Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.
—Barack Obama, Notre Dame Commencement Speech (5/16/09)
Gumboz1953: I very cynically believed this story, until I clicked through from Google Reader and saw the Onion... 
Potco: The only reason I realized that it was a joke is because the name was of the past pope. 
LRA: Oops– It’s on Ross, not Greenville, but here’s a map of Fellowship Dallas:... 
Sunny Day: Served. 
Yoav: In a way it didn’t. One group stuck to the isolation imposed by following mosaic law and became what we... 
Jerdog: That’s good satire for ya. 
Elemenope: That sounds pretty tame for him. 
592 Comments
The Holy Roman Church does not want health care policies grounded in clear ethics and sound science! They want rigidly enforced laws based solely on their ancient and outdated dogma. Obama might as well have extended that olive branch straight into a tree-shredder! They’re the same in the UK. Here’s a post I wrote just over a year ago about the abortion debate in this coutry: http://custador.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/pro-lifers-in-the-uk-are-dicks-again/
Re-reading it still fills me with anger at Nadine Dorries, Catholic MP from hell (btw, she’s under inverstigation at the moment over her highly questionable expenses claims – moral bastion or what?)
Where you from Custador – I have had some dealings with your favourite MP…
I live in Cardiff at the mo.
So why the beef with nadine?
Her imposition of Catholic values on all of her decisions, against the will of an electorate which is mostly secular and disagrees with her would be my starting point. Read the post I linked to above and you’ll see why she pisses me off so badly.
Hmm.. I sense a certain anger here maybe….pretty much agree with what you say. Have crossed swords with the lady on development politics once or twice (she is against any in mid-Beds and the eco-town proposal caused her coniption fits) but we have never got into religion. good job probably.
Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause
Okey dokey. Something like “people who conscientiously object to abortions will not be forced to have them.” There, that does it for me.
Or forced to administer them, if they are doctors.
I’m sorry, but how is a doctor ever “forced” to do anything?! They have the same right as any other trade to say “No, I am not performing this service for this person”. You can’t compell any doctor to do anything they don’t want to. Certainly not in the UK, anyway!
There was proposed legislation (in California?) that would have forced Drs. in certain hospitals and clinics to either perform abortions or face severe penalties, up to forfeiting their medical license.
AFAIK, that legislation didn’t pass, but it was proposed.
Hence, my comment.
I would imagine that, even if that legislation passed, it would have been shot down in flames by the Supreme Court inside of a day. I hope so, anyway!
Yes, let’s hope so. But, at least that gives context to my comment in response to you. I don’t know how we can reasonably force Drs. to administer procedures to which they ethically object.
No offense Custador you must be unaware of the leanings of that particular circuit. The restrictions on personal freedom goes unabated in the interests of the better good.
None taken. I should point out again that I am very much pro-choice – but I think that has to apply to everybody. If a doctor makes as choice not to perform abortions, it should be respected.
No, it should say that a medical professional is allowed to recuse themselves from cases in which they have severe moral or ethical issues surrounding, only as long as a professional of equal or greater knowledge is available to be referred too and is accessible by the client.
I agree that’s what it should say (I think), but that’s not what it did say, right?
No it isn’t. The rule put forward by President GWBush was that medical professional can refuse to perform a procedure they find objectionable based upon moral religious grounds. This includes denial treatment if it is not life threatening. ie If I got genital warts, the doctor could refuse to remove them solely because I got them while performing a homosexual act or even a sexual act if I was not married. Not that I have them, just using it as an example
I don’t think we’re talking about the same legislation. I’ll see if I can find the news clipping… I think I bookmarked it.
The thing is though, any doctor making that kind of demarcation would be bankrupt really fast! It’s all very well talking about hypotheticals like that, but it’s misleading to suggest that it would, in reality, have an effect on any issue other than abortion.
Forced to administer them? I’m sorry, but if a doctor is uninterested in women’s health issues, then DON’T become an ob/gyn. Specialize in something else. There are hundreds of specialties.
Obama’s speech is nonsensical for someone who holds his position. How, if it’s not doing wrong, is abortion “a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions?” If it’s merely a woman’s right over control of her own body, why the moral and spiritual battle? If he admits there’s a battle then perhaps there’s the matter of another victim whose life is being extinguished for the sake of convenience and immediacy.
Jeff, that is extremely one-dimensional thinking, and it has been amply addressed (by me, among others) in the rest of this thread! The “If this is one thing then that MUST be the other thing” way of arguing is nonsensical and presents false parameters which, if you think about them, you will see are invalid.
Way to reduce abortion to a black and white issue when it’s anything but.
First, it’s not always due to “expedience” or “convenience”. Tubal pregnancies – where the embryo settles in the fallopian tubes rather than in the womb – do exist. The child won’t survive. Nor will the mother. Why sacrifice both?
Anencephalic foeti exist. A child without a brain. Why go through the emotional pain of having a pregnancy when the child will not survive, at all, neither has any chance of survival? Why be so cruel?
Not to mention other cases. There was a girl here in Brazil who was pregnant of twins, the father being her father, who raped her repeatedly. All the three children were likely to die – since the mother was nine years old.
Abortion was performed. The child is safe, as her father was arrested. Ironically enough, the Catholic Church excommunicated the child and the doctors for the abortion, but not her father…
I would abort if I got pregnant. I use protection, I use contraceptives, but if I got pregnant anyway I’d abort it – I have neither the physical or psychological structure to raise a child. To do so would be cruel and inhumane of me. Likewise to abandon the child, who didn’t ask to be born, after all. It is my responsibility to control my body.
You list these examples of dangerous pregnancies as though they are common place. I am not minimizing the seriousness of these problems that occur in pregnancy. They are all serious. However, to list ectopic pregnancies as an example for why abortion should be legal for all women is to make a minority the rule. Ectopic pregnancies only occur in about 1 in 50 pregnancies. Neural tube defects (you referred to as anencephaly) only occur in about 1 in 1000 pregnancies. There are no statistics available as to the number of births that result from incest, but it is certainly a minority (along with rape). Even young children, such as the example you give of the 9 year old, are not the bulk of pregnancies. These are all minorities when it comes to pregnancies.
Consideration should be given to abortion in these instances, but these should not then govern the majority of the population. Some of these do pose real health risks to the mothers. However, in the majority of pregnancies, these “health risks” simply do not exist.
Indeed. But what about psychological health?
You assume having a child is merely a matter of popping out a baby, like things magically happen. They don’t. There’s the issue of passing through nine months of pregnancy, there is the social pressure, there is the economical pressure, there are other health risks associated with procreation, there is the matter of caring for a child you never desired in the first place for the next, what, sixteen to eighteen years – more if you live in a country where family ties tend to last longer, as is mine – there is the psychological pressure of having to love and care for a child you did not want or abandoning it to a possible life of misery because you can’t afford to care for it…
People tend to focus on the cuddly bits and forget it isn’t easy to raise children – and, frankly, people unfit to do so shouldn’t, whether they want to or not. I’m not about to force “unfit” parents to abort their children – that’s their decision – but I would like those who believe they are unfit parents to terminate while it’s time, rather than condemn another human to misery.
Having a child should be a conscious decision, not something that happens because you have no other choice. It’s not fair to the mother, it’s not fair to the child, it’s not fair to society; it’s only fair to holier-than-thou people who want to feel good because an embryo was saved.
I don’t think I intimated anywhere in my post that having children was “merely a matter of popping out a baby.” I have children, I was with my wife for the nine months, I was there when they were born, I know about all those psychological factors you mentioned. I know it is hard on the father who is involved and cares just as much as it is on the mother. But you made another interesting comment
So you would rather unfit parents kill their children rather than bring that child into a life of misery? If one is to follow that logic, then should we not do the same for all of the toddlers who are currently living a life of misery because they have unfit parents? I assume by the phrase you used, “while its time,” meant before the child was born, but what difference does that make? You are saying then that location in regard to the birth canal determines whether or not a parent can terminate their child.
Well, that depends only if you consider an embryo the size of a grain of rice as a child, doesn’t it?
Do you consider eggs a child? Sperm? Why not? They’re each a potential child, are they not? You’re terminating a million potential lives every time you ejaculate. I am terminating a life every time I menstruate. Mass murderers, are we?
Killing a person is unethical, immoral. A toddler is a person. To kill a toddler – a child – has consequences, both ethical and legal.
I have yet to see pregnant women who had miscarriages be accused of manslaughter, though – that’s probably because embryos are not children, any more than blueprints are houses or my clipped fingernails are me. An early embryo is little more than a cell. A cancer, as someone has mentioned before. A foetus is closer to a human. I’m not saying you should nilly-willy kill foeti; I agree that after a given time (say, when it has a brain, which would distinguish it from the anencephalic cases), it’d be unethical. I’m saying it’s better to discard blastocysts and embryos (which is done every day, naturally, everywhere) than to wound children and women both.
You have children. Good for you. You know better than most how hard it is to care for them. I assume they were wanted, not mistakes.
Now, I don’t want children, so I won’t have them. Simple like that.
@Siberia
You made quite a number of claims in your response.
“I agree that after a given time (say, when it has a brain, which would distinguish it from the anencephalic cases), it’d be unethical.”
I am glad that we both agree that late term abortions should not happen. What reason do you give for abortions being unethical at this point in development?
“Well, that depends only if you consider an embryo the size of a grain of rice as a child, doesn’t it? Do you consider eggs a child? Sperm? Why not? They’re each a potential child, are they not? You’re terminating a million potential lives every time you ejaculate. I am terminating a life every time I menstruate. Mass murderers, are we?” You keep changing the subject. I did not bring up eggs or sperm. But yes, I do consider an embryo a child. At the point of fertilization, the embryo is distinct from the mother (where sperm and eggs are not distinct). Your intimation that I would categorize us as mass murderers is simply spouting out unfounded claims and putting words in my mouth at an attempt to make me appear foolish, which I do not appreciate.
