Abortion - Views?

Remove all ads!

Not off topic, really, since many of the arguments made here are based on failings on society's part. If pro-life people used some of their resources and energy on trying to improve the adoption process for example, they'd ultimately lessen abortions.

One other thing to be noted about adoption is that most parents who adopt are wealthy and white, and they want white kids. A majority of orphans is something other than white, because of the poverty issue.

 

@NS:

I can't understand one thing: that a casual (nonchalant?) attitude is abhorrent, but ending that life for economic or family situation reasons isn't necessarily so.

And it's just an accident that "thou shalt not kill" or steal or testify false or steal people's wives is more universal than a couple of more specific rules? Doesn't it actually hint in the direction of a certain natural law, which, while not a system hard-coded in a human brain, is nonetheless a result of how nature is ordered and has developed? Some of those universal norms are present in some form already in animal communities.

By that reasoning, moral beliefs are but a moral code and there's no authority whatsoever to claim that something is permissible or not. Consequently, ethical systems and even moral canons are a matter of majority vote on the rules of engagement.

The problem with constructive solutions is that they are dehumanised calculations of convenience devoid of reference to values in favour of the universal, primitively understood liberty and pleasing the most people to the greatest degree possible or whatever perspective based on convenience it is.

Ideally, relativism means that not everyone agrees on the same values or priorities, but all too often the practice is not putting one value against another on the scale but rather convenience against values. Raising convenience to a status equal to that of a moral value is a by-product of the relativist philosophy.

It seems that in your reasoning, absolutism is a negatively charged word. This is guessing to a major extent, but it appears that, according to you, absolute values obstruct problem solving. I sympathise with the sober, practical outlook, but it leads to the dangerous conclusion that values are impractical and that responsible, sober-minded people should decide based on practical concerns rather than values. Ultimately, however, it still comes down to convenience. It's just you don't take it to such an extreme verbally and you do seem to have a sentiment for values. Admittedly, I have trouble understanding the latter part.

And there is the problem of abortion nailed. We can't change the fact the man left the woman, the woman was raped, the couple didn't want to have children, the condom broke, whatever. Making a step against life and against nature by eradicating the foetus is like lynching, like hiring a killer to get rid of a bully or corrupt politician, like backstabbing a mean superior. It is universally recognised that killing inconvenient adult people who make our lives difficult is not a solution. However, foeti are smaller, less visible, unable to defend themselves. In short, weaker. Or just simply weak. Evil relies on despising weakness and striking against it.

That pretends to be preaching but it's another calculation on who's going to win, who will succeed. That's not what morality is about. "Neither is it in anyone's interests to just abandon principles for the sake of current trends or philosophies," is but a phrase to make it look less bad, but the main idea is conveyed that interest is what really matters and principles are secondary to it.

@Susipaisti:

Realism is about seing things for what they are, without delusions. It doesn't require a degree of "reasonability", i.e. being able to sacrifice values for convenience, while looking all sad and serious and saying, "although a sad necessity, such was the only realistic solution". The point is, abortion is not a necessity and it solves nothing.

I'm not trying to tell you what you feel, but what you said was not the exact opposite of humouring honour killers. In fact, aborting the baby to prevent the despotic patriarch from hurting it and the mother is an example of such humouring. It's bowing down to the bully's threat of force and in reality, it's no opposition to his tyranny.

I doubt that. I've heard medical professors say there's never anything close to such certainty or a real necessity either to perform the abortion or allow the mother to die. Abortion strikes a rash doctor's mind as a quick and easy way of getting rid of the problem, that's how it works.

It always has that effect. I remember many things shocking me until I thought about them again.

Indulging in selfishness alone is a good way of screwing up one's personality. I don't even need to say anything about sexual addictions being quite disturbing. How is it possible to be a good spouse and parent if a person sees things from the perspective of releasing sexual tension? Someone said one needed to respect himself first in order to be able to respect others and some if that shows here: if a person is ready to treat himself as a tool of pleasure and an object, and an item, how can the person be supposed to treat others better? I don't think any male has ever experience a rise in self-esteem following masturbation. In fact, I believe contrary... By the way, have you never talked to one of those people fighting with the masturbating addiction who can't restrain it if they are left alone for too long? "Simple" porn is already addictive, how much so such a quick and easy selfish relief.

