As much as I detest the practice of abortion, I really don't feel good about the government deciding what constitutes medical risk for the mother.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I was going to post on this topic, but decided I really don't want to get into an argument about this. The rest of you, feel free, but I'll be over there. *points*
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I'll be with KQ.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm pro choice but this is a really stupid argument.
quote: "Making abortion illegal never has and never will stop women from having abortions," Looby said, urging the committee to reject the bill.
By the same logic we should let murder, theft and every other crime just be legal since people still do them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just to clarify, it's the South Dakota House, not Congress.
I'm guessing my thoughts on this wouldn't surprise anyone. We allow the government to decide what constitutes imminent harm and reasonable force.
Dagonee
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Well, South Dakota is really struggling to retain their population...so maybe this is in that vein, and not in a "Let's repeal Roe V. Wade" kind of way...
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I have no idea what you mean by that. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I think they would be better off waiting some more time before charging into another Constitutional test that is likely going to go against them considering the USSC's current members.
Edit: Oops, didn't read the article, the bill only matters if Roe v. Wade is overturned first.
[ February 17, 2005, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*bites tounge*
*leaves thread again*
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
"...no provisions for abortions in cases where a woman's health is at risk..."
I dislike the whole idea. As I've said before, just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I love abortion. But I think this is simply going about the problem the wrong way. I don't see how prosecuting a scared young woman is solving the problem.
space opera
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, they're not. They're prosecuting the doctors.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:I'm pro choice but this is a really stupid argument.
By the same logic we should let murder, theft and every other crime just be legal since people still do them.
The only difference is that abortion is not wrong and can be made very safe with medical help. Humans have been doing abortions since ancient days and if the government makes it illegal doesn't mean people will stop having aportions...it only means those abortions will be dangerous and unclean. I like what "Cider House Rules" has to say on the subject.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Conceeded, Dags. For some reason I skipped over that particular part! *donks self on head*
But I still don't like it and stand by my statement that this is not a good solution to the problem.
space opera, who will take more care when reading articles from now on
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The only difference is that abortion is not wrong
If it's not wrong, then the "it won't stop it anyway" justification isn't relevant. If it is wrong, then the murder/rape/etc. response is pretty telling.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:The only difference is that abortion is not wrong
um...that's your editorial opinion, Telp
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*has to jump back in*
The difference is that when we tried to stop women from getting legal abortions, many more of them died from botched, unsafe, home-done abortion attempts.
That is all I'm going to say.
*leaves for real this time*
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I am still with KQ.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
That's one of my concerns as well, kq. Also, it makes me extremely uncomfortable that no provision is made for the mother's health - only her life.
space opera
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Correct, but let’s recap: Pro abortionists claim that in 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 5,000 to 10,000 women died.
Actually only 39 women died — less than one per state per year.
But they can’t have it both ways.
- Either there were not many illegal abortions
or
- Illegal abortions were all extremely safe.
Since we assume that all illegal abortions were not extremely safe, it seems obvious that THERE WERE NOT MANY ILLEGAL ABORTIONS One other comparison is relevant here. The pro-abortion claim was 1,000,000 illegal abortions in 1972. But with abortions legal without restriction in all states, the total reported for all of 1973 was about 750,000. This climbed to 1,500,000 by 1979 and plateaued there.
more statistics on that link
Farmgirl
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
That logic can still be applied to the murder/rape/assualt argument because if we legalized those things we could regulate rape to make sure that the perpetrator didn't have to use violence thereby causing harm to the victim or himself. Or we could legalize murder and then the murders could be committed in an uncruel and usual way.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:The difference is that when we tried to stop women from getting legal abortions, many more of them died from botched, unsafe, home-done abortion attempts.
Oh, man, I hate this argument. It's basically terrorism, in a sense. "If you don't write the laws the way we want, then a bunch of us will voluntarily go and kill ourselves!"
If people need support to get through an unwanted pregnancy, they should receive it. If we need to reduce the stigma on unwed pregnancies to lessen some of these desperate feelings, then we should. Those are both causes worth pursuing. But the fact that people will risk serious personal harm to perform a (debatably) immoral and hurtful act does not mean we should legalize that act to prevent the personal harm.