“Killing a person is unethical, immoral. A toddler is a person. To kill a toddler – a child – has consequences, both ethical and legal. I have yet to see pregnant women who had miscarriages be accused of manslaughter, though – that’s probably because embryos are not children”
You are correct that killing a person is right and that there are (and should be) consequences to killing a toddler. You are also right that there has not (to my knowledge) been a women accused of manslaughter because she had a miscarriage. The problem with this statement is that the miscarriage doesn’t occur as a direct result of actions by the mother. It would be unjust in the same way to try and accuse a mother of manslaughter because her child died because it contracted the swine flu. So your statement that it’s “probably because embryos aren’t children” simply isn’t the case because the fact of the matter is that people can be prosecuted for killing an embryo. For example, if I had punched my wife in the stomach repeatedly while she was pregnant causing her to miscarry, I could be charged with manslaughter right on up to first degree murder.
“You have children. Good for you. You know better than most how hard it is to care for them. I assume they were wanted, not mistakes.”
Whether my children were wanted or mistakes makes no difference on their rights as human beings. Simply because a child results as an “accident” doesn’t mean that all of a sudden they don’t have rights as a human being. It seems that you have stated this fact a few times now; that if a child is unwanted, then it is ok to abort them. Have I misunderstood you or misrepresented your position here?
So, let’s educate our childs in the use of contraceptions.
Maybe some catholics -beginning with the pope- are going to oppose.
And that’s the problem. They can shout and scream about how much they hate abortion until they’re all blue in the face, but it won’t achieve anything. If, however, they were to finally come out of the dark ages and start possitively promoting condoms and birth control pills, abortion rates would drop overnight!
Abortion rates are not that high among Catholics; so, promoting birth control among Catholics won’t lower the abortion rate very much, actually.
Fair point well presented, although there’s some evidence that Catholics are more likely to go the (potentially very harmful) “back-street abortionist” route, and that rates of abortion amongst them are not properly known because of that.
I suppose that’s possible, but it’s ultimately unprovable as a result of the whole “back-street” issue.
It’s also possible that some Catholics who have had abortions either:
1) Report the abortion but don’t self-identify as Catholic
or
2) Don’t report the abortion.
But either way, Catholics have fewer abortions when compared to other demographic groups; hence, promoting birth control among them won’t impact the abortion rate dramatically.
Furthermore, any Catholic who gets a public education gets that education, in spite of the church’s official rejection of it.
Plus, we do live in the information age, where anyone in the 1st or 2nd world can access that type of information freely via the web of their own volition.
I’m not defending the pope, because I don’t agree with him, but I do think the pope’s a bit of a scapegoat in this argument, as there is so much information out there that’s freely available. In other words, if you’re a citizen of a 1st or 2nd world country, it’s more likely than not that you have free access to that type of information at the very least, and free or cheap access to contraception if you want it.
Not if you don’t know anything about it. I have taught sex ed and youd be surprised how many ppl have the wrong information about safer sex and contraceptive methods. They have ranged from 10yr olds, all the way up to 64yr olds. Look at a male condom box, its diagrams are marketed to those without foreskins, there is a crappy cartoon for how to insert a diaphragm or a female condom with some of the female contraceptives. If you don’t know what the devices are called can you use them. What if their not available or the local pharmacist is the neighbor who goes to church with your parents. Don’t assume that just because the info is available it is accesible or understood by the person reading it
Stuart,
My point was that we live in an age where that information is available to those who have access to the internet (hence my 1st and 2nd world qualifiers).
If I’m in a country with access to the internet, and I’m in middle school, I will likely know how to use the internet. So, if I really want to learn how to use a condom, I can use google to help me figure out how.
Now, if you take that argument in context — the context of arguing that the pope is not to blame for teenage pregnancy — I think it’s a fair statement.
If I were arguing for abstinence-only education based on that argument, then it would be a different story.
But, my only point was to say that the pope’s official rejection of birth control doesn’t explain teenage pregnancy. I do think that’s a fair argument.
Even utilizing your first and second world arguments you still assume that person can understand that information. Also school filters block most of the more helpful sites on safer sex.
Your right the pope is not to blame for teenage pregnancy, the catholic church and pope though are partially at fault for the spread of STI’s(especially HIV), the spreading of false information about safer sex and the continued patriarchal view towards sexual acts in general. It has also led to some women because of this stance to not utilize these methods of birth control available, barring the rhythm method the only catholic approved method of birth control, to experience pregnancy
Even utilizing your first and second world arguments you still assume that person can understand that information. Also school filters block most of the more helpful sites on safer sex.
In the context I gave, it’s fair to assume that they could understand the information — that’s my point.
A middle school student in America who has had basic health classes and has access to the internet is fully capable of figuring out how to use a condom effectively. That doesn’t mean that’s the method we should we rely on. But, that does mean that young people who act irresponsibly can’t simply be let off the hook.
I think it’s possible most Catholics don’t report abortions, or that Catholics are the group least likely to report abortions.
How many Catholics are forced to go ahead with child-bearing, and unmarried or too young, have their children stolen by their parents and given to another couple?
Also, how many are isolated from their friends and family for the duration and socially outcast for not being a virgin even after the “mistake” was erased?
@ Kodie: Ironic, isn’t it? We rail against organised marriages such as are common in Muslim countries, but turn a blind eye to far worse abuses in Catholic homes.
That’s a good question, Kodie. I assume you’re asking it rhetorically, which means you’re assuming that happens often. I’m not saying those things don’t happen — I know they do — but I don’t think either of us knows how often they happen. (Unless you know of studies to which I’m not privy)
No, I was just wondering. I don’t know any studies or anyone this has happened to personally, so I don’t base any assumptions on whether this is done as a matter of course or just for dramatic effect in the movies. Catholics have a lot of repressed ideas about sex, and ideologies that follow the church, obviously on the morality of abortion.
I don’t know whether a Catholic unmarried woman and/or under the age of 18 is more often or likely to be advised to keep the baby, marry the father and keep the baby, give it up for adoption, or have it forcibly given up for adoption by her parents, nor whether these options are more likely given as advice, a strong suggestion, emotional blackmail, her choice, or by actual force (listed in random order, may be incomplete). I don’t know whether Catholic unmarried women and/or under the age of 18 are likely to not feel so Catholic and get abortions anyway, nor whether they would fear a given Catholic authority’s (her parents and/or the community they represent) reprisal enough to attempt to hide the pregnancy and either throw it in the dumpster or “Safe Haven” it, or run away and do whatever. I can’t get inside the mind of a Catholic, and I haven’t read up on their statistical tendencies to react stereotypically to an unwanted pregnancy in the family.
” I’m not defending the pope, because I don’t agree with him, but I do think the pope’s a bit of a scapegoat in this argument ”
Bull shit. The Pope is a morally bankrupt and small minded person. His remarks about condoms not bieng the answer to the aids problem in Africa are evil. Period.
No one ever said that condoms use was the absolute answer to the aids problem in africa, but it is a fact that condoms slow the spread of sexually transmitted diseas and pregnacies amongst people who are not ready for children.
The pope is trully a Jack ass
Yah, but as brgulker pointed out when I made a similar point, Catholics don’t believe in abortions OR birth control – so the Pope blessing condoms might not have the effect you’d think on abortion rates!
That aint the point my friend. The Catholic church provides services for folks who are not Catholics as well.
Last time I checked the majority of Chrisitians ( in the US at least) do not wait until marraige to have sex.
Also condoms dont just prevent unplanned pregnacies they also prevent the spread of some sexually transmitted diseases.
Like I said before the pope is trully a small minded Jack Ass.
I meant to say. Last time I checked the majority of Catholics ( in the US at least) do not wait until marraige to have sex.
Also if the holy rolling pro lifers (Catholic or otherwise) they would be creating orginizations and making a serious, serious fuss about dead beat dads.
If they were really serious about children they would have the best, most innovative and comprehensive programs to bring dead beat fathers back into the lives of children.
They are full of it.
markbey:
I’d like to make suer you know about Catholic Social Services.
I’m not sure why you’ve determined that dead beat dads are the biggest issue that Catholics should be tackling, and I also don’t know if CSS has a program for them. However, I can tell you from experience with this organization that they are comprehensively pro-life, i.e., they run a variety of programs that are designed specifically to enhance the lives of children.
Feel free to peruse their website if you’re interested in learning more about what they do.
http://www.css-phl.org/
markbey: “The Pope is a morally bankrupt and small minded person.”
totally agree. Daniel should throw up that vid where the circus comes to visit the Pope/Vatican again… it crystallized my view on the absurdity of a “Pope” figure completely. What a joke. When that religion realizes we’re just animals and not some special god creature, maybe then they’ll advocate birth control. Don’t hold your breath.
Problem is – big problem – the pope holds a lot more sway in countries without ample information access.
I’m not talking about the middle classes here. I’m talking about the vastly uneducated masses, where a woman easily has nine to fourteen children and no condition to raise them, nor education enough – or awareness – to protect themselves (not to mention the times the church goes actively against it and human nature by preaching ‘abstinence only’). I should know; I live in one such country.
brgulker,
The rates just might be lower because they’re not listening to their Church, thankfully.
I read a great saying about the abortion debate. I cannot remember who said it, but these are not my words:
“the pro-life movement needs to understand that abortion is a necessary evil and the pro-choice movement needs to understand that abortion is a necessary evil”
I think the pro-choice people truly understand this, no matter what the pro-lifers think. My wife and I are pro-choice and don’t want kids, but if she got pregnant, it would not be a quick and easy choice.
I can tell you from experience that it’s not. It’s a horrible choice to have to make, even for a pro-choice couple. It’s still your potential offspring, and that does make a difference.
I agree custador
Yes. Sometimes necessary, sometimes evil. Sometimes neither. Well said, anonymous quoted person!
Although I have more in common philosophically with the pro-life than pro-choice side, I think I tend to agree with Obama with respect to legislation and public policy.
Personally, I would like to see a differentiation in terms that would distinguish the various types of abortion, because in my mind, there is a clear difference between aborting a fetus because the mother doesn’t want the baby and aborting a fetus because the mother/fetus will die/be extremely disabled as a result of the pregnancy.
The big problem I have with the typical pro-life stuff is that they are unwilling to differentiate among 1) Abortions because the mother doesn’t want the baby 2) Abortions based on medical reasons 3) The ‘hard cases,’ such as rape and incest (That list isn’t meant to be exhaustive, just a for example). They persist in making the blanket “abortion is wrong” argument, and that just doesn’t cut it.
For those reasons, I don’t support the Pro-life movement when it comes to legislation. Creating legislation that corresponds to their blanket objection against abortion in all cases would be an enormous step backwards, and I can’t support that.