@Aldeth:

And what will abortion solve? It will give hope for the future that even if the rubber breaks again, nothing is lost yet. Give one abortion, another will be requested. I suppose legalising abortion was originally intended to save the lives of those mothers believed to be endangered by pregnancy, but nowadays it's purely a form of post-coital contraception.

But at what cost? Hmmm... would you kill a wealthy but selfish man to give his money away to a thousand people so that they could buy food?

Yes, it's impossible to predict how she will act later on and that's another reason why she shouldn't get the abortion. It's wishful thinking that she will from there on work on getting a good job and a caring husband. It's more likely that another abortion will be pursued and that she will remain in basically the same economic and social condition throughout her life.

Next, however, notice one thing: she can give the child up for adoption. Why abort?

I often end up wondering why certain women want to abort and don't want to give the child up for adoption. Unwilling to give own child away but willing to kill it before it's born? I don't buy that, it would be totally wrong and it's hard for me to imagine anyone acting on that sort of motives, except humans can be very surprising in this regard.

But there's a difference between wanting better for your children and killing them because you don't want them to share your poverty. Doesn't it ultimately come down to removing a constant reminder of self-imposed failure to provide better conditions for one's children? To avoid self-imposed shame and regret? Do I want good for my children for the good of the children or do I want good for my children to feel like a good provider? This is a harsh question but I believe relevant.

You are forgetting one thing. If Jones kills Smith, it doesn't affect our lives, either. Most serial killers, rapists, arsonist and robbers don't affect us in any direct way and still we have laws in place to deal with them. When the matter is between a mother and her child, while give it up to the mother alone? Apart from a healthy principle of letting people live their own lives in peace, there's a healthy principle that no one should be the judge of his own case.

What if it were a child born a minute ago? It would still be her own child and not NOG's, so he would have no right to prevent the mother from neonaticide, by that reasoning.

@SC:

Forgive my bluntness, but I believe you didn't read much further than the catchy keywords. I wrote a whole paragraph or two about masturbation, correct, but show me where I mentioned wasting seed even once. If my memory serves me well, the reasons I gave were different, all of them. Apart from me, only really Susipaisti mentioned and as a matter of asking what I thought about it, without giving an opinion of his own. So?

Deception is as bad as violence, so why single violence out? I wouldn't cry for any breed of rapists (including date rape kids) being barred from reproducing. However, your arguments sound like an offer of death penalty on the grounds of potential danger. Just because the child might inherit the bad traits. Where's the allegation of innocence, the benefit of the doubt, punishing only for own guilt and avoidance of collective responsibility?

Correct. Don't most of them end up wishing they hadn't had abortion? Another reason why to ban abortion.

@Aldeth (again)

Yeah, one of the biggest absurds in human history, deciding on life and death on the basis of the right to privacy.

@NOG:

Agreed.

I've heard from some. They were the last people to commit any violent act, IMHO. I am a ruthless predator myself, compared to them.

@Aldeth again:

Even being on a journey is sometimes a reason for dispensation from fast.

Concern for love and joy doesn't remove the right to life.

The reason I mention adoption so often is that some people want to eradicate the child for economic reasons without giving thought to the possibility of adoption, while adoption would be a solution to the person's problem bringing up a child, but it would require pregnancy to be carried to term.

Where did I say masturbation can ruin life?

 

@I heard that regular masturbation actually increases your sperm quality

 

chevalier, do you use cut-and-paste with your trademark response? "So we kill the fetus instead? That's called convenience. Next."

Seriously though:

In the example I gave, the purpose of the abortion wasn't fighting that type of crime. The idea was to save the woman's life in the immediate sense. You may call it "bowing down", but I acknowledge it that rooting out honor killing traditions isn't as simple as you make it sound. And don't give me "going to the police, getting a restraining order etc." Those don't work, and there are examples to prove it. Until daddy-o actually does something, the police can do two things, one of them being jack. You can't arrest let alone sentence someone for something they haven't yet done. A restraining order is easily violated. As for running away, moving to another city...without money that's pretty difficult. Tracking someone down afterwards isn't.

Rooting those traditions out is possible through education, as I stated before, but it takes time. This doesn't involve bowing down. You or anyone else didn't so much as bother thinking of alternate ways. It's pretty "convenient" to sit on that lofty perch of yours, demanding others to live by the moral high ground when it's not your life on the line.

