Abortion - Views?

Remove all ads!

Regardless, you're still ending life, even only life-to-be, for a matter of comfort and convenience

 

NOG, most of your arguments have already been posted and responded to by other people. If you take the time to read more of this admittedly long post, your typing fingers can get some rest.

The honor murder issue would in my opinion be worthy of its own thread. I only brought it up to present a different kind of scenario than the regular abortion-for-convenience cases - to remind people it's not as simple and black-and-white as that.

I highly recommend you take a look at what lasgalen said about medical conditions. It's just a few posts above.

 

@Undertaker:

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood or I haven’t been clear enough. I was talking about extraordinary circumstances where detention is not possible and the criminal is dangerous to other people. Where you are able to call the police, there’s obviously no such situation.

Give an example, please. You can only maintain grave threat to mother’s life this way. Economical conditions don’t make murder the only solution.

@Saber:

Sperm is potential, foetus is no longer so. I am against contraception and against masturbation. The problem with contraception is messing with the natural order of things and putting pleasure much ahead on the list of priorities on the physical side of the relationship between two people. In my view, a union needs to be complete and final, with full acceptance of each other and respect as persons, which is prevented by condoms, pills and other such, which create barriers and distance between the couple. But this doesn’t mean that everything’s automatically fine when people are married, no contraceptives are used and abortion is not obtained in case of pregnancy. The need for mutual respect and maintaining human dignity, never reducing the other person to an object, a tool of pleasure, is always there. The problem doesn’t magically disappear at any point.

As for masturbation, it’s first of all a completely selfish act, the only motivation of each is pleasure, which perverts the natural order of human sexuality, as well as teaches the body and mind wrong responses, comes in the way of proper development of personality and leads to an addiction which is extremely difficult to deal with.

On the liberal side of things, masturbation immediately affects only the person who masturbates and none other, so there’s a great pressure to leave it alone. However, there is no avoiding the realisation that whatever affects a person’s personality in the social and sexual aspect is also going to affect his future family, the spouse and children.

This is why I believe it’s wrong for doctors, teachers and parents to tell children, students, patients and other people in their care that masturbation is a perfectly normal human reaction, all right to do and enjoy and so on. That’s wishful thinking based on political desires rather than reality.

You’ll probably think that I’m awfully restrictive. You could look on it from that perspective, but I see it more as going for the big thing. Things like masturbation or one night stands bring pleasure but it’s only immediate pleasure that doesn’t lead to any lasting joy and is ultimately destructive. It takes some effort, some sacrifice even, to resist the minute temptations, but it’s better that way and the effects are better in the long run. But we’re getting off-topic, I believe.

It never should. I pointed out situations in which a less violent solution wouldn’t be possible, such as, for example, sometimes in the time of war.

@Susipaisti (correct me if it was someone else):

Honour killing is an oxymoron. Whoever does that should be tried for whatever category the act fits in in the criminal law. Whichever judge turns a blind eye should be discharged, a police or public officer tried.

Let me give you an example from Afghanistan or Pakistan. I suppose Pakistan but can’t be 100% sure. A boy had consensual intercourse with a girl from another village. In retaliation, the elders and some other men of that village lured his sister to their gathering by deception and decided to rape her, all of them, no matter how she begged them not to do it.

If that’s honour... That kind of people makes it really hard to be against death penalty, you know.

Perhaps then, her own village would have her killed and her brother, the original, albeit unwitting, culprit, wouldn’t be punished at all. Well, unless the other village got him. Then, the girl’s village men would rape on sight all women from that other village etc etc.

Rapists are scum and I would gladly risk killing one rather than failing in the process of incapacitating him less radically. Those who blame a woman for getting raped if she didn’t provoke it belong in the same league. That’s just something that must be rooted out. Those guys see women as commodity, merchandise. Not even livestock. Camels get better treatment. In short, it’s so freaking flawed it’s high time something were done about it.

Sorry, but that’s a wrong argument. If the father intends to commit a crime on her, the proper way of preventing crimes is by the police. The state needs not and should not, cannot fall so low as to kill unborn babies so that a father with criminal inclinations wouldn’t kill his daughter instead of preventing said criminal wannabie from harming her.

Next, if a girl knows that getting pregnant will get her killed and therefore if she gets pregnant, she will “need” abortion to avoid getting killed, then she simply takes a random chance before each consensual act, that she will “have” to get a foetus aborted.

