Abortion II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I ran across this article, a first person account of a woman who had an abortion. For those who haven't heard such an account, maybe it'll help you know that "choice" isn't always about selfishness.

http://www.marieclaire.com/world/new...on=art&mag=mar

Maybe I'll write something someday about my "first person account" - I found out by ultrasound that my baby had severe birth defects, yet I chose to keep him, although I was offered abortion, and although there is pain and sorrow, often quite a bit, the joy far outweighs it, and I can't count the number of people who have been blessed by my son and have told us so. I think those stories should be out there, too - I wonder if the magazine would accept my story?

I wonder what percentage of babies are aborted because of birth defects. I imagine it's pretty small.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I wonder what percentage of babies are aborted because of birth defects. I imagine it's pretty small.

I don't know about induced abortions, but it's the no. 1 cause of spontaneous abortions.

edit: Though "birth defects" can't rightly be called so unless the child is actually born

[Rían]

Yes - but no one has ethical problems with spontaneous abortions

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

No - in my mind it does not have to. If you read above, this was partially in response to some writing so much about a 'two-celled organism' or however they termed it.

I have to admit that I have a hard time understanding how some people can be alright with abortion once a baby DOES "look like a person" though.

That’s fine but I would be awful careful in using any kind of biological or developmental argument in regards to abortion because there will ALWAYS be a point in development where they don’t look like a person and they don’t even have a nervous system or brain. And are you then implying its ok? Sounds like you aren’t. So it doesn’t matter if they are developed or not. It doesn’t matter if they have no consciousness or ability to feel pain or not. Its all about their potential to become something that does apparently. And as long as you are consistent with the idea of killing anyone… no matter how developed or undeveloped… using this very same reasoning then you are being consistent and that’s fine in my book.

The problem is theres way too many pro lifers who are inconsistent about killing. And are hypocritical about defending the rights of the unborn while doing little or nothing about the situation of the potential mother. They protest then go home and carry on with their lives then get upset when teenagers see no alternative to abortion. And of course too many pro lifers choose to use a developmental argument when in their heart that has nothing to do with why they believe the way they believe.

[Valandil]

I don't see that it's a problem for me to have more than one thing (for instance, an idea based on a belief system, and a judgment made by observation) that aid me in forming an opinion. Nor should it be a problem if while the aspect that means the most to me might be what comes from my belief system, that I choose to make some arguments based instead on observation.

Not all would agree with my belief that human life begins at conception. However - when someone looks at the progression of fetal development, most will settle on a point when they have to admit (if only inwardly) that - yes, that indeed looks like a person - and we probably shouldn't be killing them.

Some may settle on 13 weeks, some 10 weeks, some 6 weeks. But in each case, if they've moved off of believing in abortion at any time in the course of a pregnancy, they have moved in the right direction and exercised sound judgment and proper reason. They're making themselves more informed and basing a changed decision on having gathered additional, factual information.

[inked]

IR,
"The problem is theres way too many pro lifers who are inconsistent about killing. And are hypocritical about defending the rights of the unborn while doing little or nothing about the situation of the potential mother. They protest then go home and carry on with their lives then get upset when teenagers see no alternative to abortion. And of course too many pro lifers choose to use a developmental argument when in their heart that has nothing to do with why they believe the way they believe."

Check into your yellow pages under ABORTION ALTERNATIVES and you might be surprised at what is being done for the mothers and their in utero and ex utero infants.

What do you mean "inconsistent about killing"?

There are a number of arguments against abortion, are you saying that no pro-lifer can use any of them except "It's wrong because I say it is wrong"? I am not quite following you here.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I don't see that it's a problem for me to have more than one thing (for instance, an idea based on a belief system, and a judgment made by observation) that aid me in forming an opinion. Nor should it be a problem if while the aspect that means the most to me might be what comes from my belief system, that I choose to make some arguments based instead on observation.

Because one argument trumps the other. The danger (from YOUR point of view) of insisting on using the developmental argument is that you are conceding that there IS a point where its ok to abort. Right? But then you don’t believe that yourself which makes the argument disingenuous. You cant really make the argument its ALWAYS wrong to abort (based on the sanctity of life) but oh my gosh its even more always wrong to abort if the fetus looks like a little person!! To me this is simply a propaganda argument which I have always found deceitful. You speak to what you think would have more of an appeal rather then simply speaking from your heart.

Some may settle on 13 weeks, some 10 weeks, some 6 weeks. But in each case, if they've moved off of believing in abortion at any time in the course of a pregnancy, they have moved in the right direction and exercised sound judgment and proper reason. They're making themselves more informed and basing a changed decision on having gathered additional, factual information.

Not factual information. “looks like a person� is strictly emotional information. It tells us nothing about what is really going on in the fetus itself. So we don’t know with absolute certainty if they are conscious. If they have any level of sentience. If they feel pain just because they “look like a person�. It tells us nothing about when vital networks develop. Just what they look like. If anything it’s a trick used to influence rather than honest information for them to take as they see fit.