At some point, personal responsibility must come into this. If someone chooses to undergo a back-alley abortion — which is an entirely elective surgical procedure — then at least to some degree, we must recognize that they chose to do so. They were not forced to by the law. They chose that solution because they personally didn't like the alternatives.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
nfl, the answer to that would be that the rape and murder would be harmful in and of themselves, whereas those of us who believe abortion should be legal, do not believe it to be harmful.
In answer to the statistics (admittedly without having read the link...I'm supposed to be doing my homework), I would like to add that I would imagine not all bad things that came from illegal abortions were deaths. Sterilization and other injury, both permanent and otherwise, probably also arose with some frequency; again, admittedly, I have nothing to back this up, since I'm doing my homework (really, I am!), and wasn't actually alive pre Roe v. Wade.
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
Thanks for the link, Farmgirl, I was wondering about those statistics. It's interesting how many people accept the thousands-dying-from-illegal-abortions argument without question. (I myself did so for years) I will say, though, that I know a few nurses, all aged over 50, who say they'd hate to see abortion made illegal again because they have memories of women with sepsis from bad abortions being dumped at the ER door... There is no question such deaths did happen.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Grrr...I should be doing homework, but this is so much more interesting than colonial history!
Puppy, those are some good points. I'm definately giving them thought.
I wonder if enough women receive support with an unwanted pregnancy. (this is thinking out loud) The majority of groups I've seen that offer services are religious-based, which I'd imagine will turn some women off. Of course, that could just be my area of the country.
space opera
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I don't know whether abortion, in the ethical sense, is right or wrong. But frankly it really isn't one the government ought to be legislating. Its one that each person needs to determine for themselves whether or not they think it is ethical and then make the choice.
In a more practical view, I really doubt the current system of adoptions and taking care of orphans can handle much more than it already is. And there are enough kids out there in screwed up families and being screwed up by their families as well. Not to mention the fact that some time soon we're gonna need to start thinking about some population control methods, becuase the Earth can only support so many human beings before giving way. All of these factors sort of point to keeping abortion legal for the time being simply as a practical matter if nothing else. Becuase the current social system couldn't really handle the influx of unwanted children that would be created by making it illegal.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: nfl, the answer to that would be that the rape and murder would be harmful in and of themselves, whereas those of us who believe abortion should be legal, do not believe it to be harmful.
Dag already covered that. If abortion truly isn't harmful than the argument isn't relevant anyways, abortion should simply be made, be kept legal. The argument is only brought up to imply that more harm will be created than is destroyed by banning abortion.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I don't know whether abortion, in the ethical sense, is right or wrong. But frankly it really isn't one the government ought to be legislating. Its one that each person needs to determine for themselves whether or not they think it is ethical and then make the choice.
This presupposes that unborn fetuses are not deserving of government protection, which has not been established to many people's satisfaction.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I know there are other justifications used by abortion legalization opponents, but I have a hard time seeing anything other than a fetal-rights justification supporting banning abortion. And under a fetal-rights justification, even 5% reduction in abortions due to illegalization would result in fewer deaths, even accepting the worst of the abortion-related death statistics.
Dagonee
[ February 17, 2005, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:This presupposes that unborn fetuses are not deserving of government protection, which has not been established to many people's satisfaction.
Heh, government protection up until it leaves the womb, and then when its a real, living baby they leave it to fend for itself with whatever family, often a single teenage mother, it happens to have. In the ethical issue sense its one that has to be decided by each mother, becuase only the mother can judge the practical issues connected with that birth and what the birth would mean to both the childs life and to her own.
[ February 17, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Heh, government protection up until it leaves the womb
Are you contending infanticide is legal?
No, clearly you're not. But you're clearly abusing the word "protection."
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I know a monk who trained to be a counselor for that. He said what the women go through showed him the pain and suffering for all involved, especially those women who believe they've been cast out of their church.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Well, ok, so the government protects an infant from intentional death at the hands of people. But honestly, by denying people abortions you essentially force unwanted children on many mothers who won't have a clue what to do with them. And the government offers those mothers little or no aid. Thats what I meant by government protection ending at the exitting of the womb.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But honestly, by denying people abortions you essentially force unwanted children on many mothers who won't have a clue what to do with them.
By denying mothers the right to kill their infants you essentially force unwanted children on many mothers who won't have a clue what to do with them.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: By denying mothers the right to kill their infants you essentially force unwanted children on many mothers who won't have a clue what to do with them.
