Guess what, life is a suicide mission. Many are cut far too short, but you now advocate cutting them even shorter, before they've had any chance to experience any joy whatsoever. This isn't justifiably avoiding the problem you're criticizing, it's knowingly aiding and abbetting it.

Perhaps it isn't exactly eugenics, but considering the crowd you're advocating it for is selected from the socio-economic underside, it does smack of a kind of voluntary eugenics. Also remember that eugenics wasn't just killing people, it was also making them infertile (or perhaps killing their offspring) while allowing them to live.

And once again I must ask, who are you, or anyone other than the child in question, to decide that their lot in life isn't worth living, that the hand they're being dealt isn't worth playing, before it's even finished being dealt? The moment you start talking about the child's probable lot in life, you immediately open the door to their 'right to life', which you are arguing to take away from them.

Now, I put 'right to life' in quotes there because, really, if we're talking internationally, and especially in the third world, there is no such right to begin with, at least not as we understand and usually mean the word here in the first world. When you get right down to it, any and all rights are granted by the state or controlling body, whether that be an elected group like in the US, or the most charismatic guy that could recruit the biggest army, like in many 3rd world nations. There is certainly no right to live the life you want, not even here in the US, not even in so far as getting food. It is a reward, usually for good or services rendered in some manner or another. I hate to be cruel, but the world is cruel, and most of it can't rationally be layed at the feet of our modern western culture. Yes, we unfortunately exploit the cruel nature of the world to carve out a slightly less cruel portion for ourselves, but the rest of the world would be cruel whether we were there or not.

8people, all I can say in response to your post is, study people alive in the world today who are disabled or in continuous pain. Yes, some of them are bitter and angry about it, but many of them lead happy and joyful lives, as well. If your child will be born without a diaphram (recently happened to a friend at work, along with many other complications) then I can understand. If you're guaranteed they'll die before reaching 1 year of age, then I can understand. If you're child has Down's Syndrome, then don't you dare try to take the 'their life isn't worth living' stance with me, not for one second. I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm just trying to lay out some examples.

 

Yes. It also begs the question: If killing unborn babies who will live in poverty is OK, then why shouldn't it be OK to kill born babies who will live in poverty? After all, you will be sparing both from future 'misery'.

 

You know, if we were all as wise as 8 (myself included) then this topic would stay as a dicussion, rather than descending to the level of a bar brawl which it repeatedly does

 

I agree with Silvery - we can also do without the needlessly incendiary language. Unless you are talking about partial birth or very late term abortions (both of which are illegal by the way), abortion does not equal "killing unborn babies". Following this logic to its conclusion, as soon as an egg gets fertilized, it's an unborn baby. The only problem with that is only about 40% of fertilized eggs eventually produce a born baby. More than half of the time, a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterus, the woman has her period as she normally would, and she never even realizes she was "pregnant".

Having said that, I will concede that if you insist on considering a fertilized egg an "unborn baby", then I understand your point. You should understand, however, that not everyone is going to agree with your starting premise.

That's why this issue is so difficult for people to reach an agreement on. Very few people would consider a 40-week pregnant woman to have anything less than an unborn baby inside her. Very few people consider a fertilized egg to be an unborn baby. That means the vast majority of people think that a fertilized egg becomes a baby sometime between conception and birth. Where ever that line gets drawn, it's going to be arbitrary. The current law (OK in the first trimester) seems as good a point as any, although it's still arbitrary.

The final problem is that it seems the debate is controlled by the two extremes. On one extreme people want abortion on demand. On the other extreme, abortion would only be allowed if the life of the mother was in grave danger. These two groups control the debate, and yet they are the least likely people who would reach a compromise on this. They are both also equally off their rockers as far as I'm concerned.

 

Not what I said.

Who's said anything about me making value judgements whether one's life is worth living or not? I make no such claims.

@NOG: I understand your anger and frustration as well for all the sins and the wrong that people do in this world. Welcome to the planet earth, yes the world is a terrible terrible place. People do atrocious things. This is life.