I'm actually kind of curious as to your definition of "convenience."

As for adoption, you might take some time to study the previous posts more thoroughly, since that either isn't as simple as you make it sound. Improving the process, increasing the number and quality of orphanages and reducing the red tape involved is possible, but it can only happen slowly because of the way the system works. Unless you, me or someone else can cough up the dough to start some orphanages of our own, the only way to make a difference is trying to get the right people in charge through voting. And that's a fully *realistic* notion.

On medical reasons:

Have you ever heard of heart conditions? The type where the heart can't endure great stress, let alone surgical operations, without failing? Also it should be noted that not every county has an advanced public healthcare system. That means that even if a particular complication is surmountable, it requires extensive (read: expensive) operations that not everybody can afford. Abortions are relatively cheap. Sad, but that's the way it is.

Racing off topic here, but on masturbation:

There are a great deal of things that people do all the time for selfish pleasure alone. Computer games come to mind, ever played those? Does watching tv or reading novels screw up one's personality?

Why are you assuming masturbation means treating one's self as a tool or object? Maybe some people do, but it's quite a generalization. People can fantasize about healthy, loving acts.

Is the only function and purpose of sex having children? What about a guy who shoots blanks, isn't him having sex with his wife a selfish act on both their part, 'cos it's motivated by pleasure alone?

Edit: since the last bit is so blatantly off-topic I'm perfectly willing to drop the masturbation issue no matter what your response.

[ October 24, 2005, 00:13: Message edited by: Susipaisti ]

 

Ah, sorry, it seemed to me that you implied it when you said that "sperm was potential." Apparently you didn't mean that.

 

Susipaisti hit a very sore point about adoption. If I, as a white woman, got pregnant and decided to put my child up for adoption, I would likely be contacted within a day of making my decision public.

This frequently isn't so with non white women. If the woman makes the decision early, she has a better chance of adopting out her child, but that chance sharply decreases after the baby's birth.

So far, I have never heard an arguement in favor of banning abortions that wasn't religious in origin. so I maintain my opinion that it should not be made illegal.

 

If we are discussing abortion on demand with no restricts I have to disagree with this statement:

My views are not based on some religious morality but the fact that once the foetus becomes scientifically a human it should have human.rights.

 

Just when I thought I was out... they drag me back in. Is this about the global mod vote? (just kidding, Chev!)

FYI - the homily was an attempt to insert a slight joke into the thread while summarising my views and bowing out. It wasn't meant to be taken too seriously; if you're familiar with The Jerry Springer Show, it's possibly a bit funnier/sillier/more deserving of the IotW plaque.

As I've said - I don't see this as being quite so black-and-white as you, Chev. There is a huge difference between "excusable" and "justifiable". Because I recognise that abortion is never a "good thing", it falls into the first category; something which, ideally, should not happen, but which is not totally reprehensible under those circumstances.

Where you see God, I see mutual benefit shaping interaction. It hints in the direction of order, yes; however, it's much more about how you interpret it. The relationships in predatory species, arachnids and some other organisms is so different from this that it cannot be viewed as evidence of an "intended morality of nature", IMO. However, we're markedly off-topic, so I'll stop here.

Yes and no. There is no natural reason why certain moralities and informal rules of behaviour are as they are. There are good natural reasons not to kill each other, or steal from each other, or lie to each other - but if they were "natural rules", would they be broken at all? Would it even be necessary to enunciate them? Yes, of course they would - any code which limits one's actions will inevitably be transgressed, but the response/punishment is inevitably a matter of consensus, negotiation and/or arbitration.

It's not as rigid or formal as perhaps I have suggested; what matters is adherence to a moral code or codes, rather than swearing a formal allegiance to them. Ultimately, I see much more evidence of a negotiating process than an inevitable, natural set of standards handed down from Heaven. That's just me, though.

To don my best cynical hat: what makes any one code objectively right or wrong, or worth following? I would argue that circumstance dictates the code you begin with, and that your own faculties and reasoning determine what moralities you subscribe to after that. Many people don't believe at 10 what they believe at 40; some find truth in their original code all their lives.

Again, though, we're a fair distance from abortion. Well, sort of. It's relevant, but not directly.