1) ideological: since you seem able to allow abortions for cases of rape, incest, mother’s health, etc. you obviously do not hold hold strict objections to the taking of a fetus’ life. Why you think you should be able to control choices over what happens to a woman’s body in other cases becomes more difficult to justify.
2) practical: If abortion is disallowed in general, but with exceptions for the life and health of the mother, the number of cases of reported health threats to the mother will go way up.
Reginald:
First, in my view, there is a very clear difference between a pregnancy resulting from rape and a pregnancy resulting from willing sexual activity. If a person chooses to have sex, that person assumes the ‘risks’ associated with that sexual activity. That’s what justifies my distinctions.
The reason I oppose (and note what I said in a previous post about legislation and my agreement with Obama) abortion as simply another form of contraception, ie a condom, is that I think very differently about the fetus than other posters here do. In my view, the fetus is not a cancer to be eliminated but rather the potential to become a valuable human being — and I agree with the pro-life camp insofar as I think that the fetus does have some rights.
So, to your point about me “controlling” what happens to another woman’s body.
First, I do not agree with you about the primary issue. You want to make it the woman’s choice and the woman’s body. I want to make it about the potential human being.
Second, I said in a previous post that I don’t think legislation is the most effective way to be pro-life. I’m for sex education and for promoting adoption as an alternative.
Third, I think blanket legislation is a bad idea. I don’t like Roe v. Wade for that very reason, and I don’t support the overturning of Roe v. Wade because it’s a mistake in the opposite direction.
Fourth, hypothetically, if I had to choose between Roe v. Wade or its overturning, I would choose the latter for two reasons. First, because if I’m going to err, and both choices are mistakes in my view, I would rather err on the side of caution. A fetus can become a human life, and I value life. I would rather have legislation that protects that life than legislation that does not. But as I said, I don’t support blanket legislation on either side, so when it comes to Roe v. Wade, I simply let it be.
But, back to the issue of control: there are all sorts of laws that “control” our behavior. For example, when I’m operating a car in Michigan, I am prohibited from driving more than 25 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood. The state “controls” my right to drive how I want to drive when it affects the life of another human being. But, where you are using “control” as a sort of buzz word to write off my argument, I would use a word like restrict. My rights and choices are restricted by the state everyday, and so are yours. And that is as it should be.
since you seem able to allow abortions for cases of rape, incest, mother’s health, etc. you obviously do not hold hold strict objections to the taking of a fetus’ life.
That’s a heck of a logical leap to make and isn’t my point at all. My point is simply this: there are situations in which there is no “right” answer. The girl who is impregnated by a rapist faces an incredibly painful, difficult situation. The parents who are forced to decide between the mother’s life and the life of the fetus are faced with a painfully difficult decision. And the only people who are qualified to make those judgments are the people in those situations.
First, I do not agree with you about the primary issue. You want to make it the woman’s choice and the woman’s body. I want to make it about the potential human being.
Sorry, you threw that option out when you went with an exception for rape.
Reginald, we’re simply talking past each other at this point because you are ignoring my attempt to differentiate among the different reasons for which a woman would want to abort a pregnancy.
As a general rule, or in other words the 93% of the time when pregnancies are simply unwanted and the women chose to engage in sexual activity, I don’t support the abortion.
However, there are exceptions to that general rule.
If you want to ignore that differentiation and just try to trap me, you’re welcome to do so, however.
The girl who is impregnated by a rapist faces an incredibly painful, difficult situation. The parents who are forced to decide between the mother’s life and the life of the fetus are faced with a painfully difficult decision.
So is the girl who is impregnated by someone other than a rapist. It’s a painfully difficult decision. The difference is you want to take that decision away from her.
And the only people who are qualified to make those judgements are the people in those situations.
Seems to contradict you prior argumentation for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
So is the girl who is impregnated by someone other than a rapist. It’s a painfully difficult decision. The difference is you want to take that decision away from her.
…
Seems to contradict you prior argumentation for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
You’re not reading my posts. You’re prejudging me based on arguments you’ve had before. I don’t support legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade. I don’t think legislation is the best way to oppose abortion. I said I agree with Obama when it comes to public policy.
Just because I oppose abortion as simply another form of preventative contraception doesn’t mean I want to make a law out of my opposition. What I did say is that if the only two options were 1) Keeping Roe v. Wade or 2) Overturning it I would choose the latter. But, those aren’t the only options.
With respect to your comment about “taking the choice away from her,” I would say two things. First, I’m not lobbying for overturning Roe v. Wade. Second, if I were, I would appeal to the plethora of laws that restricts our behavior when it affects someone else. In other words, taking away or restricting choices is a legitimate function of law which we all experience on a daily basis.
“That said, I don’t endorse simply overturning Roe v. Wade, because that would eliminate the very choices that I do support. Which is why I agree with a lot of what Obama supports, ie, minimizing abortion through promotion of contraception and encouraging adoption as an alternative.”
That’s actually pretty close to the defining reason for having laws in the first place, which is “To protect the weak and vulnerable in our society from persecution by the strong and powerful”.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. My point is that I don’t support overturning Roe v. Wade because I don’t see getting rid of one blanket piece of legislation for another.
I would much rather see legislation that differentiates among the various reasons for abortion, as I’ve indicated elsewhere; however, I’m a realist, and i know that won’t happen. As a result, I don’t think we should overturn Roe v. Wade.
Couple that with my belief that I don’t think legislation is the most effective way to oppose abortion in the first place, and hopefully it makes better sense why I don’t think overturning Roe v. Wade is the solution.
The thing is, when someone consents to sex, they consent to sex, not to pregnancy or to having a child. Just as when someone smokes, they consent to smoking, not to lung cancer. Because we know and understand the risks of our actions does not mean we let go of our right to do something about it if and when those risks become a reality. The 40-a-day smoker still has the right to get treatment for his lung cancer, and the sexual active woman should have the same right to a termination if she wants one.
With exceptions for rape – most rapes are unreported, and of those that are, very few actually end up in a conviction. Do you think a doctor should be making the call as to whether a woman was raped or not? What about rapes carried out by husbands or boyfriends – and there are huge numbers – would that make a difference, or are we only talking about rapes carried out in a dark back street by a stranger in a trench-coat? I mean, if we’re going to make an exception, rape is a difficult one to build legislation around, isn’t it?
What about other ‘mitigating’ circumstances? Would you grant an exception to the wife of an abusive husband who although she consented to sex did so under difficult circumstances and had no say in whether or not a condom was used? Lets say she wants an abortion because her husband beats their existing child and she doesn’t want to bring another child into that environment. Life is never black and white – this isn’t an issue where you can really say ‘this abortion is moral but that one isn’t’ – if abortion is wrong, then all abortions are. I’d say of course that even if it is, the rights of the people already born are the rights that matter most.
Parenthood should be a choice, every child should be wanted, not forced on unwilling parents who may not have the ability to give a child the best possible life. Women make the choice to abort for a multitude of reasons, and for the most part those decisions are not selfish ones – they are based on whether or not they are able to provide for the resulting child. That choice may be down to economic pressure, to an unstable family life, to health problems, or just because another child would mean that life gets more difficult for existing ones. Some women don’t want to have children at all – i can’t think of a worse person to be a parent than one who does not wish to be. Even if the choice is a selfish one – maybe she wants to have a career or go to school, or just go partying and have fun without the responsibility of a child – so what? Why should a woman not be allowed to choose what she does in life and when?
Babies are not just cute bundles, and if we are going to talk about respect for human life, i think that making a choice not to bring a child into the world because you know you can’t give it a good life is one of the most respectful decisions one could ever make.
The assumption that abortion is being used as another form of birth control i think is pretty far out of line with how it is actually used by the vast majority of women. Abortion is an invasive and uncomfortable procedure, it means taking time off work or school, it is often expensive and in many countries may mean traveling to find a provider, and making the decision to get one has implications outside just the ‘moral’ issues. Even where abortion is legal it isn’t always easy to access – some US states have only one provider which is not open every day. For the daughters of strict/religious parents, the wives and girlfriends of abusive partners, the poor, the under-educated … for all those women and many more, abortion is not always there when they need it. They are often the ones who need it most, but they are the most often deprived of their rights over their own bodies because of their circumstances.
Most women who have abortions got pregnant because their birth control failed. Even with ‘perfect’ use, there will be a few women who end up pregnant – we don’t yet have 100% reliable birth control, my 2 year old nephew is living proof that even with two methods of birth control pregnancy can still occur! This is not about stupid little girls thinking they can just get an abortion so don’t use a condom, it’s a mix of imperfect birth control, human error, lack of education and peer pressure. To give exceptions in the case of rape or health of the mother is to suggest that all these other women are either incapable of making that choice, or are so immoral that they should not be permitted to do so.
Let me repeat myself – women do not use abortion as birth control, to suggest that this is in any way prevalent is to insult the intelligence of 50% of the population. Yes, there are exceptions, there always are, but they are precisely that – exceptions.
Most women want to have children (although not all of us do), they just want to choose when and how many, and surely to bring children into the world who are wanted and planned is far better than the alternative. To do that means having abortion there when it’s needed.
I’d like nothing better than to see fewer abortions – abortion is after all a medical intervention and it does have risks, so reducing the number makes sense. I’d like however to see it done through education and access to birth control, not by taking away women’s control over their lives and their bodies.
Sorry this got so long :/
Amen, sister. Reality is Complicated. One can never make absolute claims.
Well, *almost* never. ;)
are you absolutely sure about that last statement?
A-fuckin’-men.
abortion extremes (rape incest and life of mother) account for 1% of all abortions. The majority of abortions in this country are for convenience.
This is pretty much how I feel. The idea that there are people out there who would force a girl who was raped by her father to follow through with her pregnancy is mind boggling.
Did you even *read* Isabelle’s post all the way through? Or did you just read dwade’s reaction to it?
Isabelle has a *lengthy* explanation of *exactly* why rape can be so ambiguous to define and names other circumstances where pressure is intense even if consent is present. Please go back and read Isabelle’s thoughts again if you don’t understand the ambiguities faced by women which she identified in her comments.
“we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.”