(Yes, again)

And she will keep having sex and further unborns will be killed so she wouldn’t be killed?

“Honour killings” are practiced by a marginal share of the society unless we’re talking about extremely savage regions. You can’t make a general argument out of a specific exception. Next, the state’s role is to protect the woman from her father by preventing his crime, not by bowing down to his vision and killing the foetus. Aborting babies will only reinforce the tyranny of terror, adding more psychological trauma to the women’s troubles, as well as create an underground abortion industry. What if the abortionist also keeps lists of his customers for further convenient use?

In a Western society, if a minority woman can reach an abortion clinic, she can reach a police station. If she doesn’t want such a drastic step as parting her ways with the family, it’s her choice further to live in that kind of culture and that kind of vision. She willingly submits to it. Therefore, if she has the option of leaving them and taking the child with her but prefers to keep living with the family, it’s her choice. Killing her baby to relieve her from responsibility for her own choice is not the way.

Abortion is not even watching the child die (as in, e.g., removing the foetal tube to save the mother’s life when she would otherwise surely die, even if the foetus dies in the process), but it’s actively violating and killing it.

@Shell:

The most militant pro-choicers will also try to prevent you from saying that or showing photos of aborted foeti. In the name of freedom of speech, of course. You basically come in the way of their speech.

@Bion:

Those who kill foeti are responsible for it, not those who say it’s wrong to do that.

@Stefanina:

Separation of church and state grants that laws shouldn’t be made by clerics and dogma by state officers, but it doesn’t make the state the enemy of religion, nor does it make the state amoral or require that the state should stay away from legislating anything to which a religion happens to be attached (or opposed). For example, why not stay away from marriage altogether and allow divorce at will, polygamy etc? There are religions and cultures that support those and they are represented in the US. Shouldn’t thus the federal and state authorities run away from the whole problem the farthest possible and cancel all regulations? If religious rules should automatically be opposed by the state, then murder should be legal, as should theft and false witness.

Next, there are many more controversial areas in which there is legislation even not supported by the majority of citizens. Do really most Americans support the kind of copyright laws they have in place, for instance? Shouldn’t the union and states rather flee from regulating anything because there’s disagreement?

@LeFleur:

I agree. That’s the kind of logic behind social reasons for abortion, ranging from honour killings to bitching boyfriends. By that kind of logic, we should safely euthanise people who are in danger of violent murder, instead of protecting them.

@Susipaisti (again):

So we kill foeti instead?

The idea of killing foeti because a criminally inclined petty despot of a patriarch could enter into blood rage seems even worse to me. Especially if we’re talking about a civilised country doing that.

@NonSequitur:

How about “and you should accept the risk of contraception failure?”

Anything on the tune of “right to self-determination” appearing in the discussion of letting a foetus live or killing it, sounds as paramount elevation of focus on oneself and complete disregard for others. What is the difference between, “I don’t want this child because that is not my vision of me,” and the resolve of the patriarchs who will deal away with pregnant daughters that are incompatible with their vision of their family? Perhaps that the patriarch will even kill a born person, of his own blood, while an abortion mother or doctor probably wouldn’t, even if he or she kills a foetus believed not to be (fully human). But the patriarch doesn’t believe his female offspring to be fully human, either. He even thinks the fact he’s the father gives him some very special rights with regard
to his daughters that other men don’t have, as a pregnant woman can choose to abort her child, while her own murderer could even be tried for two murders. The woman decides about her body and decides that there’s no place for the new being in it. The patriarch decides that in his family, there’s no place for a misbehaving or even raped daughter.

No worries about that. I didn’t take it to heart, I just wanted to deal with the perspective. I don’t necessarily have a low view of women just because I have a low view of any justification for abortion and, yes, the motives that direct people who obtain or perform it. This is a different style of conversation from what an actual post-abortion woman or a former abortion doctor would need, as condemnation is the last thing they need and the last thing that could possibly solve anything. However, before things happen, the ideas of “liberty”, “self-determination”, social concerns, disgust (in case of rape) and other such, need to be addressed, called by their names and by their real names if real are not given.