Hang on... how did you come to that conclusion? "Constructive solutions", as I have put them, are by definition inclusive, yes; they also have at their heart a desire to have the greatest benefit for the greatest number, and taking into account the opinions of everybody. Regarding abortion, that "calculation" does include the children who may be born (or at least, it should).

I could understand the allegations of reducing morality to convenience more readily if I were a fanatical pro-choicer who favoured abortion on demand at any time. However, just about everyone on this thread would agree that (1) abortion is ultimately undesirable, and (2) that reducing the number of situations where abortion is a consideration is a desirable outcome. Certainly, we should not only be concerned with convenience; to do so would make us automata. However, if there was no critical appraisal of the "rightness" of human action or existing doctrine, behaviour would be dictated by dogma, not influenced in any way by necessity or reality.

Of course, the point at which "necessity" or "reality" may override standard principles in abortion is probably the most contentious matter in this debate. In my opinion, it's a case-by-case matter for individual consideration; I'm not in favour of blanket absolution for such serious matters without having all the information.

Absolute values present an obstacle to a practical solution, yes; it is absolutism, of any kind, which obstructs problem solving by denying options without consideration. That isn't to say that we should go for a wholly amoral, convenient solution; far from it. (Un)fortunately, abortion is not a binary, linear issue: it is more than just yes/no, and it has wider implications than a yes/no decision.

To be blunt, I would contend that values are impractical, almost by definition. However, that means that a pragmatic approach to a morally-contentious issue is (or should be) a course in devising a solution which accommodates morals and principles, rather than trampling on or ignoring them. I feel that we should not seek wholly practical solutions, but neither should we necessarily be straight-jacketed by arbitrary conventions.

If the value which you see at stake is a foetus' right to life, then I can understand your concerns. After all, it's hardly arbitrary and has ramifications for all people's rights. I do not see it as being quite so straightforward and am somewhat trapped between two imperatives, hence my preference for negotiation when attempting to reach a solution to be applied in law. Ultimately, those who disagree will do as they please anyway, although perhaps that's just my cynicism talking.

(Can anyone tell that I'm a public servant?)

Re: Springer homily...

Either I have worded the statement poorly or you have misunderstood it, Chev. This statement was (1) intended as a bit of a light-hearted piss-take, rather than necessarily preaching to people, and (2) the long-term and short-term solutions I refer to are as follows:

Long-term - minimise the incidence of abortion and institute appropriate educative, support, welfare and assistance mechanisms so that "economic need" does not become entrenched as part of an "abortion calculation" (for want of a better term) for potential mothers.

Short-term - address the current situation while setting up the long-term strategy; this is the heart of the abortion debate, but I firmly believe that criminalising the practice will contribute nothing to the desired long-term goal.

Call me crazy for saying it, but I honestly believe that for the most part, we're not disagreeing about abortion, Chev. Pardon me for presuming to speak for you, but neither of us sees it as desirable and ideally, and we would both like to see it become a non-issue. In that sense, it's not so much about winning or losing as it is about what we believe is a goal. What differs, and what brings us into conflict here, is our reasoning.

Despite my somewhat relativist position, I do not believe that morals or principles are unimportant. They can be impediments to the most effective course of action, certainly; however, there are options which are "effective" but utterly unconscionable.

A wholly moral or wholly practical approach is, in my opinion, unacceptable in this setting. One denies the modern reality of existence, the other denies the basic importance of all human life. Irresistible force, immovable object, and probably rightly so.

[ October 24, 2005, 08:44: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

@ Chev. I agree that the right to privacy was not the best reason to give for allowing abortion. If you read through that link, you will actually find three opinions: The majority opinion, the dissenting opnion, and the concurring opinion. The concurring opinion was written by a justice that favored the decision, but not for the reasons given by the majority. It is his response that seems most reasonable, at least for me. It notes that the laws regarding abortion in Texas were virtually unchanged from those initially enacted in teh 1850s. At that time, an abortion was a very dangerous procedure for a woman that placed her life in great jeopardy. As any government has an obligation to provide for the safety of its people, it is reasonable to enact such a law.

However, in more than the century since the law's origin, medical technology advanced considerably. As it turned out, the chances of having complications (or dying) during an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy was now significantly less than the chance of dying from complications of carrying the baby to term. There was no "right to life arguement" when the law was created. The law was enacted to protect the health of the pregnant woman. The concurring opinion argued that the law should be stricken from the books because it no longer provided for the very cause it was enacted to mitigate.