No, we can’t agree to that. For a lot of women abortion is a very easy decision, as it should be when a pregnancy is unwanted, and it’s certainly a decision with no spiritual dimension for anyone as spiritual dimension don’t exist. Pro-choices who say that abortion “is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make” with “spiritual dimension” have ceded the argument to the other side. Abortion is a morally neutral choice that should be promoted as an easy choice for women who want neither to be pregnant nor to have a child.
Abortion is a morally neutral choice that should be promoted as an easy choice for women who want neither to be pregnant nor to have a child.
You do realize that this statement is really the heart of the debate. The debate is really about what constitutes a human life/human being. Obama’s statement about it being a hard choice is meant to reach out to those who think that a fetus is a human life. For those who do think that, abortion is hardly morally neutral.
I am pro-choice, and I disagree with almost the entirety of your post.
For a lot of women abortion is a very easy decision, as it should be when a pregnancy is unwanted: No, no, no. You can make an intellectual decision on what is best for you and your partner and also judge what kind of life you would be able to provide for a child and realise that it’s not feasible. Fine. That doesn’t mean that you can take the decision to terminate the pregnancy lightly. You might actually want children but be in no possition to raise them yet – and accidents happen! In an ideal world, abortions would be incredibly rare anyway, because birth control would be free and easily available. If only we could get the pope to see that.
Pro-choices who say that abortion “is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make” with “spiritual dimension” have ceded the argument to the other side.: Again, you’re wrong. Sorry, but you are. You might not believe in spirituality (neither do I as it goes), but you need to accept that the majority of people in the world interpret the emotional trauma and conflict that they experience when going through this kind of decision as just that – a spiritual issue. For them, their “spiritual side” is very real, and very important.
Abortion is a morally neutral choice that should be promoted as an easy choice for women who want neither to be pregnant nor to have a child.: Abortion is a surgical procedure with some very real risks, including death and infertility. It should never be taken with the blase attitude that you’re promoting there.
This is why I do not like or use the term “spiritual.” It is ambiguous. Some times it is used to include the supernatural, other times not. In this instance, everything you mean by the word “spiritual” that I would agree with could be included under the word “emotional.”
Lots of words are ambiguous in the English language, Reginald. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use them. We just have to be precise. Words like “spiritual” shouldn’t be the exclusive vocabulary of the religious. This is a very strong conviction of mine: I want to be able to use these words on my own terms, and I’d like my fellow non-theists to quit lampooning me and others who identify with the word “spiritual” in a non-religious context.
If religion is a human-centric and not a divine-centric phenomena (which is what I believe), yet there are still all of these religions in every culture, it is apparent to me that there is some underlying facet of the human experience which should not be entirely neglected. We know lightning is electricity — that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t build a lightning rod. “Oh, I know what it is, so it’s okay now.”
No, it’s not okay. We need communities, we need fellowship — that is secular. And the response I always hear is, “why not go to sports teams or knitting groups or book clubs”? Do you know any sports teams or knitting groups that will help you take care of your children or will provide a caring society for your family?
I apologize for this tangent, but I am sincerely motivated to reclaim this human enterprise for the non-religious, too. We do so much to deny what is negative, and some of us would also like to embrace what is positive, and I wish that other members of the non-religious would not give us so much flak for it, and I also wish that the religious would not begrudge me the use of this language which I believe is common to us all.
Custador – you have hit the nail right on the head. As a non-believer and firmly commited to a woman’s right to choose, I can tell you from personal experience that it is, even in circumstances that leave little choice, an emotionally heart-wrenching experience. What it must be like for any woman to go through I really cannot imagine.
Thaank you, Mike. I don’t think it’s something you can really understand until you’ve been in that position.
Custador – do you feel that using a morning after pill is a reasonably difficult decision and fraught with angst? If not, how do we determine when abortion is a free and easy decision or difficult? Further, If one cannot logically postulate a reasonable moral demarcation between morning after pills and later procedures, then the choice should not be legislated or if done so, should be in the framework of a broad political compromise as in roe v. wade.
The morning after pill isn’t abortion. Abortion removes a zygote or foetus from the womb. The morning after pill prevents a newly fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the womb and developing into a zygote in the first place. The whole “morning after pill equals abortion” argument is as fatuous as it is ill-informed, I’m afraid.
the morning after pill is an abortifacient
Using a big word doesn’t mean your response amounted to anything other than
“NUH-UH”
God is the ultimate abortifacient… (seeing as how 25% of pregnancies spontaneously terminate).
God doesn’t cause miscarriages.
NUH-UH LRA, You’re a stupid-head
“dwade May 19, 2009 at 10:09 am
God doesn’t cause miscarriages.”
No! But only because he DOESN’T EXIST!
I don’t believe that Shiva causes abortions, either. But if she designed the system that caused an abortion to occur 25% of the time, I think she could be held in some way accountable.
Dwade, I just explained to you exactly what the morning after pill does! If you think I’m wrong (and I’m NOT wrong, by the way), look it up for yourself! The morning after pill prevents a pregnancy from ever occuring, it does NOT abort it!
Abortion is never an easy decision, have you ever been to an abortion clinic. Have you ever talked with a woman considering abortion? If you have, you wouldnt be making these claims.
Dwade, if my partner was going for a termination, I would be there with her. I promise, if anybody like you was picketing there, I’d leave them as a greasy pink smear on the asphalt and consider the world a better place without them. What it is with theists? Why can’t any of you just say “You know what? This is none of my business. I have no right to interfere”?
The most important thing to remember though is that though males can have an opinion, their not the ones carrying the brats, or be made by society feel that they are bad women for giving up their child, having sex before marriage, not wanting a baby. All us men are is the pump that provides half the juice, we aren’t even expected to care for the brats, save for money. So guess what guys, our voices should not carry as much weight as womens on this issue, it’s their voices that matter, and their opinions that should have the most weight. I believe in pro-choice, but if the father is known they should be made aware of the situation. It is still the womens choice, its her life, her body and until that bundle of cells pops out of her vagina, her mess of cancerous cells in her uterus to do with what she will.
What gets me is that either way the man will always be at the mercy of what the woman wants. If he wants the child but she doesn’t, tough shit. She’ll get an abortion and he’s out of luck. If he doesn’t want the child but she does, tough shit. He’ll be forced by the courts to support the child.
The moral of the story? Get fixed or wear a condom!
or just don’t have sex with women. hehe.
It’s also why I believe that the male donor if known should be informed. It allows them to discuss options, maybe he takes over raising and caring for the tumour. It’s still her body and to put it bluntly he is just biological matter source, so she gets final say. It sucks and is unfair but until science reaches the point where men can carry babies (can’t you just imagine a baby popping out of your penis, do you think it would stretch or split in two???) we really can’t argue
It’s at times like this that I couldn’t be happier that I’m a homosexual.
Lol – and trust me, a lot of straight guys envy you! Well, for certain aspects of it, anyway. The prejudice and social exclusion… Not so much.
Just the fantastic sex without the worries of pregnancies, the lack of that time of the month in our partners and the ability to colour coordinate. lol
Well, it isn’t always fantastic. Some guys seem to not know how to do…well, *anything*. Which is rather annoying.
Some women are the same, that’s not just a gay thing!
It is still the womens choice, its her life, her body and until that bundle of cells pops out of her vagina, her mess of cancerous cells in her uterus to do with what she will.
Now we’re to the heart of the issue. If we disagree about that — and I think there is scientific, not just moral or religious reason to disagree about that — then there’s a legitimate disagreement to be had about legislation. In other words, if the fetus is more than a ‘bunch of cancerous cells,’ then it is possible that legislation that limits the woman’s freedom could be credible and fair.
That was meant to be in response to Stuart
Just because the cells have the potential to become self-sufficient doesn’t make them any less foreign. A women has foreign cells growing in her body, they are not her own, they cause numerous physical and psychological side effects. Sounds like cancer to me. You draft legislation to claim those cancerous cells as having rights, you are than saying other cancers also have the potential to be self-sufficient, oncology is no more. You are forbidden from killing the cancerous cells growing in your body, they might become capable of self sustaining life.
Also they recently in labs succeeded in transferring an embryo from one womb to another. Get your volunteers ready, their is lots of tumours looking for new places to grow. Start lining up, but I doubt you’ll have enough women willing to care and raise the little cancers, than the number seeking not to have them at this time. Especially if their is no economic support coming from Bio-Mom or Bio-Dad
Start lining up, but I doubt you’ll have enough women willing to care and raise the little cancers, than the number seeking not to have them at this time
Ha. I bet “Octo-Mom” would take the entire lot.
How many types of cancer eject themselves from the body after nine months of growth? Sorry, but comparing cancer to a fetus is just daft in my book.
And no, a fetus isn’t foreign cells – the cells come from the mother. At most you can claim that 50% of the DNA comes from the father, but it’s still the mother’s body that creates all the cells.
Methinks you need to review embryonic development…
Two haploid cells form a diploid cell that grows and divides. The mother’s body only donates ONE haploid cell.
you clearly have no concept of embryology, the mothers body technically creates no cells other than those involved in the ovum, which once released from the ovary are no longer attached to her body and therefore no longer a part of it. the cells that form the zygote then fetus all form from the this cell (ovum) in combination with the genetic matter contained in the sperm. it is not part of the mothers body in anyway. you may say it is connected via the placenta but that is simply a parasitic relationship, the mother gains nothing physiologically except changes in hormones in response to changes in the fetus, the fetus itself is not beneficial to the mother but the mother is beneficial to the fetus, definition of a parasite. and that is what makes cancer different, cancers are not foreign cells, they are the same cells from the same tissue which have just gone rampant due to genetic mutations, they are not foreign cells.
perhaps the argument should be that we have the right to remove worms thus we have the right to remove fetuses?
All right, I retract the point about the fetus being a part of the mother on technical grounds. But I maintain my objection to Stuart that a fetus isn’t comparable to cancer, in that it is “controlled” growth and it eventually removes itself from the body.
Also, I find it rather simplistic to call a fetus a parasite. It may from a – purely arbitrary – biological convention be labeled as such, but in a wider perspective I don’t know of any other parasites that perpetuate the human species and consist of human genes.
It fits the definition perfectly.
“It fits the definition perfectly.”
If we were to stick rigourously to this definition, I doubt any women would want to have children. Who in their right mind would want to volountarily nurture a parasite in their body – except if that parasite was actually a child? The fetus is clearly a special case compared to all other kinds of parasites, which is why I find that using the general definition “parasite” brings nothing to the discussion.
