Abortion

Remove all ads!

I have no idea about this subject, there are many good arguments for and against it on these boards, and you all seem to be very sure. I have no idea what is the right thing. Thankfully, I will never have to face this decision.

 

Sprite, I don't think the analogies are flawed at all.

Regarding #2, we can easily suppose that the man is dependent upon the person with the kidney. In a way he in the given analogy already, if he doesn't get the kidney he dies. Therefore, he is dependent upon the man with the kidney. You may say, "but there are other kidneys out there." I'd say, fine, imagine then that the guy is at the end of his rope, has very difficult organs to match, the guy next to him has those organs, and the odds of them popping up anywhere else are slim to non-existent. Change it to a heart transplant or something more difficult to match if you'd like, the principle is the same.

Regarding #3, again I think the specifics are being paid too much attention to. Change the disease from Tay-Sachs to a disease which has a 5 year life expectancy, or a 10 year, or a 2 year etc. It doesn't really matter, the point is that resorting to the idea that in the one instance I mentioned you would view it as euthenasia avoids the issue. If a woman's life is threatened and the child's life expectancy isn't great (but it may be 5,10,15 years or as little as 1 etc whatever to fit your view) the mother must either abort or die herself. If a fetus has a full right to life then she is taking the right from the fetus.

After 7 years of thinking about it I'm pretty firmly convinced that if you believe a fetus has a full right to life then you are committed to the above. The reason is that when something has the right to life it may not be taken without either consent, forfeit(possibly), or justification. Self preservation might be justification in the instance of a direct threat, but with the example of above the threat is indirect not direct -- it is the cervical cancer not the pregnancy that would result in the mother's death. Under such circumstances by the way many Jews believe that their religion would REQUIRE an abortion.

I don't believe that the only way to justify the stance that abortion is immoral is to believe the fetus has a right to life. But it is undoubtedly the strongest way to justify that stance. One might reasort to some utilitarian justification but that is far less compelling and the conclusions are always highly speculative.

Also, I'll say it again because Sprite brought it up -- I do NOT assume the fetus is not alive, I assume that it is. It certainly isn't dead. HOWEVER, the mere fact that something is alive doesn't mean it has the right to life. Otherwise everytime you cut the lawn there is a genocide of unprecedented proportion.

This idea that abortion is wrong because people need to accept responsibility for their own actions sounds a bit to me like the old crowd favorite : "the slut deserves it." Again, if you go back to my broken arm example you could argue that I just need to be responsible for my actions and accept the broken arm.

I also a highly skeptical of the assertion that abortion always resolts in mental anguish for the mother etc. Sprite, I have no doubt that this is your heartfelt belief. However, since your abortion experience centers around your work in a Pro-Life agency I wonder if your experiences are unrepresentative. I know girls who have had abortions, I have a few close friends, and I have never witnessed the unmitigated anguish described. Perhaps my friends simply hide it from me. However, if it is such a harrowing experience I wonder about those who chose it many times. I also wonder about whether the anguish is over something done or whether if they didn't see people always calling them murderers, immoral etc., much like some in this thread have called them, they wouldn't be in a much healthier mental state. In other words, they might well be okay but for people yelling "murderer!" at them and causing doubt and subsequent anguish.

Math, I believe your question regarding heroes was addressed to me. I'm not certain what you were getting at but here is a response: yes, not only can I imagine but I'm well aware of many heroes who have shed their blood for freedom.

And here is the crux of the issue in my opinion, and I'll draw on support from an unlikely source, one that many pro-lifers view as a champion of their cause -- Chief Justice Rehnquist. If you read the dissents of Rehnquist in the abortion cases he feels that there are reasonable arguments on each side. I concur, I feel there are many reasonable arguments on each side and it isn't nearly as cut and dry as many like to believe it is. Given then that reasonable people can come to opposite conclusion, he argues that it should be left up to the states to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to make abotion legal. I disagree with this last sentiment for reasons I'm sure you can sympathize with Sprite. I find that I am something of a libertarian. Where reasonable people can arrive at opposite conclusions on a matter of moral uncertainty, I believe the individual must make that determination for herself.