 

If your going to get into the laws and the supreme court decision, the only thing I can see making sense is to say that the constitution, as all supreme court decisions must be based on these issues, leaves the right to decisions to the states, since abortion isn't mentioned in the constitution. As such, the supreme court must uphold the state law, regardless of which way it goes. If there are other issues around the law, it's religiously biased, it oppresses freedom of speech, etc., those can be debated. The supreme court, however, was made to uphold the constitution and to resolve questions about it. This right to privacy thing is .

 

But NOG, there are "implied" laws in the constitution as well. It is well established that in order for the 9th and 14th amendment to have any real teeth, a right to privacy must exist. In fact, the 9th amendment giving the person the right to not have to endure unreasonable searches and seizures, is by definition, a right of privacy. You can argue that it is to include abortion under the right to privacy umbrella, however:

is also complete . If the right to privacy as been established as being inherent in the wording of the Constitution, then by dint of its very nature it is a Constitutional issue and one that can be ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Not every federal issue requires an amendment to the Constitution to make it reviewable by the Supreme Court.

Look at the docket of Supreme Court cases in 2005. You may be suprised by how few of them are debating an issue explicitly stated in the Constitution. Why you ask? Because anything explicitly stated in the Constitution is very difficult to legally challenge. It's the stuff that's in the gray area - what you refer to as - that is actually reviewed by the Supreme Court.

 

@Susipaisti:

Yeah, it fits well and rarely gets a response.

That's the same as euthanising people who are on a mafia boss' to do list.

You can't even steal your dreaded potential killer's gun and you'd like it to be legal to kill other beings to avoid a potential mostly imaginary honour killing?

No, the real convenient solution is to kill the foetus and say "end of story".

Whatever is profitable for the person or persons desiring such a course of action.

Sorry, but you could use the same argument to introduce death penalty for all convicts because prison conditions are tough.

Should someone truly be able to conceive but not to give birth (by whatever method including Caesarean), such a person shouldn't have sex, period. You could bring up the argument that such people can still be raped and impregnated, but that still wouldn't deal away with the foetus's right to life. Ultimately, you could mention a hypothetical situation in which abortion would save the mother while carrying it to term would kill both. But there's never such certainty and there are methods of saving the mother without striking at the child. Sometimes the tube needs to be removed, with the foetus dying as a result, though not a directly procured one. My description is deficient because of my lack of expertise in the medical field, but there are such surgeries.

... For pleasure. Even masturbating with the image of the most lawfully wed spouse in mind is an act of reducing said person to a stimulus in getting off and making oneself feel good. Besides, the very idea feels so odd and low. It isn't how things are supposed to be done. But if you want more discussion of it, make a separate thread, please.

@Stefanina:

http://www.l4l.org/
http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/pub-thelib-01.html
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/
http://www.compleatheretic.com/pubs/letters/980711.html
http://www.gargaro.com/abortion/atheist.html
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
http://www.feministsforlife.org/
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/environmentalistsforlife
http://www.fflny.org/
http://prolife.liberals.com/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8383/phi.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8383/
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/PunxForLife/index.html
http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/atheism.html

@NonSequitur:

I'm beginning to understand. If I get it right, you believe it's always a wrong thing to do but the guilt doesn't always fall on the could have been parents, therefore they shouldn't automatically be punished for it. Next, by analogy with the fact that self-defence or dire necessity acts can't be disallowed, you would like to keep abortion legal as a last resort sort of option. I would agree so far as not to punish the mother or the doctor in some extremely sophisticated tough situations. However, it's not enough for me to want abortion legal. Overall, keeping abortion entirely illegal would still do less harm than keeping it legal, even if I were to recognise the legitimacy of any reason to take away the foetus's life. That I can't do, as I don't believe there's ever a right to kill, dire necessity doesn't excuse it, self-defence doesn't apply.

There's more to it than an agreement on rules to follow and consequences of breaking them.

Then what sense talking about right or wrong at all? Isn't the best option to do whatever is convenient and dress it up as a moral action?

Erm. But what about the ranks of the benefits? Is financial welfare of a million people worth the killing of one? Is solving the social problems of a whole nation worth killing one of its children on purpose in consciousness?

The child's?

And someone else decides it's better for the child to die than to make his family poorer?