Yes it is both accurate and offensive. Heh.
No it doesn’t. Parasites cause their hosts harm without benefit. A foetus is more of a symbiote.
Well, morning sickness, gestational diabetes, and swollen ankles might refute your symbiosis claim…
I don’t think I can agree with your argument. Let’s suppose that a zygote/embryo/fetus should be granted some degree of respect or “rights,” possibly scaled to its extent of development. When do these rights exceed those of the adult woman in whose womb they reside?
The moral test questions about waking up with a transfusion tube in your arm connected to a kidney patient come to mind. Even if a fetus had all the rights of an adult, this would not preclude the woman having total control over her own body.
Beacon of sagacity that he is, Noam Chomsky put it something like this:
Everyone agrees that it would be wrong to kill your three year old child, but that it is probably OK to swat a mosquito. Somewhere between these two extremes lies the issue of abortion. Whether a clump of cells falls on the side of ‘mosquito’ or ‘full child’ is controversial by its very nature.
But if you are interested in saving children’s lives, there are innumerable non-controversial ways to do it. Only about one million abortions happen in the US every year, while in the same time 10 million children will die of dehydration worldwide. If anti-abortionists really cared about saving the children, they could invest their time and energy stopping easily preventable child deaths, in a non-controversial manner.
‘Saving the children’ is therefore not what they are really arguing for.
(paraphrased from the movie Lake of Fire [which is a must see if you think you have an opinion on abortion])
Not everyone agrees that it is wrong to kill a 3 year old child, even your own and others would argue that a mosquito has every much right to life as you or I do. (Don’t assume other peoples morals and values) I do see your point though regarding the mosquito-child arguement. It comes down to who matters more a woman or a fetus. A woman who is violated by the cancerous cells in her body or A woman who get treatment and removes the cancerous cells
I do think that your constant referral to zygotes/foetuses as “cancerous cells” is inflamatory and deliberately false, tbh…
I couldn’t agree more.
It’s more along the lines of who gets to say what is good news and what is bad news. Everyone thinks getting cancer is bad, so there is social agreement that we treat cancer and try to eliminate it from the body as a matter of course. Nobody is saying carrying a fetus is always bad, or there would be no pro-choice people who have children. Certain religious and/or moral mandates consider the fetus always to be good, while some people disagree – for themselves – that it should not be allowed to linger and thrive inside the body. The treatment for that is abortion. The allowance of non-treatment may, in fact, kill the mother, just like cancer would. It’s a treatable condition, however. The decision to call these cells good or bad is an individual one – if you want to live your life with your tumors on the outside, that’s up to you. You might even give them special names, but that doesn’t mean being responsible for the upkeep for these tumors will always cause joy for you or for the tumor. Nobody can look into the future, but most people can hazard a guess if they want to keep a tumor around for 20 years and cover all their financial and emotional needs, become attached to them as they may prosper and grow well, or become utter failures who wish they were never born, or not. Early treatment is offered to alleviate this sort of suffering for both the parent(s) and the child; meanwhile, others would have you forced to consider this outcome a 100% blessing with no ill effects, or blame the parents for the ill effects they deserve for not wanting to be or unable to be responsible for growing up another human. Would have aborted, but enforced otherwise, the child is still unwanted and now demands care. That’s a good thing? Or that’s bad, like cancer? Depends on the individual.
Reading that made my head hurt…. I’ll attempt a reply when I haven’t just done 12 hours on the ward!
My posts always seem shorter and clearer to me while I’m writing them than they look after I hit post. I sometimes fail to break for paragraphs. I know I need to work on concision and editing properly. I sometimes feel that if I don’t fit it all in on one post, I’ll have to clarify later, which I almost always clarify later anyway. It ends up appearing as a rant, which I didn’t intend, and I have had this trouble in other formats and forums, so I should know better. :)
Oh, I wasn’t criticising your writing – I was criticising my own comprehension after a very long day :)
I realize my writing style tends to have that effect. The TL;DR version of it is I don’t know why fetuses can’t be compared to cancer on a case-by-case basis. I think there are some standards of propriety and self-censorship that withhold a pro-choice person from using that to establish an analogy, it’s just “too far,” or it’s intentionally upsetting so the discussion with pro-life person won’t get very far. If you illustrate the cases of having a cancer (default: unwanted) and having the responsibility for an unwanted child, which I did above, I observe the outcomes to be similar and the treatments to be similar at the early stages, and analytically, I hope that’s not still offensive to compare the two.
It’s more an observation on human behavior – if you go so far to be an atheist, a pro-choice supporter, or just about anything, one still tends to be adherent to social customs which tend to make negative associations with certain remarks, calling them inflammatory and such, without exploring those associations and seeing they’re not actually bad. Or at least I like to question whether they are as bad as they seem, or worse, or just accurate. Whenever I can, I like to cut through the nonsense of keeping one’s mouth shut over someone else’s potential sensitivity or inability to read for comprehension. This will probably look longer on the page than I thought it would.
I think this is one of the most difficult questions in terms of who has the right to do what and be protected. I am thoroughly an atheist, I am certainly not pro-life, but I’m not sure you’d call me pro-choice either. I don’t consider it a question of religious morality but rather in terms of what one human being should be allowed to do to another. Excluding cases of rape, the parties that involved in having sex that results in an egg cell being fertilized should have some idea of the risk that it might occur. I think that when you take a risk, you implicitly agree to accept the consequences of your actions and that may mean having to take care of a child that you didn’t really intend to have, or finding someone else that is willing to provide for it. In other words, you have indebted yourself to the fetus by engaging in an activity where you well know that it could be created.
When my daughter was born, the only real differences that I saw from before she was born to after is that I could see her without a machine, and she was breathing air instead of getting it processed through her mother first. I didn’t see any significant behavior or developmental differences, and I greatly doubt there were any real cognitive changes that occurred at least within the first several days over life “on the outside”. Given that most people would consider it murder to have aborted such a child post-natal, and there wasn’t much different about her compared to her time in the womb, I have a difficulty saying that a fetus is unimportant and below the consideration of it’s rights.
I also fully agree a woman has the natural right to decide what happens to her body, but as for anyone, an individual’s right to decide ends when it conflicts with the rights of another. I think the critical questions are: 1) does a fetus have any rights? 2) if it has rights, when does it acquire them? 3) what does a mother who willingly participated in having sex owe to the fetus? If I sign a contract, I agree to give up some of my freedom of choice in exchange for whatever is offered in the contract. There may not be a written contract that the mother, father and fetus all sign, but there IS in fact an obligation created by the choices of the mother and father. If anything, the fetus is a forced virtual party to the agreement.
I don’t think that we should have laws that completely disallow abortion. Given the tremendous difficulty in answering questions 1 and 2 that I mention above, I don’t presume to be able to answer them for others. This is despite my feeling that the parents owe a debt to the would-be child that I don’t think is properly dispensed with by what amounts to summary execution.
The gray area, rape, I have a harder time with. A mother should not be forced to carry a child to term if she is not responsible for it. I think the fetus might still be considered to have some rights, but I don’t see that they necessarily outweigh the rights of the mother to control her own destiny. I also don’t think that incest is a gray area, with the condition that it was truly consensual. Despite it being massively taboo, likely for what are good evolution/genetic reasons, a have doubts that a single instance of incest in a genetic history is a probable cause of severe damage to the genetics of a child or their progeny. As such, I don’t see that as cause to terminate a pregnancy simply because the unwitting fetus’s parents behaved outside of societal (and legal?) norms.
Excluding cases of rape, the parties that involved in having sex that results in an egg cell being fertilized should have some idea of the risk that it might occur. I think that when you take a risk, you implicitly agree to accept the consequences of your actions and that may mean having to take care of a child that you didn’t really intend to have, or finding someone else that is willing to provide for it. In other words, you have indebted yourself to the fetus by engaging in an activity where you well know that it could be created.
Howcome when I say it, people respond, but when you say it, no one responds?
Oh, fine, here it goes:
Let us say I use contraception. Let us say I wear a condom. Let us say I have sex. I did not, quite obviously, sign up for a pregnancy. I tried to prevent it, tooth and nail.
I got it anyway. I signed up for sex, but got an embryo – which, in the first stages, is barely more relevant than a clipped nail.
Now, I don’t bond well with people. I rarely demonstrate affection – in fact, I dislike demonstrating affection immensely. I have very few friends, if any at all. I don’t even properly bond with my family or pets.
I got an embryo anyway.
Should I ruin the embryo-soon-to-be-child’s not-yet-life simply because contraception failed? I’d be a horrible mother. I don’t bond with people. I dislike children. I dislike most people. I have physical problems which make me an unfit mother.
Should I just loathe it vigorously for nine months, spit it out then forget it exists? Mayhaps abandon it in an orphanage, where the likelihood of it being adopted is so slim it’s ridiculous? I live in Brazil. There’s about 10,000 children up for adoption every year. There are less than 4,000 adopted, because people don’t look for all children. They look for babies, cute, cuddly, preferarbly white. After a certain age, the likelihood of adoption drops rather dramatically.
Should I burden my family with caring for it? My mother, perhaps, or my sister? They would. But that wouldn’t be fair, would it?
What if the man I had sex with agrees with me? He didn’t sign for children, after all. He signed up for a good time. Sex is a part of human interaction. Should I burden him with paying for a child neither of us ever wanted?
Or, what if I don’t have the money to care for a child?
I’d been preventing it. Obviously, I had no desire to procreate. Now I’m forced to, because I have no choice.
I’d spay myself if I could – if there was a way to sterilize myself without shooting my hormones to death – I would. I can’t. Should I be celibate for life because of it?
I know the probability of this happening is absurdly low, but it can happen. That’s what we’re saying here. We’re forcing people who don’t want to be parents into parenthood. We’re not just ruining a not-mother’s life; we’re ruining a child’s probability of being happy, healthy and loved as well.
All because a clump of cells couldn’t be excised in time.
Whether you like it or not, Matthew G, having sex is a normal part of being an adult. We live in a society that is technologically advanced enough to separate sex from conception. I am 34 and have been sexually active since my late teens. Being sexually active is a normal, healthy mode of existence, and to deny myself sexual fulfillment just because I’m not ready to be a mother is ludicrous. I mean, are you really suggesting that at 34, I should be celibate (even though I am married) just because I’m not ready to be a mom?