Is destroying a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy really that different from wearing a condom or using the morning after pill? Or heck, is it really even very different from jacking off or a woman's period? The only difference is that the genetic combination has already been made and the cells have started to divide. They haven't even begun to differentiate. Its not a human being yet. Its a mass of undifferentiated cells with a certain combination of human DNA.
The arguements that an abortion is "destroying a genetic combination" don't make a whole lot of sense. Everytime a guy has a wet dream, thats a hundred million possible halves of genetic combos that have been destroyed. Heck, every time you have sex, the result is one actual genetic combination and several HUNDRED MILLION destroyed. Everytime a woman has her period, thats a possible half a genetic combination destroyed. Frankly nature doesn't hold a lot of respect for particular genetic combos or possible genetic combos.
At the point when abortions are done, the fetus is little more than a mass of cells, with human DNA, leeching off its mother. It hasn't developed a brain yet. It hasn't developed a human conscious yet. It isn't a defined human being yet. It has the possibility of becoming a human being. But so does a sperm cell or an egg cell, and those are destroyed wholesale daily.
Now don't get me wrong. I can see how you might feel that its destroying a human life from the point of conception, I might even agree with you. But my point is where the line is drawn, can and is being heavily debated. And no one can say for sure where the fetus becomes human rather than the possibility of a human. With so much uncertainty I cannot in good conscious support the government in removing the choice to have an abortion from the mother when there is so much uncertainty. It must be left up to the individual doctors and mothers where to draw the line. We must leave the decision in the hands of individuals and trust them to, with the right information decide where the point is for them. For you the point may be at conception. For a teenage mother, it might be a few weeks afterwards. For someone else even further. The situation, and thus where that line might be drawn, is different for each person and thus each person must be aloud the choice. Trust in the individuals to make good choices. Those people will have to live with their decisions for the rest of their lives and have it on their conciouses.
Unless of course, you offer to raise and love all those unwanted children who would be born, possibly killing their mothers or ruining their lives. Becuase chances are they aren't gonna get very good care or much love otherwise.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:Is destroying a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy really that different from wearing a condom or using the morning after pill?
To much of this country, yes, it really is that different.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I think the problem with the above-mentioned arguement that AntiCool quoted is that most of the time, when a pregnancy is discovered and confirmed, it's progressed past the "undifferentiated cells" point.
space opera
edit: by 4 weeks the fetus/baby/cell cluster has a primitive heart that has begun to pump
[ February 17, 2005, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I need to stop editing. To actually conclude my point, 4 weeks is actually early to discover a pregnancy if you're not trying to conceive. There can be several reasons for a woman's period being late, and many might not even test till they're 6 weeks or further along.
So while I'm pro-choice, I can't support a viewpoint that sees an abortion as no different from using a condom. It *is* different.
space opera
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But my point is where the line is drawn, can and is being heavily debated. And no one can say for sure where the fetus becomes human rather than the possibility of a human. With so much uncertainty I cannot in good conscious support the government in removing the choice to have an abortion from the mother when there is so much uncertainty.
With so much uncertainty I cannot in good conscious support the governmenting in removing the protection of the law from the fetus when there is so much uncertainty.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Brought to you by the Association for Redundancy Association.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I think the argument of women having unsafe abortions is just as weak as the “never will stop women from having abortions” argument. Along the same legal themes “as every other crime just be legal since people still do them” should we make murder and thief safer so the criminal doesn’t get hurt? We have enough help with adoption options and other routes today that no pregnant woman should feel that she doesn’t have any other choice. This will probably offend a lot of people and I apologize. But to me abortion is murder. A baby isn’t a choice. It’s a life. I’m anxious for the protection that the unborn deserve to be made into law. Yes, I understand there needs to be exceptions for the life of the mother. And we should be careful with cases of rape and insect early on. But those are still innocent babes and killing them doesn’t help correct the crime. I really do understand when people say it should be up to the mother. But in most cases, didn’t she have the choice on the night of the fun? Why should an innocent baby suffer?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Brought to you by the Association for Redundancy Association.