If I said we need to allow abortions because I believe a womans right to choose trumps all other factors and Oh! Yeah! The baby doesn’t have a spinal chord yet either! I would be just as disingenuous in my argument (although I don’t think the emotional appeal would be as strong as “looks like a person�).

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Check into your yellow pages under ABORTION ALTERNATIVES and you might be surprised at what is being done for the mothers and their in utero and ex utero infants.

But this is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of pro-lifers who do nothing but argue against abortion. MOST pro-lifers do NOT want any part of paying more taxes for teen moms in need or child welfare services. They fight that with the same mouths which they rant against abortion with. Some even oppose teaching sex education in schools. That’s hypocritical to me. And most don’t really involve themselves in actively doing something to provide an alternative to abortion. A few good ones do but we both know that most do not. They just figure they’ve done their part by voting for a republican and hoping they’ll put a conservative judge on the bench.

What do you mean "inconsistent about killing"?

Here I am referring to the idea of saying we shouldn’t abort a life because no matter how undeveloped it is, it still has the potential to become something significant and its not my place to take a human life that has been created by god. And yet thinking capital punishment is perfectly ok and justified and seeing no double standard in that at all.

There are a number of arguments against abortion, are you saying that no pro-lifer can use any of them except "It's wrong because I say it is wrong"? I am not quite following you here.

Im saying the developmental argument is inherently flawed and if I was pro life I would never use it because if you aren’t careful you can use it to justify abortion. So stick to your true beliefs rather than giving pro choicers an opening to say Ok then HERE is where we can abort. Either abortion is wrong under ALL circumstances because of your belief system or we sit down and hash out when its ok…

[Coffeehouse]

So IR, what is your stance?

Are you for abortion on the grounds that it is a right of a woman to choose?

Or do you believe that after a period in the developmental stage that abortion is not permissible?

Or do you support abortion only during extreme circumstances like rape?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Here I am referring to the idea of saying we shouldn’t abort a life because no matter how undeveloped it is, it still has the potential to become something significant and its not my place to take a human life that has been created by god. And yet thinking capital punishment is perfectly ok and justified and seeing no double standard in that at all.

You're missing several huge differences between capital punishment and abortion - capital punishment comes about because of a choice that the person made that is so horrific that society thinks it is deserving of death, for whatever underlying reason they think is appropriate. And it is a decision arrived at via due process and consideration from members of society.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

So IR, what is your stance?

Are you for abortion on the grounds that it is a right of a woman to choose?

Or do you believe that after a period in the developmental stage that abortion is not permissible?

Or do you support abortion only during extreme circumstances like rape?

I think abortion is a necessary evil in an imperfect world. I have no problem with universally designating what is essentially an arbitrary cut off date (start of third trimester?) based on the best scientific knowledge we have in regards to the fetus. Which means I dont have a problem restricting late abortions except in the case of rape or danger to the mother. In the end its a tragedy but sometimes there is no better alternative.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You're missing several huge differences between capital punishment and abortion - capital punishment comes about because of a choice that the person made that is so horrific that society thinks it is deserving of death, for whatever underlying reason they think is appropriate. And it is a decision arrived at via due process and consideration from members of society.

But it shouldn’t matter that they made a choice or not. The logic of POTENTIAL still applies to the adult who has committed a crime. They still have the potential for greatness. For something positive in gods plan do they not? So why the inconsistency with killing them despite this? We both know there have been many death row inmates who have genuinely found god (yes there have been many who have simply faked it but statistically there will have been many who DID find god and according to Christian doctrine redeemed themselves in gods eyes by being born again or at least genuinely changing their point of view). So why kill them? Why risk it and kill any of them… Sound familiar?

Meanwhile we can say that its much more likely that forcing an impoverished 13 year old to bring a child in the world who is in no position to do so will lead to a life of hardship for the child. Yes there is that potential they will defy the odds but most wont. And in these cases something as sad as abortion may be the least worse alternative. So to ban one side from aborting a fetus by citing potential and allowing another side to take a life despite potential seems like a double standard to me. Consistency would be life for both. In the case of the prisoner it would be life in prison but life. Not death…

[Rían]

I think the choice aspect DOES matter. I think that part of the objection against abortion includes the fact that the baby has done nothing wrong - it is an innocent at this point in time, and our society goes with "live and let live" unless the person has CHOSEN to do something so awful that society needs to apply a consequence.

[katya]

I think the choice aspect does matter too. It's possible to say killing is ok in some circumstances and not in others. I, however, think abortion might be one of those times when it's ok (if not ok then the lesser of two evils), and capital punishment is not. If you think about that in terms of innocence only then it seems backwards, but not if you think about it in terms of how much harm will come out of it. Death row inmates have a developed sense of self, people who care about them, and I don't think anyone has the right to judge whether someone is evil or deserves to die. (I don't think aborted fetuses "deserve" to die either, but I think children "deserve" the best upbringing possible by parents who love and want them, and that women "deserve" to be able to make choices about their lives.)