Isn’t that what this argument is ultimately about?
“Historically, men have exercised enormous power over women’s bodies through controlling their sexuality and reproduction.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-family/#3
Nobody is ever ready to be a parent. It’s a learn as you go thing, I know what you are saying though.
Abortion in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother accounts for 1% of the abortions in this country.
Citation please, Dwade.
I am off on the 1% figure, this has risen since I last checked it:
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html#anchor
They also confirm that the morning after pill does not abort, I confused that with RU486.
I cited a 2005 study earlier, which claims about 7.5% of abortions are “hard cases,” i.e., rape, incest, medical reasons.
but brgulker, those stats disagree with dwade’s world view so they must be biased
They are claiming 6% on rape and incest., so your 7.5% is probably correct
If you don’t believe it’s wrong to kill a three year old child, then the discussion is over. You’re too far gone. Same in the direction of mosquitoes’ right to life.
For the purposes of this discussion, I assume that my interlocutor is neither a sociopath nor a Jain. I don’t think that’s unreasonable to assume at least that much common ground.
Elliot, I get your point (or the movie’s point) about saving lives in a noncontroversial way. And I would agree that there is much more to being pro-life than preventing abortion.
However, I do disagree quite strongly with this statement:
‘Saving the children’ is therefore not what they are really arguing for.
I think you’re wrong about that much.
From a Sociological standpoint, of course there are ingroup outgroup factors in play, but to claim that it’s not primarily about the life of the fetus, I respectfully disagree with you.
Point taken.
I’m willing to concede that the life of the fetus becomes their ultimate fixation, but I also think there are other factors that drive (many of) them to object to abortion at the outset. Not least of which is commitment to the traditionally oppressive female role of broodmare.
The whole issue is tied up with social roles, so I think anti-abortionists are being disingenuous when they take the reductionist position “it’s only about the poor little babies.” I guess that’s the point I was trying to make.
I confess that I’ve always wondered (note I’m in no way saying that this is the case) whether pro-lifers in the US are fixated at the idea of saving American children as opposed to children in general.
Why do you think the pro-life crowd is so upset with Obama right now? (Put simply and rather one-sidedly) He wants to send US tax money overseas to help fund programs that would administer abortions. I’m curious how you could interpret that anger in any other way? They are made because they are concerned about abortion happening in other countries… I don’t see an alternative explanation that makes a bit of sense.
“…(note I’m in no way saying that this is the case)…”
Oops… missed that. Sorry.
Children in general. There are many ways to support children, fostering, adoptions, homelessness, abused, hungry, or just being there as a friend. Internationally, China has forced abortion, pro-lifers are heavily involved in this effort to convince the Chinese government to reconsider their policies.
So we can thank you lot for our vastly overpopulated planet, can we? Which is the point, of course: We cannot physically populate the planet with many more people without dying from starvation and the toxicity of our own waste. Is this why Fundies are pro-life, I wonder? Because you’re trying to hasten the “Rapture”?
Elliot, I can’t help but wonder what anti-abortionists you’ve met that would make you think the issue is more about social roles than the life of the fetus.
I’m trying hard to understand your argument, but I’m having a really difficult time with it as someone who grew up in the pro-life movement and still has one foot left in that camp. I’ve never heard anything about social roles explicitly or implicitly — but maybe I’m just biased because I’m so close to that camp.
Not necessarily ‘more about’ but ‘integrally tied to’ social roles. And not for all pro-lifers, but a good number of them.
If the pro-life position were only about the child’s life (as it may be for some individuals, yourself included) I could find their position noble. However, I grew up in a community of really icky catholic/evangelical types, among whom the woman was nothing but a baby machine. For them, abortion–and birth control in general–is a challenge to traditional (religious) family roles, in addition to murder. A great deal of the outrage they mustered was rooted in reproductive taboos, not murder taboos. Does that make any sense?
To be sure, I have met people who genuinely cared for the entities they consider babies, but I have also met people who could have cared less about them. They merely used the “it’s murder” argument as a rhetorical weapon. Their real beef was with others’ reproductive rights.
For the record, I am inclined to agree with your basic point, that abortion is a terrible if not despicable means of birth control, and we should take every possible measure to decrease the number of them, while still maintaining its basic legality.
For the record, I don’t understand “primary” to mean “exclusive.” I do think the primary issue is the potential life of the fetus, but it’s not the only issue, especially when it comes to the life of the mother.
Her immediate child-bearing life or the rest of it?
Wow, I butchered what I was trying to say.
What I was trying to say is this:
With respect to the abortion-as-contraception issue the primary issue for me is the life of the fetus.
With respect to pregnancies that will inevitably result in the death/severe harm of the mother and/or fetus, there is no primary issue in that sense that the value of one outweighs the other. IMO, the only people qualified to make that judgment are the mother and father in that scenario. If it were me and my wife, we would choose termination, even though it would be difficult.
Anyway, that’s a long way of saying that for the 93% of pregnancies in the US that are terminated for reasons other than medical/extreme situations, I think the primary issue is the life of the fetus.
I guess I can get that; I can understand that it’s the desire to save the lives that’s their ostensible motivation, so I was wrong to say “’saving the children’ is therefore not what they are really arguing for.’
What’s fishy though is the lives they choose to defend. We all have to pick our battles, and the methods by which (some, not all) pro-lifers rank their priorities is suspicious to say the least. If it were just about life and babies, their commitment would be manifest in other venues, such as in attitudes towards the death penalty, or government subsidised post-natal care, both of which are issues I guarantee you are not on most pro-lifers’ radar. It’s evident to me that much of their fervor is simply due to a fetishization of sexual/reproductive taboo. Sex and sex roles motivate people in strange ways, and to ignore that component of the pro-life stance would, in most cases, belie the truth of the issue.
That’s not to say you can’t be anti-abortion purely out of respect for a fetus’ life, but I’m saying the reason so many people dwell on the issue of abortion in particular is because it’s an outgrowth of their attitudes towards sex, sex roles, and taboos predicated thereupon.
That’s also not to say that the origin of their obsession in any way discredits their opinions on the matter. They still have a valid point that abortion is wrong. But if we’re really honest with ourselves, we can identify much more pressing issues that could be addressed far more easily.
How many white pro-life childless couples are on the list to adopt a black baby, a child older than an infant, a child with medical issues, or a child with more than one of these characteristics, whichever comes first?
See, the problem for me here is the talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Kodie,
My wife and I are white and are sort-of pro-life (as I’m trying to explain). We also hope to adopt someday, if we can afford it. We both work in the non-profit sector, which isn’t very lucrative, and we don’t know if we’ll have the financial resources to make it possible.
But, if we can make it possible, we will be on that waiting list. And we would prefer to adopt a baby that’s not white.
@kodie.
We are not a childless couple, but I can speak for us in that we would foster (or adopt) black, hispanic, chinese or otherwise. Doesnt matter to us. As long as that child needs us.
‘Saving the children’ is therefore not what they are really arguing for.
I agree. 22 protesters were arrested at Obama’s speech. There’s nothing like a Planned Parenthood or an execution to bring out the people with signs. But what else do they protest? I’d like to know how many of them are activists for any other cause supporting the well being of others.
Saving children’s lives includes a lot more than holding signs and using disgusting graphics like dolls covered in blood.
the number of abortions occurring in this country is 5000 per hour
No.
The last reliable numbers we have are from 2005, and in that year, there were approximately 1.2 million abortions. http://is.gd/B8ZA
There are 8,675 hours in a year. That’s about 137 abortions per hour. You’re off by a factor of 36.
LMAO!
you are correct, should have totaled that up first, my bad
So there are 45 million + abortions in the US per year?
Don’t mind if I ask for a link do you?
He got his information from a 12 year old girl, if anyone’s wondering.
(Video is linked in another thread).
Also, the little girl in the video cites Dr. Seuss among her references.
Dr seuss is awesome!!
…and not a reliable source for anything except writing childrens’ books.
But if you cite Dr. Seuss…
…oh, the places, you’ll go!
5,000*24*365= 43,800,000 supposed abortions in the US.
That’s 10 times the number of live births in the U.S. last year (4.32 million)
http://www.impactlab.com/2008/07/25/baby-boom-in-2007-us-births/
Dwade would like to retract this statement
You should also write to that little girl in the video and explain that you agree with her, but that she should be careful about saying things that aren’t true as if they are, getting more than one source for her statistics and etcetera. You should also ask her if she counts in base-6 or something.
Joe B thinks that talking in the 3rd person is an added layer of annoying-ness that dwade is not at all in need of.
“… but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make …”
But some people don’t even want the woman to have a decision at all.
Not necessarily, Len. A lot of us who sympathize with the pro-life cause believe in differentiating ‘abortion.’
For example, I’m all for allowing women to have the choice in terms of the “hard cases,” i.e., rape, incest.
I’m also for allowing the choice when it comes to terminating pregnancies for a medical reason, i.e., the life of the mother/fetus is in danger, severe abnormalities, etc.
However, I oppose abortion when abortion is simply another form of contraception to prevent an undesired pregnancy, and my rationale is simple. If you choose to have sex, you assume the ‘risks’ associated with it. In other words, I locate the ‘choice’ in a different link in the chain of decisions and consequences.
That said, I don’t endorse simply overturning Roe v. Wade, because that would eliminate the very choices that I do support. Which is why I agree with a lot of what Obama supports, ie, minimizing abortion through promotion of contraception and encouraging adoption as an alternative.
“That said, I don’t endorse simply overturning Roe v. Wade, because that would eliminate the very choices that I do support. Which is why I agree with a lot of what Obama supports, ie, minimizing abortion through promotion of contraception and encouraging adoption as an alternative.”
I can get behind you there. It is extremely frustrating that termination (as it’s called in the UK) has effectively become the new method of contraception. I think that we need to think about limiting the amount of terminations that the NHS will fund for each individual. Apart from anything else, condoms cost pence and terminations cost the taxpayer thousands of pounds.
abstinence is 100% safe and effective and is free to the taxpayers, I think that’s the way to go.
I’m trying to think of any Christian friends who were abstinent before marriage… hmm… Oh yes, there is one. At least he claims…
Were you completely abstinent before marriage, Doug?