Merely making a subtle point that I can't actually articulate. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: I think the problem with the above-mentioned arguement that AntiCool quoted is that most of the time, when a pregnancy is discovered and confirmed, it's progressed past the "undifferentiated cells" point.
space opera
edit: by 4 weeks the fetus/baby/cell cluster has a primitive heart that has begun to pump
Its not the heart, but the head that matters. A mouse has a pumping heart (well and a working brain for that matter), but few people cringe much at killing them when they invade out homes.
quote:I need to stop editing. To actually conclude my point, 4 weeks is actually early to discover a pregnancy if you're not trying to conceive. There can be several reasons for a woman's period being late, and many might not even test till they're 6 weeks or further along.
So while I'm pro-choice, I can't support a viewpoint that sees an abortion as no different from using a condom. It *is* different.
space opera
Italics added. Ok I didn't know that. But it doesn't change the argument. We don't know when consciousness starts. And that is when we can say for sure, that the person is a human. And that is when their environment starts to shape them beyond just their genes the possibilities of humans into one actual human. Consciousness may not even start when the brain forms, it may take a while.
I don't believe that an abortion is no different from using a condom. It is different. I was making a point that the there is a great deal of grey area in the journey from conception to human being and a lot of the arguments used for human being at conception don't make sense in view of birth control... and nature itself really. Personally I might agree with those who agree in human being at conception. But I'm not sure. And there are enough very inteligent people who aren't sure that I don't think the government should remove it till its known.
Dag, when you decide to be your normal inteligent logical self and actually talk to me instead of just throwing my slightly editted words back at me, I will listen to you. Stop trolling. You're better than that.
Also people seem to be ignoring the question: what do you do with all those kids once they are born? You gonna pay to support them? You gonna leave them to their mothers mercy after they've been born? You gonna leave em to their own devices?
quote: I really do understand when people say it should be up to the mother. But in most cases, didn’t she have the choice on the night of the fun? Why should an innocent baby suffer?
The kids gonna suffer in a lot of cases, born or not. The question you should be asking is are you gonna make both the mother and the child suffer? Or just one? Unless of course, you have a good program to can ensure that the unwanted child will be taken care of and put in a home where it will be loved and cared for...
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Dag, when you decide to be your normal inteligent logical self and actually talk to me instead of just throwing my slightly editted words back at me, I will listen to you. Stop trolling. You're better than that.
I'm not trolling. I'm demonstrating that every single argument you make can be flipped easily around. If it's not trolling for you to say it originally, it's not trolling for me to say it in response. These are things I actually believe, and it's both interesting and illuminating that the arguments on both sides are so similar.
What it suggests to me is that clearly the important questions are "When does human life/personhood/whatever begin?" and "On which side do we err in the face of uncertainty about that question?"
Dagonee
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: At some point, personal responsibility must come into this. If someone chooses to undergo a back-alley abortion — which is an entirely elective surgical procedure — then at least to some degree, we must recognize that they chose to do so. They were not forced to by the law. They chose that solution because they personally didn't like the alternatives.
Geoff, I guess to me there is a *huge* difference between a back-alley abortion and any other elective surgical procedure.
(And please no-one be smart and reply with yeah, only one involves murder or something along that line).
I think the notion of choice is really mitigated by factors. In some cases I do believe it is a choice - and sometimes one that is made selfishly.
However this is not so in all cases. Perhaps if there was more support (both mental and financial) for pregnant women, we could sensibly talk of a choice. But currently how much of a *real* choice does a rape victim have? A pregnant 12 year old? a 16 year old whose parents have threatened to kill her if she bears the baby? Someone living on the streets?
The list goes on. I can understand those people who view abortion as immoral. But please don't characterise it as a simple, elective choice. It's not.
[ February 17, 2005, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He didn't characterize it as a "simple" choice, merely elective.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I remember when Dags an I were having a politicians and abortion and something became clear to me. Even though I didn't realize it, I approach abortion not really thinking of the fetus as a living being. My stance used to be personally strongly against abortion but I didn't think that it was correct for the government ot force people not to get them, although I supported efforts public and private to persuade people not to have abortions.
In the discussion we were having, Dags was talking about the obligation of Catholics to oppose abortion and I was thinking that it was really about the mother and saying that the mother shouldn't do something bad. But, as we went on, I realized that that wasn't Dags primary concern and that I really should have understood this from the start. His primary focus was on the human being he saw as being murdered. I had thought that I conceived the issue from that perspective, but I really didn't. I kept on talking about thinking that the woman was doing something bad and that being what people wanted to prevent.