I wish also to address something Jack Funk rejected in an offhand manner earlier. That is the use of scare tactics. I used to attend a Catholic school with grades 7-12. When I was in the grade 10 the entire school was gathered to be fed anti-abortion propaganda by a woman who went around specializing in just that. A large screen at the front of the gymnasium was placed and this woman in her soft voice began describing in great detail some of the procedures regarding abortion, with the help of graphic slides. I got up and left, was told I must return, refused and told the principal he should be ashamed of himself for showing that to 7th graders and was suspended. Since then I've become interested in the abortion debate, FWIW I'm the only one in my family who really is, I wasn't indoctrinated into the debate. I made a point of studying it in depth in college. There is only one thing I feel incredibly strongly about in this debate and that is that these type of scare tactics, subjected upon small children, is deplorable. It seems to suggest to me that some feel they are incapable of convincing others through rational discourse and so they resort to the closest thing to a sword they can find.

Anyone seen the movie "Citizen Ruth?" A great, great film about the abortion infighting. Ruthlessly criticizing both sides. A good bit of dark comedy as well. Laura Dern plays in it and it's a very worthwhile movie.

 

Laches,

I have reread each of my posts and do not know what you are talking about.

 

This is what I was talking about, if that isn't what you meant I appologize but stand behind the substance of what I said.

 

Kinda striking that most arguments against abortion are based in religious beliefs. Please don't say they're not, just read back up the posts.

For the few who find that on moral grounds, NOT based on religion, they feel abortion is wrong, I can respect your point of view, I just do not subscribe.

I go with the perspective of life effectively starting at birth. I *know* there is a heart beating before that, please do not think me devoid of knowledge of human biology, but I think life is made up of our experiences, love we have given and received, people we have interacted with etc.

I find it morally right therefore to place the decission with the mother who may not be in a position to bring up a child in her current situation. There are many reasons for this, certainly not all financial. It is not an easy choice, and heaping guilt is sure not helping the matter.

Abortions will happen since there are people in circumstances where bringing into it a child is not a good option. They will have a termination regardless of the legallities, so therefore, it must be kept legal. Take Ireland as a shining example of Catholic democracy very close our shores here in the UK. I believe the only way to have a legal abortion in Ireland (where of course birth control measures were also banned until relatively recently), is on medical grounds. So what is a desperate young woman to do? Throw herself in front of a car so that she'll be x-rayed in hospital, which allows abortion as the x-rays may have a damaging effect on the foetus? Do not think I jest, it's happened over there. Young girls have killed themselves this way when they were only trying to get injured. Not a regular thing I'm sure, but I find it reprehensible to treat people in such a way that in order for them to go on living they have to threaten their own life like this.

Quality of life for the potential mother is more important to me than bringing unwanted children into this world. Whatever the reson for that choice as long as it is freely made.

 

hmmm...

well, as long as abortion doesn´t go "OOPs, forgot condom, oh well, lets just ask the doctor to stick a plier up in there and there and remove the troublesome parasite"

 

An interesting point of view, and one which I share. However, sometimes if the couple lacks the economic or maturity needs to nurture the child, they will choose abortion over adoption.

On the same token, who are we to infallibly predict a child's destiny? Just because the child may be physically or mentally handicapped does not mean that it will suffer all through their lives. While I have met many handicapped people who did, I have met equally as many who did not.

For those who choose to engage in premature sexual activities, sure. There is another alternative though, and that is to wait to have sex until you are ready to have a child. No cause, no consequence.

I agree with people being able to choose if they want to have children. However, I'd say that if they were engaging in intercourse, then they are mature enough to be aware of and be willing to face the consequences.

Question: Who put the woman in that situation? She knew what some of the possible things that alcohol/drugs can cause you to do, yet she chose to use them anyway. While I'm not preaching drug prevention, I don't see that as a valid excuse.

On the other side of the coin, yes, it could produce a handicapped fetus. Does that mean that the baby does not have a right to exist? Does that automatically mean that the child will be nothing but a drain of society's resources? No, and we should not treat it as such.