I was. I lost my virginity on my wedding night. Turns out that can be a Really Bad Idea. I would strongly discourage anyone who asked about it.
Erm, asked whether they should wait.
Since we’re sharing, I lost mine on my sixteenth birthday. I’ve since had 20+ sexual partners, have no children and never had an STD. I’ve now been in a monogamous relationship for 3.5 years, and I have to say: I’m glad I got all that practice in first :D I have no desire to cheat or stray; I’ve already sowed my wild oats, so to speak. I would never even consider staying celibate before cohabitation, just as I would never consider marriage without having lived together for a while first.
Word.
I was. I, too, lost my virginity on my wedding night. I’m very glad that I waited, and I would encourage anyone who asked me about it.
I was just at the UF homepage, and the first sentence and a half of this comment were at the top of the recent comments box. Out of context, it was kinda funny.
I was sexually active before I met Christ. My wife and I abstained before marriage. We had even been sexually active together before we came to know Christ. The honeymoon was awesome, we were actually nervous, like it was the first time all over….
Dwade, the only time I (or anybody else for that matter) “Met Christ” was on a psych ward. His real name is Gerald – and he’s not the messiah, he’s a very bonkers boy.
free to taxpayers?
Then why did the gov. spend 1.3 Billion on teaching abstinence only sex ed in schools?
A failing program BTW:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17885460?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed
Yes, programs fail, even abstinence. So what is the answer? Christ in you living His (uncreated), not of this world kind of life through you so we, like Noah rise above the flood of corruption in this world and are not subject to its many plagues (consequences of sin/death).
Perfect love gives His own perfect victory if they will only…enter into the ark which is a type of Christ before the door is shut.
JC– Sex isn’t about sin. It’s the way we’re built. All animals that reproduce sexually have a sex drive. People have the ability to control their reproduction. 2000 years ago, that meant abstinence, but not today. Abstinence is an outdated method of birth control. Yes, ideally teenagers should wait until they are adults to understand the emotional aspects of sex, but as adults, they have the right to be sexually fulfilled– as long as they are responsible.
That was not the point that I (obviously failed, ha) tried to make LRA. I am not anti-sex, neither is God, He is FOR us, and would not withhold any good thing from us (even sex) but everything in its proper place my dear.
What we have today is a giant mess by any standard. When we compromise, when we allow our lower nature to completely dominate us, we pay a very heavy price both personally and corporately. All the best.
Well, I’m convinced that our mess isn’t any more giant than any other generation’s mess. In fact, we industrialized nations have it pretty good… especially by Dark Age standards.
That being said, it is unreasonable to think that people living in industrialized nations today should put off sex to wait to get married (especially when people often wait to get married until they are late 20’s or early 30’s). If a person is responsible, then there is no reason for abstinence.
Unless the person is graced to see that what he or she considers to be their body is really God’s temple so they…present their bodies as a living and holy sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God, which is their spiritual service of worship. (the only reasonable response) Romans 12:1
Then would He take up residence within one such as this. Is it worth it? The price to pay, the denial of the Self? To have the living Christ enthroned? To be InChristed? Why would one cast off this world, deny themselves the many pleasures of the flesh, cut themselves off from the sense life, even die daily? They must know a secret, an ancient and beautiful secret indeed.
Who is the true Lover?
“Historically, men have exercised enormous power over women’s bodies through controlling their sexuality and reproduction.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-family/#3
So, no. My body is mine, not some imaginary man’s.
Our bodies are all we truly own, all else being a mere external “loaner” of sorts during our (brief) sojourn here in this life. If the highest wisdom is to love God with all our heart, mind and body and wisdom is justified by all her children (results) then maybe the opposite is true as well? I think we are witnessing the results of doing things “our way” and the children (results) are deformed and terminally ill “children”/results. Its so sad and unnecessary, it breakes Father’s heart who has so much better for us.
“Deformed” children as you call them are the result of genetic mutations. It has nothing to do with whether or not sex is “sinful”.
It is interesting to me how people are desperate to have control of that which is uncontrollable to some extent. Let’s blame “sinful” sex for genetically damaged off-spring. Let’s blame our bad behavior when others abuse us. Let’s blame evil human nature for huge disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes. Psychologists have a term for this: neurotic defense-mechanism…
Slow down, I was speaking metaphorically LRA, nothing to do with actual kids, nevermind…normally, even with our disparate viewpoints we communicate better than this…I will take the blame tonight…and call it a night as well.
Good night girl, all the best.
LRA,
please dont compare us with animals, we have intelligence. Self control, consequential thinking abilities. Animals do not.
I have met some people that display animal tendencies!!
Dwade, we are animals. That’s all we are. Are you seriously telling me that you think animals are not self-aware, do not have intelligence, do not understand cause-and-effect? Then you, sir, have never owned a pet dog, let alone studied primates. Your statement is so incredibly ludicrous that it leaves me baffled as to how you could throw it out there in all seriousness! Are you pulling a Poe? Seriously? Are you, in fact, a liberal atheist doing an impression of a ridiculous fundamentalist ass-hat?
Ok Custador,
you can be an animal, I choose to be a unique Human being, created in the image of God and one of His most precious creations.
Your choice is irrelevant. You ARE an animal. Period.
I choose to be a fairy princess. Seriously, what else would humans be? Fungi? Sorry, it’s mammals.
Also, other animals have intelligence, self-control (though they fight their instincts way less), and understanding of consequence. Many have gestural or verbal languages. Pretty much the only trait unique to humans among animals is a written language.
ah good point, thats pocket change for this current gov!!
Erm, abstinence-only education was a Bush administration program…
Abstinence is also incredibly against human nature, for which reason it will never, ever work. We have an inbuilt desire to reproduce – it’s part of what defines a living creature. Trying to fight against it might work in a rare minority of cases, but in general it just doesn’t. Look up the failure rate of “The Silver Ring Thing” if you don’t believe me! And of course, because those poor kids are taught about abstinence, but not about contraception and protection, the pregnancy rates among them are incredibly high. Dwade, you’re sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “la-la-la-I’m-not-listening” in the face of a megawatt amplified Dolby-surround chorus of evidence against what you’re saying!
Hm, tell that to the virgin Mary!
ooh never thought of that, can I use that one?
Abstinence is by no means 100% safe and effective, brgulker!
What would happen if we evaluated the results of the use of abstinence like we evaluate the results of using any other contraceptive treatment?
If Bristol Palin had used a condom and then still had a baby, and if she then went on a national speaking tour promoting the use of condoms, wouldn’t she be laughed out of every auditorium in the country? But some people seriously believe her statements that abstinence is effective even though it obviously failed her! Her statements about abstinence would have no credibility if they had instead been about condoms.
If a condom fails, people acknowledge that the condom didn’t work as a method of birth control. But if people are using abstinence, and they still have sex and have a baby anyway, then one obviously couldn’t say that abstinence worked as a method of birth control in that situation.
Unless you can support the claim that not one single person who was abstaining did not get pregnant anyway, then your claim is preposterous.
Good one. I never thought of it that way. Abstinence is generally unrealistic. Condom failure is generally due to misuse and/or in combination with a makeshift lubricant such as vaseline. Failure of contraceptives like the pill are most often attributed to incorrect usage also, skipping a day, relying on it during a course of antibiotics, etc. So abstinence works when it’s used correctly, but is often dosed out to kids who don’t know how to use it properly, forget to take it once in a while, mix with members of the opposite sex, desire, curiosity, it’s not 100% effective.
Abstinence didn’t exactly work for Mary, did it?
Mary was a virgin and so are we (spiritually speaking) we “birth” Christ within us by the aid of the spirit. Christ (His nature) is our birthright as sons and daughters of the most high God…ye are gods. Ps 82:6
I’m not.
@John C: “”When we compromise, when we allow our lower nature to completely dominate us, we pay a very heavy price both personally and corporately.”"
I assume you are saying human sexuality is our ‘lower nature?’ It is just our nature as human animals, not lower or higher than any other part of our instincts. IMHO
It offends me deeply when some religion teaches that sexuality is some sort of “lower nature”.
In my opinion, sexuality is perhaps the highest nature of humanity.
No god whom spent billions of years using sex to tinker with all of the species which inhabit this planet could possibly declare sex to be a lower nature, when it has played such a crucial and prominent role in the biological history of our planet.
Proper religion should place more emphasis on sex; however, I am not religious, and I do not desire religion. Please don’t misconstrue my comments in that regard.
Lastly, it offends me that religions sometimes prohibit the most fundamental urges of humanity — sex and laughter, conspicuously repressed in scriptures, and perhaps the highest, best, and most worthwhile accomplishments of humanity. Why would a god make those things so important and then punish us for fulfilling those urges? In my opinion, there could never be an all-good god who finds anything to be “un-funny” or who finds sex “sub-human”.
Furthermore, any loving god should even embrace those who would laugh at such a being, and then laugh with pleasure that his beings have found fulfillment and delight in one of his creations. The same should apply for sex.
Sex and laughter are beautiful things and I love both but they each have their place. We dont laugh at the scene of an accident and we dont have sex with people we are not in covenent relationship with, ie married to. Marriage is intended to illustrate a beautiful mystery in the spirit. But of course, when we are our own God then we do as we like…and we pay the price and so does the rest of society along with us.
By “coming out” of the worlds faulty thinking and we can escape the many plagues (consequences of sin) that our separation (being our own Gods) brings upon us.
God made sex and laughter…they have their places.
*Then why would any, or your god, give hormones to teens, John!!!*
If marriage the institution for sex, then does God want everyone to marry at 16 or 17?
Look, if you’re right about God, it still makes no sense why everyone gets hormones at a really young age and then wants to have sex all the time. If people have hormones because it is advantageous for them to want to have sex, then it makes a great amount of sense. Which view of it is more compelling to you?
Many variants of Christianity, for me, often reduce to a mere series of unbelievable absurdities.
@brgulker:
“”I’m all for allowing women to have the choice in terms of the “hard cases,” i.e., rape, incest… for…terminating pregnancies for a medical reason, i.e., the life of the mother/fetus is in danger, severe abnormalities, etc. However, I oppose abortion when abortion is simply another form of contraception to prevent an undesired pregnancy.”"
I am interested in your thought process there.
Custador appears to agree on the basis of economics. Why do you support one case over another?