I understand that you believe that foetus isn’t a proper human being until certain functions of the body develop, so those concerns make more sense to you than they do to me and have more merit, as well as the value of the life of the foetus is thus less absolute to you. If you actually agreed with me that the foetus is a human person and has the same right to life from the moment of conception, and you still supported the idea that it should be legal because of any kind of social concern or difficult situation, talking to you would be extremely taxing to me, even if we would seemingly be in more agreement than we are.

Sorry, but this isn’t even going to be a suggestion. While a female animal can’t really, a male animal can give consent in quite an unequivocal way, as informed as an animal can ever be of anything. If the argument about that animal’s rights falls off, and he isn’t harmed in the process, either, why ban that kind of intercourse?

The problem is that even the group of enlightened relativists (from slight inclination to extreme, not discussing the extent here) deals in absolutes. You can’t even say there are no absolutes without creating a mental one yourself. “There are no absolutes” is an absolute statement, as is “all things are relative”, which is the fundamental inherent problem with relativism. I realise that there’s a certain distance between “good and evil are mutable” and “all values are relative”, but the paradox is still just behind the corner.

I wouldn’t put a doctor to jail for that if he had been acting in good faith and there were some reason (or enough un-reason) in it. However, doctors swear certain oaths and we still have doctors even in the abortion on demand kind of business, ones specialising in abortion. I wouldn’t go to such a doctor. If oaths matter so little to him...

Stopping a population from reproducing in order to destroy it qualifies as an act aimed at destroying said population. In that sense, genocide wouldn’t be a collection of homicides, albeit still a physical action in the area of life and death.

@lesgalen:

What about saving the mother first, even if the foetus dies as a result, rather than striking at the foetus and eradicating it? Surely no other way to prevent or reduce the danger, in the first place? No amount, no kind of medicines, surgeries, therapy or care? Is there really a “black and white” situation where the mother will surely die if the foetus isn’t aborted and she will surely live if the foetus is aborted?

Correct, but that kind of job can be done by someone else than the biological mother. Therefore, when a woman talks about not being ready to bring up the child, I ask why not give it up of adoption then? Does she specifically want the child not to live, by chance, dare I ask? Whatever the reason is, a desire for the child specifically not to live is not something the lawmaker, let alone the society, should uphold.

@Aldeth:

Correct.

That’s still coming up with justifications rather than explaining why it’s a good or at least neutral thing to do to have an abortion in such a case, Aldeth. Is it ever that a single child could reduce someone from even already harsh conditions to absolute poverty? What about both having the child and still trying to finish the school, even repeating one year if necessary, and then not having sex anymore until pregnancy is no longer a disaster? I guess this solution would infringe too much on people’s right to have sex when they want... but perhaps not in your eyes. Nah, not really. At any rate, we’re dealing with an absolute here. And an absolute construct referring to uncertain future events, at that. At the same time, making an absolute of the value of the life of the foetus who is already conceived and a physical fact, is untrendy.

Good... But your argument to which I was referring wasn’t very clear. You named abortion as the best choice in an abstract category of situations, stating the pro-life side didn’t see it. I certainly am relieved to hear you don’t support even and don’t even respect that decision.

In the worst scenario compatible with your situation, she can still give the baby up for adoption after giving birth. If she prefers abortion to adoption, then she either doesn’t want pregnancy itself or doesn’t want the child physically to exist on this planet.

How so? Is one’s life destroyed by having a child in her teens or by being born to a teenage mother? I’ve come across a lot of people born to teenage mothers, often single mother, or giving birth in their teens, again, often as single mothers, even in quite harsh material circumstances. Not everyone has to be rich or have an easy life. Some time ago, teenage mothers and poverty were the norm. Besides, I still can’t really imagine having the child or at least giving birth to it and giving it up for adoption as an unconditional factor removing the chance of finishing school and having a career. I believe in welfare offered to those who need it because they can’t help it and one focused on helping with the job rather than just providing a cheque (the give a fish or teach to fish dilemma). If the intercourse was consensual, the mother made her choice before engaging in it. If this means dropping the life standard, then that’s the consequence. As for the child, it won’t have known an economically better lifestyle (and economy isn’t everything) unlike the mother, plus we can’t really say it would prefer to be aborted rather than born in poverty, let alone that that would be better. Who are we to judge such things and take lives basing on it? That’s playing god even more than categorically saying abortion is bad and shouldn’t be legal, I think.