On the "we are meant to suffer" thing, I agree that simply because the baby is going to have a hard life is not a valid reason for going for the abortion. Does that mean that it is morally wrong to "pull the plug" on someone in the hospital because his only existance is suffering? No, because he will have a say in whether he wants to live on suffering or die. The fetus gets no such option. How would you like having someone else decide whether you live or die? I, for one, would not.

For all of those who preach for seperation of church and state, religion plays no role in this. Especially because different faiths have different beliefs. If your religion tells you something that society allows is wrong, you don't engage in it. Telling someone that doesn't believe in your god what your religion says to be true is something that they will not listen to.

Good point, BTA. If he was aborted just because he would have a hard life, think of how much less knowledge and technology that we would have in the world today.

Breaking your arm in a pure accident and being promiscuous are two entirely different things. Is there a possibility that when you wrecked the arm would have been broken anyway? Sure. Are you constantly running around breaking your arms then seeking treatment for it? No, and if you were I'd say live with it. Was being in the accident something that you purposefully did? No. It's an entirely different concept and fault.

[ December 05, 2002, 20:33: Message edited by: Rastor ]

 

Not really Rastor, you don't purposely become pregnant (in this example), you purposely had sex. You didn't purposely break your arm, you did drive without your seatbelt on knowing the risk though on purpose.

I wonder how many of all pro-life people that feel abortion is immoral also feel pre-marital sex is. The taboo associated with sex is in my opinion tied closely to the issue.

 

Laches,

I am not going to dance with you. I don't believe I was being dismissive. I don't agree with scare tactics. When you use scare tactics, you lose credibility. Which appears to have happened to the "educators" (my quotes) that you were exposed to. However, scare tactics are often one of the first things mentioned (that and killing doctors) as if extreme behavior from the anti-abortion side invalidates the argument against abortion. When someone brings up personal experience with this kind of behavior, I believe it is useful to discuss. It obviously had an impact on you.
One day, about 10 years ago, I went to my mailbox and found a post card displaying a full color photo of an aborted baby. I was shocked, disgusted, and outraged. I couldn't believe that people who claim to be concerned about the welfare of children could do something so callous and potentially damaging (imagine a 10 year old getting the mail that day).
So I believe that we are on the same side on this issue. I apologize for being oblique.

 

Laches, we are clearly crossing wires on the analogy thing but I'm too tired to get into it. As for the fact that my experiences were "biased" somehow because I'm pro-life and so are the other people who worked at the clinic helping deal with "unwanted" pregnancies, I just can't understand that point. Do you think that only pro-life girls came to us? All they knew is that we were there to help them, whatever they chose, and we did. The ones that had abortions usually were saddened about it. The ones who put their babies up for adoption, or were helped to raise the babies themselves, usually found joy. What does the personal beliefs of the people who helped them have to do with anything? Do you think we made the ones who *did* have abortions feel guilty? Not at all. They usually felt more terrible afterwards, all by themselves, than any human being ever should. And if they wanted to come back and cry about it afterwards - which they usually did - we certainly didn't say "I told you so". And I have friends who have had abortions too, and the most positive thing any of them have ever said about it was, "It was probably the right thing to do at the time". Not one of them, ever, said it made them happy, whereas I don't know one mother who ever looked at her baby and said, "gosh, I wish I'd had an abortion". I can't explain why all the women you know are so different from all the women I know. (edit: a sentence deleted).

(edit: this part is not directed at Laches, but at people on both sides of the abortion debate) My experience is, a girl who comes in off the street asking for an abortion, usually frightened and poor, will change her mind immediately if the man who impregnated her, or her parents, offer to take her in and help her. Most of the time they'll change their minds if non-judgmental people who have nothing to do with the pregnancy offer to take her in and help her. So what I am saying to people on both sides of the abortion debate is: by telling a girl her pregnancy is a curable disease she has the "right" to "choose" to end, you aren't helping her. If you are telling her she is a murderer you aren't helping her either. The first question shouldn't be, is abortion right or wrong, but, WHY do you want to do this? Can I help make your life better so that this baby is a miracle instead of a heartache? You'd be amazed how often the answer is yes, you can help me, please do. So instead of blabbering about what is "right or wrong" for another person to do, start finding out why she is so terrified of having this baby, and help her start dealing with those problems instead of acting like a baby is the worst thing that could ever happen to her.