I just tohught I'd inject that here becuase I thought it might be useful. I'm a bit more ambivilent about the whole legality of abortion now and it did help me to understand one of the sides better.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Jay, how bout an unbaised website with scientists from both sides?
Also, anything with a brain has brain waves. Its the conciousness that matters.
And as to the question: what are ya gonna do with them once they're born? Lets look at the big picture here. If someone can come up with a good system to ensure unwanted children would be taken care of, then I'd support illegalizing abortion with all my heart. But no such thing exists, and the kids that are aborted would not lead good lives if they weren't aborted. Neither would their mothers. If you can ensure that the kids would have a chance at being happy, and their moms would have as much chance at recovering their life after carrying and giving birth as they would after aborting then I'm all for the laws.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jay, that same site probably has a spot in it that shows a photo of it's soul too...or it would if that would make people think twice.
I am not trying to piss you off, or pick on you, but that site is about as objective as PETA's site is about mink coats.
I see that the government has a lot to say about what is acceptable and what is not, but I don't think that they have the medical knowledge to determine what is best for the mother in cases where her life may be in danger.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you, MrSquicky.
quote:But no such thing exists, and the kids that are aborted would not lead good lives if they weren't aborted. Neither would their mothers.
You need to back this up, both with a definition of "good life" and with some statistics that show the percentage of abortions whose alternative was a "bad life."
Certainly, some abortions end a pregnancy whose result would be a severely abused child or some other event we recognize as very bad. But abused children end up having meaningful, "good" lives every day once the abuse ends. Is this the outcome for all of them? Certainly not. But it's presumptious to identify any event in someone's life as guaranteeing a "bad" life.
Dagonee
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: quote:Dag, when you decide to be your normal inteligent logical self and actually talk to me instead of just throwing my slightly editted words back at me, I will listen to you. Stop trolling. You're better than that.
I'm not trolling. I'm demonstrating that every single argument you make can be flipped easily around. If it's not trolling for you to say it originally, it's not trolling for me to say it in response. These are things I actually believe, and it's both interesting and illuminating that the arguments on both sides are so similar.
What it suggests to me is that clearly the important questions are "When does human life/personhood/whatever begin?" and "On which side do we err in the face of uncertainty about that question?"
Dagonee
Now you're talking Ok, the thing is. As I said above. People who want to illegalize abortion make no accounting for after the baby that would have been aborted is born. They just want to make sure it doesn't get killed from when its concieved till birth from what I can tell. After that, they abandon it to what ever the heck the circumstances are it gets born into. Often it would be to an unprepared teenage mother who can in no way take care of the child. Or to the victim of rape, when the mother has plenty of reasons not to want the child of her attacker around her. And many other situations for which abortion is used. These children are not going to have good happy lives. And many may wish they were dead or commit suicide later in life. And by that time, they've often basically taken their mothers life with them. So the question is, if we illegalize abortion, are we going to take care of the kids?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: He didn't characterize it as a "simple" choice, merely elective.
True.
I think my point still stands though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Heck Dags, I was trying to thank you. I kept meaning to mention that, and now I had a chance where it might help other people see the same thing I did.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: quote:But no such thing exists, and the kids that are aborted would not lead good lives if they weren't aborted. Neither would their mothers.
You need to back this up, both with a definition of "good life" and with some statistics that show the percentage of abortions whose alternative was a "bad life."
Certainly, some abortions end a pregnancy whose result would be a severely abused child or some other event we recognize as very bad. But abused children end up having meaningful, "good" lives every day once the abuse ends. Is this the outcome for all of them? Certainly not. But it's presumptious to identify any event in someone's life as guaranteeing a "bad" life.
Dagonee
I never said they had a guarantee of a "bad" life. I just said that there were many situations, were abortion illegalized, where that would be the case. Unless we have some program to take unwanted children off their mothers hands so that the mother has a chance at a good life with out having a child she can't take care of, and then place the child in a home where they are wanted or somewhere else where they will be loved and cared for and therefore give the kid a chance at having a good childhood and life, then we should leave the choice as to whether to bring the child into the world up to the mother. Becuase only the mother really has the information to know whether to kid will have a chance at a good life, and only the mother really has the right... well no not right, but responsibility to make that choice for herself and her child.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People who want to illegalize abortion make no accounting for after the baby that would have been aborted is born.