@Amaster:

There’s a problem with plainly, first of all, because it wouldn’t need to be explained if it were so easily seen, unless the audience is blind to it, which isn’t out of the realm of possibility. Next, murder pretty much requires a decision to kill a human being, which is not always the case in abortion. Whoever thinks a foetus is as human as he is and still performs or obtains abortion for convenience based reasons gets closer to murder than some of the convicted murderers. Still, the idea of legalising aboriton because some people believe that foetus isn’t (fully) human, so it can be eradicated doesn’t really work, either. After all, racist crimes rely on believing the victim to be less human and racism isn’t a mitigating circumstance but rather an aggravating one. And I haven’t heard anyone claim that racists should therefore be punished less harshly.

I think the body argument could work without the foetus being a part of the woman’s body because even as a separate being, it’s still inside. Next, according the same status to the foetus as to the mother wouldn’t even be necessary. It doesn’t take a fully fledged citizen of the human race to have the right to life. The problem is, I think, if a woman’s personal rights are important enough to allow her to base on them decisions involving another being up to the point of eradicating it. Normally, people’s liberties end where others’ starts and the foetus is not an invader or a parasite, so there’s no question of it intruding on the woman’s body and thus having the right to exist in her womb thwarted. It’s generally believed that private humans shouldn’t have the power to decide life and death of other private people. Even animals have rights. So what with the foetus? Perhaps this is how we could describe the problem.

 

I guess a few clarifications will be necessary; I plan to bow out as gracefully as possible from this thread.

By this, I meant that while I don't privilege the well-being of the foetus over the mother in the initial stages of the pregnancy, that is not to say that it has no status at all. I don't support abortion on demand - in fact, I agree completely with Aldeth's assessment that such a casual attitude to ending a potential human life that one is capable of supporting is utterly abhorrent.

This link provides a fairly recent look at Australian law re: abortion and child destruction; I present it as food for thought rather than to provide ammunition.

Re: moral relativism - there are certain things which most (if not all) cultures and creeds see as right/good or wrong/evil. "Thou shalt not kill" is probably the strongest example. I guess my point was not well-made; my argument is that things gain their status as "good" or "evil" based on how they are viewed within any given population. They gain their moral importance and relevance through mass acceptance or rejection, not because of any inherent qualities they possess. What's morally right/wrong for me is not necessarily morally right/wrong for others; IMO, that means I have no right to impose my views on others (although you can bet I'll debate it until I'm blue in the face). I generally see recourses to absolutist dialogue about "good" and "evil" as a retreat from debate and/or as an attempt to polarise the issue - typically, they do not contribute anything towards a constructive solution, no matter who is advancing them.

I'm certain that my position may be seen as weak or morally uncertain by some - and they're perfectly entitled to think as much. In response, I would point to the fact that there is so much disagreement on the matter as prima facie evidence that debate should be encouraged, rather than stifled by absolutism - by any person, faction or group.

And now for the cheesy bit which, hopefully, will break up some of the seriousness... and which anyone who's watched Jerry Springer will recognise instantly.

[SpringerHomily]

We don't live in a perfect world. We don't always agree with those around us about what we can or should do about it. Ultimately, we have to face up to the nature of the world around us and do what we can about it. To paraphrase an oft-cited prayer, we must all strive to have the strength to change what we must, the courage to accept what cannot be changed, and the wisdom to know the difference.

While we mightn't be able to make a change immediately, we shouldn't let that stop us from working towards it as a long-term goal, or from working towards a compromise to deal with problems in the short term. It helps no-one to hold to one fixed position and refuse to budge while the world changes around you - no person is an island, particularly in today's world. Neither is it in anyone's interests to just abandon principles for the sake of current trends or philosophies. After all, the person that stands for nothing will fall for anything.

Until next time (and there will undoubtedly be a "next time"), take care of yourselves, and each other.

[/SpringerHomily]

 

chevalier: On an ideal level, most of your points were very good. But they're not realistic.

On adoption, welfare, going to the authorities to prevent honor killings, getting a job/education, I'd really like to see the wonderful country where it all works like that. Even in the most advanced places, not everybody gets those things. It's about money and resources, on the system's part.