[ December 05, 2002, 23:25: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

Now, now, Sprite, I think you're putting words in my mouth to make it easier to dismiss me. I've never said that abortion is a "terriffic and harmless pracitce." I also don't think it is "blabbering about what is 'right or wrong.'" I also don't think, as your post can be interpreted to imply, that I am uncaring and act like having a baby is the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

For the record, I don't know nor do I assert to know whether abortion is right or wrong. I do assert that there are reasonable arguments on each side and therefore, since I tend toward libertarian ideals I think it should be left to the individual.

Let me be honest, when I've had these discussions in the past there is a tendency for both sides to take a 'holier-than-thou' attitude. Both sides will claim the other doesn't care as much as they do. They'll say that the heroes are on their side, that it is their side that is truly caring and good, etc.

In my opinion, the issue is a close one, balanced on a razor's edge, and I was trying to point that out by pointing out what one must be committed to to adopt certain positions.

Now, perhaps you didn't mean to imply this, but to be honest I'm offended by the implication that when those I've known have considered abortion I've been callous and recommended it to them or otherwise didn't offer them support. To be honest, this strikes me as the "holier-than-thou" argument.

I think this one is about discussed out.

[ December 05, 2002, 22:58: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Pretty hard to use Stephen Hawking as an example since his disease broke at the age of what... 17-20? Young, but still not at birth already. He is a good guy, I actually do idolize him somewhat. But most cases are not like that. In fact, Hawking would be the all-time lottery jackpot compared to my views on a probable positive outlook for life for a seriously handicapped person. And I do observe this from the simplest point of view: If one Stephen Hawking were never born, tens of thousands of others would never have had to suffer. And there is nothing offensive towards Hawkings here, it can't be since he would have never known, had his existence been brought to an end before he was even born.

I do not mind if someone shoots me in the back of my head effectively killing me off instantaneously. I would never understand what exactly happened, never have time to realize what I would lose. And when it was all over, I wouldn't be around to think on it anymore. Killing other humans must be prevented though, because granting that advantage to one will bring damage to others. If each and every human were a complete individual with no social ties to anyone else, then the loss of one would hardly matter to others would it? Someone might be willing to compare this to the "life" of an unaware, unfamiliar, unborn fetus.

Oh well. It's not like we can change each other's opinions here. Sometimes it takes strength to make the right decisions. And right isn't always good, just as good isn't always what *seems* good to begin with. But I'm no-one to judge this. I've said what I believe in. And what's important, is the fact that I can live with that choice better than I might with the other.

[ December 05, 2002, 23:11: Message edited by: Forashi ]

 

Laches, if you thought the second part of my last post was directed at you, you'd be right to be offended, but it wasn't. As I noted in the first or second sentence, that last section was directed at "people on both sides of the abortion debate". Sorry if your feelings were hurt about that part. I'll edit my post to make it clearer. The people I was thinking of, in particular, were two very common categories of abortion activists:
- people who shout offensive things and wave disturbing banners in the faces of pregnant women outside abortion clinics, instead of trying to help them deal with the problems they are facing.
- the many "pro-choice" activists who are virulently opposed to providing counselling or a waiting period prior to abortions, and who suggest abortion without trying to solve any underlying problems of poverty or family issues that may be a woman's incentive for wanting an abortion. Not offering much of a choice, in my opinion. They also tend to say things like, "haven't you ever heard of abortion?" to and about happily-pregnant poor women, which I find reprehensible.

As for the other part- well, you did imply first that I was too biased to hear the truth from people, so turnaround is fair play. But since you feel I've misrepresented your opinion, I will delete those comments from my post.

To everyone: I think it's time that people who do NOT think that abortion is a bad thing, and that there's no reason to try to help people avoid it, now I'd like to hear you justify *your* opinion.