This is blatantly untrue.
quote:These children are not going to have good happy lives. And many may wish they were dead or commit suicide later in life. And by that time, they've often basically taken their mothers life with them. So the question is, if we illegalize abortion, are we going to take care of the kids?
I dealt with this a little above, but I'll expand. I generally refuse to deal with this question, because my premise is that the child is fully human. Unless you would advocate allowing an infant to be killed to avoid these outcomes, we don't have a disagreement on this point. Where we disagree is whether abortion has the same moral culpability as infanticide. If we disagree on this point, then the argument after this point is irrelevant. If we agree on this point, then you either advocate infanticide as a solution to the problem of children who are likely to lead unhappy lives or you cannot consistently use the potential unhappiness as a reason to support abortion.
Now, I know you don't advocate infanticide. We disagree about the moral effect of abortion. That being the case, a discussion about post-birth care is not relevant.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Becuase only the mother really has the information to know whether to kid will have a chance at a good life, and only the mother really has the right... well no not right, but responsibility to make that choice for herself and her child.
Let me be clear - I consider abortion to be the same as infanticide. You cannot possibly convince me or most pro-life advocates with this argument. That doesn't make the need for the programs you describe less pressing, but it means this is an utterly hopeless tactic of persuasion.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I think individuals should have the choice of deciding whether their lives are worth living. In my opinion we first need to deal with what should be legal and illegal and then set about setting parameters and exceptions.
To me its like the death penalty argument. Discrepancies in the ratios of minorities executed doesn't mean that the death penalty itself is unjust, it just means theres something wrong with the system in which it is being used.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Dagonee, I can see your logic in characterising after-birth care as irrelevant to abortion per se.
However given you a) oppose abortion (or, in your view, pre-birth infanticide) and b) oppose post-birth infanticide does this mean there is a moral onus on you to campaign for/provide some more after-birth care?
Or, in more practical terms, would there be such an onus if you were taking practical steps to prevent abortions from occuring (whether legislative or other means)?
I am tending towards yes.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
But it is, I don't advocate infantacide, becuase by the time the child is born then the mother has made her choice. The kid's been born, the mother had her chance at abortion and chose not to. Thats how infantacide is different. And whether or not we take care of the kids and the parent is not irrelevant. It's really the whole issue. Maybe this is why the two sides have so much trouble reconciling with each other, they are arguing different issues from the same basic set of beliefs. Many (notice I said many, not all, not even most, I do not pretend to speak for all pro-choice people) people who are pro-choice think exactly along the lines I have laid out. Not that the child isn't necesarily human, but rather that it is better off for both mother and child for the child to be aborted. If you create a program for taking care of the child after birth in paralell with anti-abortion laws, I bet you'll find many current pro-choice people would switch sides.
[ February 17, 2005, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I am, too. Part of that would be assistance, adoption, etc., and part of that would be enforcing more parental responsibility.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Alcon - I'm not sure that you would find many people changing sides.
I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't view a fetus as equivalent to a human being, and as such am not comfortable with any government legislating to force women to carry to term.
That doesn't mean I would have an abortion. Or that I would counsel a friend to do so. I just think it's *our* choice, not the governments.
That wouldn't change simply because of better after-birth care of children.
***
Dagonee - I'm glad. I still don't agree with legislating against abortion but if I did, I like your view of the whole picture.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
imogen, I'm not sure a lot of people would completely switch sides, but I'm pretty sure a significant chunk of pro-choice but anti-abortion people would become much less vehement about the issue.
[ February 17, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Meh, maybe.
If only we had a crystal ball, heh?
Of course if we did, I'd be looking for next week's lotto numbers and paying off my mortgage.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Imogen, thats why I said many (and emphasized it), which could mean as few as like 10% of people or even less. I'd actually be really interested to see a study done on this asking people if they'd be in favor on illegalizing abortion on this basis, I could be wrong, it might be 'very few' people. But you never know until you see.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Could care less about the rest of that site. Just wanted the timeline.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Jay, we don't trust the timeline becuase of the site its on. I don't trust those numbers. Not until I can find an unbiased site to back them up.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Fine. Look them up yourself then! Why do I have to look up everything!