Also, to digress just a bit here - I fail to see why you spent several paragraphs lecturing about how wrong honor killings are, as if I didn't know that. I wasn't saying we should accept them and humor the culprits, I said the exact opposite. And I provided examples of why it isn't as simple as just going to the police. Try googling to find news articles on the subject, and maybe you'll understand the circumstances a little better.

On those medical issues, unless you have a PHD (granted, I don't have one either) I'd like to know where you get your info. I've seen some of the mentioned type of cases on tv - not on ER or somesuch, but documentaries. And if the risk of a mother losing her life without abortion is more than 50%, I think carrying on with the pregnancy is nothing short of insane. Government law forcing someone in such a risky situation, to me seems just as unfair as taking the life of the foetus - or even more so since the prospect of the mother dying before childbirth likely means the end for the foetus as well.

What you said about masturbation shocked me.

Selfish act and motivated by pleasure alone, yes. But the rest? Proof, studies?

 

As for the masturbation issue, read a book called Every Man's Battle. Actually, there's a whole series, but this is the first. That's kind of off topic, though, so lets just drop it here.

 

@Susipaisti:

I wouldn't even go there with chev on the masturbation issue. I can guarantee that we have been down that road before, and he believes that it is wrong. If nothing else, chev is a man that sticks to his priniciples, and strictly follows the Catholic faith. There is likely little you can do to convince him to think alternatively about this topic. Of course, that hasn't stopped me or others in the past, so you're welcome to try.

I do not think the problem is being pregnant as a teenager, or being born to a teenage mother per se. Really, up until about 50 years ago, it was rather common for a woman to give birth to her first child prior to reaching 20 years of age. My grandmother was 19 when she gave birth to my mother, and my wife's grandmother was 19 when she gave birth to my wife's father. What I was focusing on was more of the living conditions at the time of becoming pregnant.

I am also aware of people around my age who gave birth in their teens. In every instance however, these teens came from middle-class families that were able to give a fairly large amount of assistance to the new mother. I don't think anyone can contend that having a support system in place for a new mother who actually wasn't planning on becoming pregnant could do wonders in properly caring for the child.

Poverty is a major issue on a world-wide level, even in first world nations. The problem usually is that many people are unable to rise out of poverty, albeit sometimes from conditions of their own creation. Teenage births are much more common among the poor, and it is exactly those people who are exacerbating their own situation by making it even harder to get ahead. Again, for me it's a value of life assessment. If an abortion at a young age gives this person a chance to get an education, rise out of poverty, and later have a husband and a family that can be properly provided for, that may be better than going through life as a poor single mother, both for her personally, and society at large.

All abortions require justification when you get right down to it. I think the biggest disagreement we have is not on whether or not abortion is a moral act (because neither of us do) but rather when it becomes a justifiable act (for you, almost never, for me, sometimes), which does nothing to make it more moral, good, etc. I think your analogy of killing in self-defense when no other option is available is a good one. Killing someone in such a situation does not make that action moral, good, etc., but merely makes it justifiable.

That certainly is a point of view that has merit. You're saying that it is more important to take responsibility and do the best you can to raise the child you're going to have now, even if that means having a poorer life standard and giving up a lot of other stuff. Like I said before, if it offers a chance that she gets out of poverty, finds a husband and then has a family that she can properly care for later, then I can't see it as a totally bad situation. On the other hand, she may just go and get pregnant again, and have the cycle start all over. Really, it's not possible to say how it would play out on a case by case basis.

True, but remember we were assuming that the woman came from a very poor home, and thus she wouldn't have known a better lifestyle either. At the same time, we were assuming that the mother would want a better life for her children. Don't all parents?

And I think it is here that we agree the most. Who are we to make such decisions? If the decision is on someone we don't know, and will not effect our lives, it is their decision alone, and it is they that must live with the consequences no matter what they decide.

 

Who are they to do it? What right does a mother have to kill a child? It may still be in the mother's body, but it is a seperate organism with a seperate nervous system, blood type, DNA sequence, and everything. What gives the mother the right to decide whether or not that child should live?

 

You answered your own question - it's her body - at least that's the legal reasoning behind it. If you're looking for a moral or spiritual reason, that is up to each individual to decide for themselves. This means she has that right, and since it is not your body, you have no right to prevent her from doing so.

 

I don't have any qualms with abortion.

 

Hrm... Okay, I'll gather my thoughts, post, and then sneak out quietly before anyone beats me down (just kidding!).