[ December 05, 2002, 23:31: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

Handicapped/disabled children have a life that is more diffilcult - they may not see it as they have lived with it, dealt with it, without knowing otherwise. I know people who often wished they hadn't been born because their parents only see them for their problems - not the person and have them shut away from the world. Others are tortured by society and feel alone in their predicaments.

I think people are asking two different questions here:

What about the *child*?
*What* about the child?

We are mainly talking about the parents, but what about the result? We need to follow through - firstly the mother ad how she'd deal with everything, second the child and how it'd be and live, thirdly both parents together, fourthly how the child will grow up if it has a future.

 

-sigh-

Maybe you figure out when you read more carfully. When did I ever say that that we are ment to suffer?
I said THAT we all suffer. I dont want we suffer. You dont want it. God doesn't want us to suffer. He created a perfect world and the human kind had to ruin it. Now don't blame God for our faults, please.

Seems like death and illness is the same to you. Jesus cured people, right? And His disciples did, too. Does that sound like God wants us to be sick, ill, suffering and dead?
We don't have to delay death, but we shouldn't quicken it.

Humans create the 2 parts that have to 'interact', but the essence of life is unknown to humans. We can't raise the dead either, can we?

 

Don't get me wrong; I share your same views, both on abortion and religion. But let's keep in mind Mr. Job. Of course, that was a different situation. Sometimes God (or the Great Wheel of Being, let's say, for you atheists) makes bad things happen; but the point is to continue to perservere. Faith, love, and God, are stronger than disbelief, pain, and hate.

Just remember that God is loving, but he doesn't prevent every bad thing from happening. Just take a look in the mirror at yourself and investigate your own life.

EDIT: Yeah, this has nothing to do with abortion, but the way I see it, it's slowly spiraling into a debate about morals, with the issue of abortion as but a cover.

[ December 06, 2002, 00:03: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

I feel obligued to respond to Rastor here and his as Laches so nicely put it 'the slut deserves it' attitude. You are dragging in a whole new matter in the discussion by bringing in promiscuity and I cant help but to think that its completely irrelevent thing. It may come as a shock to you but not everyone believes that to be a good and nice person you need to marry and stay with a person just to have sex. In our society sex and pregnancy is more or less divided things. And what about the couple that have been married for 10 years and already have 3 children should they abstain from sex so they dont run the risk of getting another child or should they use contraception? True that in this example they would probably grin and bear if they got another child accidently as I have seen it happen but they wouldnt prefer beforehand. This relates to your point about the joy of children Sprite. I dont find it strange or even an issue that the ones that remove a child is sad and the ones that keep it are happy. Children bring joy to parents, that is both genetical and cultural, how can anyone not love a little child? And if they have the oppurtunity to take care of they will probably love it and care for it even if the mothers plans for her life is in ruins. For no one can disagree with me when I say that a child is a fulltime job for atleast 10 years and then there are another 10 years of atleast a part time job, with no pay. Having an abortion is a scar for life but it can enable a person to live the life they have choosen and get a child when they are ready instead of having one accidently dumped on them.

 

Sprite:

To think that abortion is acceptable and should be an option does NOT make it a GOOD thing. No-one is going to stand on street corners with plackards proclaiming the greatness of abortion.

BUT, what does *helping people avoid it* mean? Pressuring them with guilt and scaremongering into having a child they are not equiped to bring up? I think not. Where it's a question of support I'm all for it, but there are more than financial reasons why people go through terminations, and in all fairness I think most of your arguments have so far failed to consider that. For example a friend of mine had an abortion because she is also on medication for depression. She would have had to stop taking it for nine (eight I suppose when she found out) months. Not good at all in her case, since the medication pretty much enables her to lead a normalish (as much as any of us do) life.

As far as my justification goes, please read my earlier post.

 

I agree with Viking, it isn't that I think abortion is a good thing, I simply think there are strong arguments justifying its legality and the arguments that it is immoral aren't strong enought to justify making it illegal.

Here is the way I look at it I suppose, in the case of a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution one side bears the burden of proof. I suppose since those who wish to make abortion illegal are wanting to limit a person's freedom I feel that they bear the burden of proof -- err on the side of it remaining a personal decision not a state mandated decision.