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think abortion is a necessary evil in an imperfect world. I have no problem with universally designating what is essentially an arbitrary cut off date (start of third trimester?) based on the best scientific knowledge we have in regards to the fetus.

That's a pragmatic view, and I agree with it, in an imperfect world.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Consistency would be life for both. In the case of the prisoner it would be life in prison but life. Not death…

Exactly. Anyways, the notion that the state somehow has the right to hand out death sentences to citizens that have been arrested, found guilty and any case will spend a life behind bars, is simply wrong. This isn't killing in self-defence, it's lowering oneself to the standard of the perpetrator.

Although I think modern medicine should be a guideline as to when it is inadvisable to perform an abortion, the one consistent way to be pro-abortion is to hand the right to choose to the woman. It's her choice and no one but her has final say. If you don't pursue that line of reasoning you thread into a relativist ground which tears to shreds the notion of absolute sovereignty over one's own body, with inherent rights. That's my take on it. You have to be consistent and say no, that line you can't cross, you can't decide for a woman. It's her call.
I understand the strongest argument from the pro-lifers, that you are taking life. But listen, although it is a life, it is a life inside another life. It isn't independent. It's part of the sovereign body of another life, which you can't violate. It's unfair, but it's necessary.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

our society goes with "live and let live" unless the person has CHOSEN to do something so awful that society needs to apply a consequence.

Well, actually, I don't see that. There's no "live and let live" aspect in rounding kids up and giving them to the state 5 days a week, is there? Or in taxing everyone (even people who chose not to have kids) to pay for it? Or in having the state determine who is family and who is not? Our society decides that certain "consequences need to be applied" for all kinds of things that aren't by anyone's standard "so awful".

In fact, it seems to me, that the anti-choice folks would like to apply consequences to the behavior of 'having sex when you aren't completely sure you want to have a baby right now', which is, truly, not so awful.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Well, actually, I don't see that. ...

That "awful" comment was in reference to the death penalty.

But anyway, I'd say that we certainly have a live-and-let-live policy overall.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But anyway, I'd say that we certainly have a live-and-let-live policy overall.

But, see, that's where I disagree. Look at zoning laws. Why should I have to pay a fee to the government to build a house that they approve? Why can't I live in a teepee, if I want to? If I'm a certain age, I have to attend school. When does the 'live and let live" part show up, there? In many schools, I even have to wear a uniform. I can't be naked in my yard. I can't have 3 husbands and 2 wives. I can't withhold my taxes. I can't drive a child without an approved carseat, but the school district can. I can't ride a motercycle without a helmet...Every day, my 'live and let live" is constrained at all points by the government, as the voice of society.

Where does the 'live and let live" aspect begin?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But, see, that's where I disagree. Look at zoning laws. Why should I have to pay a fee to the government to build a house that they approve? Why can't I live in a teepee, if I want to? If I'm a certain age, I have to attend school. When does the 'live and let live" part show up, there? In many schools, I even have to wear a uniform. I can't be naked in my yard. I can't have 3 husbands and 2 wives. I can't withhold my taxes. I can't drive a child without an approved carseat, but the school district can. I can't ride a motercycle without a helmet...Every day, my 'live and let live" is constrained at all points by the government, as the voice of society.

Where does the 'live and let live" aspect begin?

Yep, it's the cost of living in our society, for the better or worse! But you also have the freedom
to go out into some civilization-forsaken forest and live some utopic dream in nudity and taxlessness. It comes at a cost of course, but it's fully possible (though maybe not in your own state, but at least in some part of the country!), but it ain't easy.

To be frank I'm not too sure what is meant by "live and let live" in relation to abortion (English-not-being-my-mother-tongue-reality shoots in!). Anyone care to enlighten me?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think the choice aspect DOES matter. I think that part of the objection against abortion includes the fact that the baby has done nothing wrong - it is an innocent at this point in time, and our society goes with "live and let live" unless the person has CHOSEN to do something so awful that society needs to apply a consequence.

So are you truly genuinely ok with killing someone who you KNOW (assuming you have the ability to know for sure) has been fundamentally changed by finding god (becoming born again, however you want to put it) because they shot a liquor store clerk back in 1978 during a robbery when they were 19 years old? What if this person has actually done real good for others since his conversion? Are you really fine with killing him despite the fact that he seems to have begun to finally realize his god given potential? Can you REALLY justify to yourself the notion that yes he is a good man now because of redemption he found after commiting the sins he did and he is doing good for his fellow man now but we need to kill him anyway.

I wonder if a god would really have in mind the death of one man and the imprisonment of his killer which then leads to the killers redemption and living a life of good works only to have him killed as he is finally fulfilling his potential. That doesn’t make sense to me under any kind of religious logic Im aware of.