As to the REAL question asked, abortion should be legalized. I'm fortunate to living in Canada where blessed SCC agreed with Morgenthaler.

First of all, this masturbation topic is simply ridiculous. Only 1 sperm gets to the egg, so what are you going to do about the other million sperm that *don't* reach the egg, and still contain potential "life"? And what about female menstruation, are you going to hate that as well, because we're losing another one of our limited supply of eggs to nature's cycle?

Second of all, in terms of conception, and when is the fetus considered a human being? Sperm doesn't get to the egg until 2-3 days after sex, so the morning after pill can be used.

Rape is a good reason to get an abortion, IMO. It's been proven that violent tendencies are likely to be inherit (excluding black sheep, of course), even with adoption and the kid never knowing their biological parents. And since rape isn't consentual sex, I believe it's highly likely for it to be violent.

Also, for people who are so desensitized as to thinking abortion might become another form of sick contraception. ABORTIONS ARE TRAUMATIZING. A whole lot of females suffer from mental trauma, depression, and illness from having an abortion. To think that any female would get an abortion with no after thoughts is rather sickening. (This is generally speaking.)

Maybe one last point; say abortion is considered disgusting. A woman is fasting religiously, while pregnant, and she kills the fetus through lack of sustenance. What is the society going to do? Accuse her of manslaughter? Then you're depriving her of freedom of religion. Yet the baby has the right to live! Abortion is rarely a simple right-wrong matter. In fact, there is no right or wrong. It's whether it should be legalized and available to those who -chose- to have an abortion, not whether the law should enforce religious/moral beliefs.

 

The full court decision on the Roe v Wade case, along with then Justice William Rehnquist's dissenting opinion, can be found here. The case is actually decided on by a right of privacy. If you don't want to read the whole thing (it's quite long) the paragraph of importance that states the decision, without all the legal history and reasoning is thus:

 

Contrary to what SC says, violent tendencies have never been proven to be genetically linked. The studies that have linked it to hereditary lines have all been through one family, meaning the tendencies could just as easily be a socially learned behaviour as anything genetic. There are many children of rape out there today who have no violent tendencies at all. No study has ever been performed among them, but until that day, or a similar one, the genetic link to violence and behavior will be tennable at best.

 

IIRC, pregnant women are exempt from fasting, at least Muslims are

 

I think that Mormon women are exempt from fasting while with child. Also Diabetics are excused from this requirement. Basically anyone who cannot miss meals for health reasons is excused...

 

Same thing with Catholics. You don't have to do any type of fasting (the most notable is the omission of meat from you diet on Fridays during lent) if you are pregnant or are a child. I don't know about diabetics, but I assume they'd be OK too. I mean, you shouldn't have to do something hazardous to your health in order to follow your religion.

 

Although I could see it happening that a woman so early in her pregnancy that she doesn't yet know she's pregnant, would fast.

 

Under Normal circumstances, Mormons usually only fast for one day per month. In exceptional circumstances, they may fast longer, but this is usually personal.

 

Here we go again...

Natural order of things?! Humans disrupt the natural order of things! With our machines, our pollution, the fact that we destroy forests, etc, we are 'messing with the natural order of things.'

Chev:
You mention adoption many, many times. If everyone gave their unwanted children up for adoption, there would be a huge amount of orphans, correct? Now, there is no way that every child (or even the majority) will be adopted, and they will most likely grow up unloved. They will be horribly sad because they can't have a normal happy life with parents. It seems to me as if you feel life is important, but happiness and love isn't. Isn't the point (or one of them) to be happy and to love (and be loved)? The more orphans there are, the less likely it is they will be picked for adoption.

Now, I am not saying we should abort just to prevent the possible babies from becoming orphans, but I am just trying to understand why you advocate so strongly for life, but forget about love and joy.

There are tons of sperm, and they are regenerative. Masturbation may get rid of 'potential life,' but it replaces it at the rate of 1000 possible lives per second. So don't say that masturbation is evil because it can ruin life.

 

An arguement from Malthus still doesn't change the moral facts. True, population does grow faster than the means to support it, but that doesn't give the right to arbitrarily kill an unwanted child. The challenge then becomes fixing society so that the growing population can be supported. Again, this is a failing of government, and thus off topic...