One breed of fanatical pro-choicers tends to believe foetus isn't human, so in their own minds, they are in favour of getting rid of a lump of cells. To some, it's like getting rid of a parasite (which is a living creature, after all) or even an internal matter of one body. Thus, it doesn't carry any moral dilemma, so there's no room for bowing to convenience. What you say would be true of pro-choicers who either believe the foetus is a separate human being or don't care.

I understand what necessity means here but reality? Not being swayed off practical outlook by impractical values? Keeping it real?

Let me turn the table and ask what makes you believe that the foetus should live and abortion should never occur?

That or obstinately refusing to recognise a convenient decision as moral after filling a sufficient quota of deliberation and regret?

On the practical level, yes, but I'm not sure about the other side of it. I may have more insight after reading your reply to this post.

Correct, though we do have a couple of different premises, not just a different way of coming to our conclusions. But yes, it seems to be close. You don't sound pro-choice at all, or only in a minimal degree. I could think of pro-lifers who would agree with you.

I don't believe in morals as ceremonial rules designed to make us feel neat about ourselves. That would be masturbatory morals. What I don't accept is the idea that circumstances, modern or old, change the moral value of striking against other people. I understand the importance of current circumstances whatever they are, but I refuse to play the modern game; modernity or not is not a moral concern. Modernity, reality, are often magical words disconnected from any substance and aimed towards making certain ideas more palatable.

 

Hasn't this thread go on long enough? Everything that needs to be said has been said...


But, just for the heck of it:

Now, I am not sure where the quote that Chev commented on came from, but if it was talking about the pre-birth 'child', then it doesn't have opinions, and even if it did, it can't voice them yet. Of course, my comment means nothing if it was talking about an already born child.

 

Chev,

You're pretty much spot-on about my reasoning. My support for early abortion and medical emergency abortion is derived from a position that does not hold the rights of a developing foetus over a woman's right to self-determination until that foetus is viable/sufficiently developed. Of course, I still think that a very good reason should be driving any decision to request an abortion. It shouldn't be a spur-of-the-moment decision, because it is a potential human life. You can lump me in with the "safe, legal and rare" pro-choicers.

Heh... I'd contend that that's exactly what happens a lot of the time with a lot of people, and not necessarily as a rational calculation. Then again, I'm a cynical person at the best of times. IMO, it just depends on whether one's actions are shaped and directed by one's morals, or vice versa.

As regards abortion, I still don't see how the charge of "reducing morality to convenience" sticks. I have already explained the "excusable versus justifiable" issue, but it's not about guilt or culpability (well, not for me, at least). Yes, there is a moral dilemma here for those who share my perspective; it is how that dilemma is handled which matters most to me. If it was just about convenience, I would be much more radically pro-choice than I am and would certainly not be advocating an approach which attempted to strike a balance or a compromise (hence my anti-absolutism).

By "reality", I'm referring to one's total situation, including necessities alongside other, less vital circumstances. For some, that situation and the options to be investigated will be determined largely by their values; for others, by practicalities; for still others, by having to weigh up both.

Off-topic: I've always found it funny that when people say "keepin' it real", they usually mean "being really fake".

A fair question. If someone has the ability and means (including but not limited to financial) to raise and support a child, and if the foetus has the capacity to survive outside the womb or could be safely carried to term by the mother, then I believe they have a moral responsibility as regards that foetus/baby. This is the situation in which, I believe, abortion should not be occuring. I realise that it's a little nebulous.

I'm not radically pro-choice. I contend that abortion should be a last-resort option, that it is an unfortunate reality which must be confronted as the serious matter that it is, and that it is not a recent development (the technologies involved have made it safer for the mother, whereas previously it was a potentially life-threatening procedure). Ultimately, that choice should be in the hands of the mother, since it is her life and her body which are most affected. I wouldn't encourage abortion, but neither would I discourage it if I thought it was a choice requiring consideration.

I would gladly live in a world where contraceptive methods (including abstinence) were 100% employed and 100% effective, and where abortion was just a memory. Since that world doesn't exist, we have to deal with the one we have and do what we can to make it more like that ideal setting.

Sometimes, yes - I've worked in a humanities faculty at university and know precisely what you mean! I'm not in favour of change for its own sake, or to keep up with the fashionable attitudes of the moment. I'm sure that you can see the flip side of that coin as well as any of us, Chev; while I don't see any point in spurious change, neither do I see a point in holding to my position irrespective of what's going on around me.