As things are, we as human beings do not have all the possible options available, no matter how much we'd like them to be. No matter how high morals we'd like to think we have, we cannot make a better world by dictating what other people should or should not do.

Well, misconceptions are easy to make if you read the text so that it says something that you want it to say.

Words to the wise: I am not advocating abortion. It would be foolish to read my posts so. I'm not advocating eugenics either or anything even close, thinking that I am is even sillier.

 

I know plenty of people who are disabled and in continuous pain. I also know the hell their parents have been through with people in that condition.

I would never even *consider* taking the stance that someone's life isn't worth living. The fact you snap to that stance in response to me is actually quite shocking. I simply pointed out a consideration parents may have to look at if the awful situation arises. I wasn't making a point of saying some people don't have lives living or that if a child doesn't turn out the way you like to get rid of it.

All I was saying is if you knew you were going to have a child that cried constantly in pain as a baby, grew up with severe difficulties, knowing how much they had to put up with every day, not knowing if they'll even be able to get any help - medically, in schools, when they move out - would you not even hesitate?

Some parents it can be the end of the world when they find out they have a child that won't live to see ten years, or would never be able to live like a normal person. It's a crushing decision when they have to seriously consider if they can bring up a child with serious problems adequately and safely. Often with relatively little support, depending how 'popular' a condition is.

I am NOT advocating abortion for disabled people, or when a child 'doesn't turn out right'. I know there are plenty of disabled people who lead fulfilling lives, I also know there is a flip side and a struggle for both the parents and the child.

 

Silvery, Count does bring up a good point (again; it's been brought up before) that has never really been answered. Aldeth points at it as well. When is it considered a baby? What qualifies an entity as a baby or not? I'd like to hear all your answers on this. I can see fertilization, as it is the literal beginning of the being, and I guess I can see implantation, as it is a significant developmental step (the procurement of resources). After that, I don't know of any singular step significant enough to say 'this is not a baby, but that is'. The nervous system doesn't develop all in one go, and research has time and time again indicated fetal responses to danger well before we thought it was possible. The lungs developing doesn't really make much sense as a developmental stepping stone, nor do arms and legs. What do you all use to qualify the transition point?

Aldeth, why do you consider abortion on desperate need only (life of the mother) to be an 'off your rocker' arguement? If you accept some people see even the fertilized egg as a human being, why is it crazy to think to preserve those lives?

Iku, I'm sorry, but that post seems mostly bunk to me. You're arguement that the economic value of life must be considered in an abortion debate, just twelve posts above this, and you're apparent statement that action should come before morality (not literally what you said, but you did give a strong indication), would generally be considered advocation for abortions of the poor and unfortunate. That's not a huge leap of logic, it's more like a baby step in a very narrow hallway. If you aren't advocating abortion, then what have you meant by all these things?

This is even worse. Now I'll be the first to say that not everyone should be able to force their morality on everyone else, that'd only lead to complete chaos, but what you're talking about here leads to the same. If we can't build a better world by dictating standards of behaviour, then what are our laws doing? What are our social standards doing? Do you really think they've failed to improve the world at all? I'd agree if you said we can't completely fix the world, but that we can't make it better at all? This strikes me as a generalization that you weren't really considering when you wrote it. I'd understand that, as it is an attractive generalization, but it's problematic at the least.

8people, I apologize. It may well have been the proximity to Iku's posts that spurred my reaction, but I did not react the way I should have. I read his apparent attitude into your post. As to your question:

I can honestly say, no, I wouldn't. If I knew my son would live to eight years of age in chronic pain, I'd give him those eight years, because I know that there is a lot of happiness that can come in eight years, even with constant pain, and there's more that can come from those eight years. Of course, it also helps that I believe in miracles, 'all things work for the good...', and that this life isn't all there is. Those things really change one's perspective on this issue.

This is a sad state of affairs, mainly because we actually know a great deal about pain and how to handle/minimize it, but that knowledge is almost always absent for hospitals and only seen in hospices. It's sad that we don't seem to care much about pain until we've already given up on life. It doesn't make any sense to me.