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:it is better off for both mother and child for the child to be aborted
This quote confuses me. Can you describe to me, qualitatively, how a child's life can be "better" if it is killed in the womb rather than being born?
(This seems to go to some of the same points that sndrake made in his recent review of Million Dollar Baby.)
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Believe me, I did
Edit:
Or started to anyway, but I gots tired, cause all the sites I found were baised (surprise surprise, they were all pro-life ) I haven't found a good scientific summery of it yet.
[ February 17, 2005, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:This quote confuses me. Can you describe to me, qualitatively, how a child's life can be "better" if it is killed in the womb rather than being born?
A short life of being abused by a single mother, who was having to resort to prostitution to feed the two of them, followed by suicide at 14.
Result: childs life is terrible and short, mothers life is utterly ruined by childs birth. Worse for both.
Admittedly, an extreme example, but thats one where I think never being born might be better. Its certainly better for the mother.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
That's a scenario in which the child's life without being aborted SUCKS. But there is still no explanation of why, exactly, not-being-born is BETTER than the life you described. Have you ever not-been-born? If so, what was it like?
EDIT: Wow, I'm tired. Now the post makes sense
[ February 18, 2005, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: A short life of being abused by a single mother, who was having to resort to prostitution to feed the two of them, followed by suicide at 14.
Even then the child should still be allowed to make the determination as whether or not their life is worth living, we shouldn't be making this determination for them.
I also thought of the MDB argument.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The Movie Database argument? Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*cries*
I spent the last hour composing a long post that got eaten when I tried to submit it.
Damn I hate when that happens.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's like the third time it's happened, too.
*pat pat*
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Alcon, I see what you're saying. I was just pointing out that if you're going to claim that when abortions are done that the fetus is simply a mass of undifferentiated cells then you need to do your research. I was surprised when I read what you had posted, simply because you didn't seem to understand the timing, etc. in discovering that a pregnancy exists. It weakens the pro-choice arguement when incorrect facts or assumptions are thrown out there.
Though I can give facts, such as all major body organs and systems in a fetus are formed by the second month, I don't know when "humanhood" begins. I don't know that I'll ever know that.
That said, I completely understand your concerns about care for both mother and child. I wish there was an easy answer for that. I think we as a society are doing better about sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but I think we can still do better. I know also that there are some anti-abortion groups out there (CareNet) in particular, that actually support a woman during the entire pregnancy and afterwards. They help teens tell their families, help find shelter if needed, provide baby clothes and furniture, etc. But there needs to be more groups like this.
However, even those these groups may help during rhe pregnancy or even for the first few years, a child is for a lifetime, and those groups aren't around forever. Maybe then more emphasis should be put on sex education instead of after-care - I don't really know. It seems that no matter what kind of facts are out there about birth control or life with a baby, people still have unprotected sex, or sex at a time in their lives when they aren't capable of caring for a child.
I just don't know. But I do know that conversations such as this, between pro-choice and pro-life people, and all the conversations in between, are what we need to be doing, and keep doing. Like Imogen, I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and it would make me a happy woman indeed if we could find a solution to the abortion problem.
space opera
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
In this thread people keep talking about teenage pregnancy, rape and incest pregnancy, etc. Does anyone have any statistics on who really gets abortions? I've heard it's mainly middle-class women who do, butr I don't know if that's true, and I'm not as skilled at searching for info as some of you here.
My point is, are we arguing in favor of abortion based on tough cases, when the reality is that abortion is used for other situations-- not so much "My life will be ruined" as "I just don't feel like this is the right time for a baby" scenarios.
As a person who used to be strongly pro-choice, I've slowly come around to a reluctantly pro-choice opinion and am really at this point becoming pro-life. One of the things that started the change for me was when a single friend became pregnant and chose to have the baby. Many of my "pro-choice" friends were appalled that she did not choose to abort. Yes her life has been a struggle, and it's been tough, but I sure don't think her daughter would have been better off never born.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
From Alcon
quote: People who want to illegalize abortion make no accounting for after the baby that would have been aborted is born.
Please quit over-generalizing. There are many organizations that lend support to women in these situations. As my son has outgrown things, most of it has gone to the Beta Center here in Orlando. They work towards making sure a mother and child don't have a "bad" life.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Oops, didn't read the article, the bill only matters if Roe v. Wade is overturned first.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) I haven't found a good scientific summery of it yet.