 

I find this stuff and reading other people's arguments interesting.

I'm very tempted to get into masturbation again, but I'll restrain myself. Umm...you know what I mean.

chevalier, yet again:

Not quite...more like euthanising *one* person on the list to prevent a total of *two* people on it from dying.

If you googled "honor killings" you'd find this kind of stuff isn't as imaginary and as easily prevented as you think.

And stealing a gun? Seriously? Who exactly would steal it? And just so you know, punches and kicks are just as lethal when given the opportunity. And you didn't really present a way to prevent that opportunity.

I at no point said it's the "end of story." The "end of story" would be rooting out the insane tradition through education, and this I mentioned. Also I mentioned it takes time - more time than it takes for the pregnancy to show. An abortion in such a case would buy the woman time. "At the cost of the life of the fetus", you may say, and we've come full circle again.

Your definiton of convenience doesn't quite fit the above example or the ones about medical complications.

Since the question of life and death doesn't equal "profit", the real point of debate is whether said examples truly are questions of life and death. You said:

A C-section is included - it's a major operation and quite taxing on the heart. I've also read about structural problems in a woman's anatomy - a birthing canal being too small. Also the money issue, which you didn't care to comment: in certain places, even if the complications can be treated, you can't *get* the treatment without loads and loads of cash.

But since you already stated to above scenarios that "that still wouldn't deal away with the foetus's right to life", I could just ask: Does it deal away the *mother's* right to life? Why is the child more important than the mother? Have you considered that if the mother dies before childbirth, the baby is highly likely to die anyway?

Again, not quite. If I had said we should kill orphans to make comfier rooms for new ones, what you said would hold. I suggested ways of improving the adoption process and orphanages, something no other here has done, and abortion wasn't on that list.

I'll also give you a response on the convenience thing. You see, the word also covers laziness - taking the easy, passive path as opposed to the path of actively attempting to better the world.

Have you ever been involved in a charity attempting to start or improve orphanages? Have you participated in an address or somesuch directed at a country's politicians and requesting the legislation on adoption be changed? Have you taken part in an education program to teach the poor and uneducated on how to use contraceptives or how to give children away to adoption? Have you thought about going to politics yourself and trying to make some changes? Have you done anything else, even remotely along the same veins?

If not, all you've done is wear out your fingertips passing judgement on others (anonymously, I might add), which is the easiest thing in the world to do. This fits the definion of convenience pretty well. You've taken the convenient path, as opposed to trying to provide working alternatives for people who see none besides abortion. In that case, I don't see how you're better than those that you claim care for convenience alone.

I'll readily admit I've done none of the things I mentioned. I've taken the convenient path. And I admit it. That's why I'm not so quick to use that word of others. I won't throw the first stone, as they say.

 

@NonSequitur:

First, I don't buy the right to self-determination in any way shape of form. No one has ever had the right to determine himself by taking away from other people. Not even property, let alone life. Incidentally, I believe the pro-choice liberal movement tends to acquire a whole new lot of absolutism when it switches from conceived life to tangible property. Off-topic: Heck, in the world where robbery is a bigger crime than rape...

Next, I believe having means to support a child is totally irrelevant. Can't support? Give up for adoption. Don't want to give up? Hard to let go? There are people who would kill their children rather than give away, but that's not love. And certainly not a right that should be protected by the law.

I tend to believe that the "rare" part of "safe, legal and rare" serves to appease pro-lifers by coming off as a compromise. It's good to save few people if you can't save all, but it's never licit for a pro-lifer to take a small bow in the liberal direction and allow a couple of abortions just to show good will and come off less adamant.

I don't think you do yourself a great service adscribing to the pro-choice denominator. Pro-choice basically means believing that a woman has the right to choose if she wants the baby after it's been conceived and it seems to me that you don't agree with that view. IMHO a pro-choicer who says it's a woman's right and the child's personhood doesn't matter might as well already legalise neonaticide.

As for her body and her life, I can empathise with the long term "her life" part but certainly not with "her body" part. She doesn't like the idea of pregnancy for nine months, so we should allow her to eradicate a human entity? That sounds so selfish. It's very hard for me to imagine a woman thinking that, even if I've heard such voices in reality.

You're obviously right on it not being reasonable to pursue change for its own sake or stick to old things for the sake of sticking. Still, what's there to change in the basic directive not to kill another human? Once the baby is recognised as a human, there's no room for solutions involving the killing of it.

Let me come back for a moment to what you said earlier about babies able to survive outside the womb. If the baby is able to survive outside the womb (I was born two months early myself, know people born much earlier than this), it's basically neonaticide for the woman, homicide for doctors. When the reason is self-determination (don't want a baby), it's plain murder.

Last but not least, it's going to sound blunt, but it seems to me that the belief that the baby is already a human entity and a real, not potential life lingers in you. From what you say, it does show that it's nothing like a lump of cells for you, that it already is something and that you stick to abortion rights for the sake of the mother's liberty rather than any belief that pertains to the foetus. I would only like to mention that one person's rights end where another one's begin and that power doesn't give right. I'm curious what you will think in ten years from now, after much more deliberation and many more discussions.

 

Chev,

You seem to believe that being "pro-choice" implies a belief that it's a person's right to kill a foetus. If that were the case, "pro-choice" would necessarily mean "in favour of abortion at any stage". I have stated, time and time again, that this is not the case. I have also put forward my belief that a foetus does not qualify as a human life until it has developed considerably from its initial status as a clump of cells.

As such, I hold the view that a zygote does NOT have a right to life, but that there is a moral responsibility to bring it to term, external factors (including health risks) notwithstanding. You may be content with a position which condemns pre-marital sex as a starting point; I believe that is avoiding the real issue. IMO, it's not quite masturbatory morality, but it's not far off.

The "rare" comment is neither a cop-out nor pandering to pro-lifers. While I think the ideologues on both sides are utter nutjobs, the pro-lifers have a very good point - that it's not only about what the woman wants, and that we are talking of terminating a potential life. I've never pretended to be seeking anything other than a compromise. However, there are (in my opinion) acceptable reasons for seeking or requiring an abortion, and backyard abortions and other self-induced methods are very dangerous and traumatic. I would much rather the process be safe and legal. Having friends who've gone through the process, I'd like to see as few people as possible having the procedure, but knowing that it is something which can be done without fear of prosecution or excessive mental, physical or psychological trauma.

The "her body" argument is not about appearance or the consequences of pregnancy (or at least, it shouldn't be - vanity isn't a sufficient reason for abortion, IMO). It ties back into the "her life" issue and is part and parcel of it. I can see how easily that can be misread, though. I don't like to view this issue in terms of rights; for me, being "pro-choice" is more about providing options than engaging in a rights contest, because I see it as being much more ethically complex than a rights-based dialogue would require.

And to that, I can only repeat what I have said earlier about when I recognise a foetus as having "human" rights. Yes, it's a potential human organism from conception; I don't grant it "full status", for want of a better term, until a later stage in the pregnancy. I don't support late-term or partial birth abortions except in situations of dire medical emergency, and even then, only when other options to save both lives have been exhausted or are impossible.

I don't mind the blunt assessment, Chev - but I disagree (yes, I'm sure you're utterly shocked ). Of course it's not just a lump of cells; as I've said, it's potentially a human being, and one for which the parents are largely responsible (at least morally). However, I don't believe that a potential human being should automatically and from conception override the rights of an existing one. I'm not just clinging to a principled liberal position; I honestly believe that it's a difficult issue with far-reaching implications and multiple valid considerations. In my opinion, those need to be balanced, and I would prefer considered, deliberate responses rather than a rights-based dialogue (hence my initial comments in my first post) and/or ideological/religious absolutism.

 

It is surprising how this will fall upon deaf ears when it is not convenient or comfortable to someone...

 

I agree Gnarff. In fact, I can think of only one explanation that is religious in nature. That would be if you feel that from the moment of conception, a fertilized egg has a divine soul. You do not have to believe in the existence of a soul however, to recoginze a fertilized egg as a potential human life. The two are separate conceptions. So I quite readily agree that one does not have to revert to any religious doctrine in order to be pro-life.

 

It is natural for all humans to value 'human life'. The restrictions of this value are learned, and some are appropriate, and many do have religious (all beliefs about the supernatural, souls, afterlife, etc., even if only that they don't exist) bases. The valuing, however, does not.