My argument is not purely economical. Once again, I am pro-choice, but I strongly believe that the decision to have a termination should be given the weight it deserves. By just handing them out for free to anybody who wants one (as we effectively do in the UK right now), I really think that we’re absolving people of responsibility for their actions and damaging society as a whole in so doing.
Custador,
I am pro-choice as well, I think the unborn female in her mothers womb should have a choice to live or die.
Dwade, I’m pro-life too. Pro a life with dignity for the mother and her childs. And sometimes choosing the moment to have kids is important to achieve that.
Oh, a crappy Christian catchphrase from dwade. There’s a shock. Dwade, do you even realise that you use the Bible as a substitute for thinking?
its part of me what can I say.
does that mean you are for right to die and legalizing assisted suicide or does the right to choose if you live end when you are born?
I am for protecting the innocent. I agree with the death penalty, in this case (usually) an innocent person was killed. I believe in justice, the punishment should fit the crime.
I believe that doctors take an oath to protect life, not snuff it out. If someone who performs in assisted suicide is not a doctor, he is a murderer and should get the death penalty. Most of the practitioners (not doctors) and supporters of AS are most likely making good money, like the abortionists (not doctors)…
I also believe we should re institute public hangings, this would greatly reduce crime in this country.
I think it’s been hinted at, but POE POE POE POE POE. I call POE
Francesc,
choosing to have kids should start before the sexual experience. Then it’s not, oops, now what, how do I get out of this one?
cypress:
As I’ve said and won’t rehash, I think it’s better to treat the fetus as a person as much as we are able, because I think any definition of “human life” is going to be flawed, and I would rather err on the side of caution.
To your question about thought process:
1) Rape. There are a lot of things going on here, and I can’t do it justice, but I’ll try. First, the most common objection to the pro-life crowd is that we’re denying the woman’s right to choose. I disagree. I simply locate the choice higher up in the chain of decisions and events than you do — namely, the woman chooses to engage in sexual behavior, and I argue that choosing to do so assumes the risk of that behavior, ie, pregnancy. Under those circumstances, the woman chooses.
But rape is entirely different. The woman has no choice in the matter.
Furthermore, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to look at your child, the child of rape, without recalling the experience of being raped every time you look at the child.
In short, for someone like me who values the life of the fetus, it’s an impossible choice. There’s no “right” answer. But regardless of what is chosen, I would argue that the only person qualified to make it is the pregnant mother.
2) Incest. I would respond similarly. In almost all cases of incest, there isn’t consent. Almost always, incest is rape.
3) The life of the mother/fetus is in jeopardy. Science has advanced to the point where we’re able to anticipate when the life of the fetus and/or mother is in danger as the direct result of the pregnancy. Unlike rigid pro-lifers, I don’t think we should ignore that.
If my wife becomes pregnant, and we find out that she is 75% likely to die as the result of the pregnancy, we’re in an impossible situation. Do we choose my wife or the fetus? There’s no right answer. But we have to choose. And the only people qualified to make that decision would be us.
4) Abortion-as-contraception: What I mean is simply this. To me, abortion and condoms are often thrown around as equally viable terms of contraception, ie, as ways to prevent pregnancy. I disagree, for all the reasons I said above about valuing the life of the fetus.
I have yet to be convinced that we should not value the life of the fetus as much as we value the life of any other human being. The arguments that I’ve read from developmental psychology and biology haven’t convinced me. Obviously, the fetus can’t survive without the mother; neither can an infant, or a toddler, or if you ask most mothers, a middle-schooler. I feel the same way about arguments posed by developmental psychology. We are always developing, changing, growing, and eventually declining. To me, that’s not what defines human life or its value. It is intrinsically valuable, which is why if I’m going to have an incomplete definition of human life, I’d rather err on the side of caution.
That said, I do think I’ve been convinced by our current president when it comes to public policy. When it comes to the policy of the society, I think the best compromise between people who think as I do and the majority of the people here as an attempt to minimize abortion. Let’s work together to educate people about how to use contraception on the one side and the emotional difficulties that almost always accompany an abortion. Let’s promote adoption as an alternative, and let’s find a way to make it affordable for all parties.
Anyway, that’s my thought process as clearly as I can get it while dodging work in my cubicle.
@brgulker:
“” I simply locate the choice higher up in the chain of decisions and events than you do “”
Well, actually I have not yet outlined MY opinions outside of protesters.
“”Obviously, the fetus can’t survive without the mother; neither can an infant, or a toddler, or if you ask most mothers, a middle-schooler.”"
Obviously, that is not true. Or there would be no need for adoption.
“”Let’s work together to educate people about how to use contraception on the one side and the emotional difficulties that almost always accompany an abortion.”"
I totally agree with that.
“”Abortion-as-contraception:…To me, abortion and condoms are often thrown around as equally viable terms of contraception, ie, as ways to prevent pregnancy. I disagree, for all the reasons I said above about valuing the life of the fetus.”"
I can’t agree there. This particular argument is thrown around a lot by the ‘pro-life’ people. How many people use abortions as contraception? Really do? Early pregnancy and an abortion are far more inconvenient, uncomfortable (physically and mentally) and expensive than birth control.
Obviously, that is not true. Or there would be no need for adoption.
I think you misunderstood why I was posting that. I was posting in response to a “survival” argument, ie, the fetus cannot survive without the mother and is hence not human.
I was simply extending the argument to an infant, toddler, and perhaps even adolescence. Barring intervention from another adult, an infant cannot survive on its own. Neither can a toddler. Perhaps a child in elementary school could… I’m not sure how you can disagree with that.
I can’t agree there. This particular argument is thrown around a lot by the ‘pro-life’ people. How many people use abortions as contraception? Really do? Early pregnancy and an abortion are far more inconvenient, uncomfortable (physically and mentally) and expensive than birth control.
According to the 2005 (I think it was 05) survey I cited earlier, 93% of abortions happen because the mother simply doesn’t want the pregnancy. No medical issues. Not a “hard case.” Just an unwanted fetus. To me, that makes those abortions analogous to many other forms of contraception.
No, literally, a mid-term fetus cannot survive outside its mother’s uterus. Medical technology does not currently enable transferring a fetus from one uterus to another.
A late-term fetus, infant, etc can survive without its mother.
No it can’t. Not without intervention from another adult, which was my entire point. A fetus is no different from an infant in that respect, that without its mother (or intervention from another adult), it is completely helpless.
We are talking “possibly with intervention”. The argument concerns viability, not helplessness.
If you want to talk about “without intervention”, you’re changing the subject, and making an irrelevant point.
Not quite, especially if the pregnancy has come about because contraception failed.
Me, I think we do society a disservice by forcing women to procreate even when they’re trying not to.
I misread my source, a fetus can be transplanted from one uterus to another. Point remains: embryos/fetuses are not viable outside a uterus.
For the 17 years that I have been sexually active, I’ve used birth control the entire time to prevent pregnancy. Only once did I need an abortion… because birth control failed.
I was not ready to become a mother, neither was I careless with contraception. Yet anti-choicers still want to count my choice (MY choice!) as some lazy attempt to get around using birth control????? Really???? That is lazy thinking if you ask me…
LRA,
I am pro-choice as well. I think the unborn girl in her mothers womb should have a choice, let’s ask her.
again, does that mean you are for right to die and legalizing assisted suicide or does the right to choose if you live end when you are born?
“But regardless of what is chosen, I would argue that the only person qualified to make it is the pregnant mother.”
You could, and should, have stopped there.
“I simply locate the choice higher up in the chain of decisions and events than you do — namely, the woman chooses to engage in sexual behavior, and I argue that choosing to do so assumes the risk of that behavior, ie, pregnancy.”
So then its punishment after all. The intended consequences were fun, not child-rearing. That’s like saying that people fly airplanes in order to crash.
But then you say the life of the fetus suddenly becomes less valuable when its the product of a non-consensual act.
“In short, for someone like me who values the life of the fetus, it’s an impossible choice. There’s no “right” answer. But regardless of what is chosen, I would argue that the only person qualified to make it is the pregnant mother.”
But the qualifications of the pregnant mother are to be disregarded if the child is the accidental product of a consensual act?
In short this is all just a smokescreen of rationalizations that boil down to: “denying women the status of ethical beings and legal adults who can make up their own minds about important personal decisions”
“I have yet to be convinced that we should not value the life of the fetus as much as we value the life of any other human being.”
Well there’s your problem, a Fetus does not equal a person.
“To me, that’s not what defines human life or its value. It is intrinsically valuable, which is why if I’m going to have an incomplete definition of human life, I’d rather err on the side of caution.”
The first trimester where a fetus cannot possibly survive outside the human body without extreme and non existant medical intervention isn’t erring enough on the side of caution? NO, it sounds like your position is all about denying women the status of ethical beings.
Re posting here something that another person said but can sum up my thoughts on the morality of abortion.
1. Life began shortly after the earth cooled. It is continuous. Ova are alive. That doesn’t make them people.
2. Aborting an embryo will be equivalent to killing a person when failing to build a house is equivalent to demolishing it. You don’t live in a blueprint, do you? Turning a blueprint into a house takes time, materials and work. So, too, turning a fertilized ovum into a full-term fetus, ready to be born.
3. Abortion is “icky.” Abortion is regrettable. You think that it’s unethical. Other people do not. So let’s say that it’s debatable.
4. If it’s debatable, or could be regretted, then the person most affected by the decision should be the one making it. Students should finish their education, but we don’t chain them to their desks. And we don’t say, “You failed physics so you’re condemned to being a janitor for the next ten years.”
5. Unfortunately, a lot of the anti-choice rhetoric seems based in a desire to punish women. “She had sex so let her bear the consequences.” The intended consequences were fun, not child-rearing. That’s like saying that people fly airplanes in order to crash. Or banning skiers from medical care after a tumble because “they knew they were taking a risk.” It’s both small-minded and short-sighted. The person who is really punished by forcing an unwilling mother to give birth is the child.
6. It is not a solution to say, “Women should have the baby and give it up for adoption.” Once again, you’re telling her what to do. And childbirth forms a connection mediated by hormones, that condemns a woman to search the crowd for the rest of her life, wondering if she is seeing her child.
6b.Also, Having a baby is physically demanding and somewhat risky. The people who make much of the risks of abortion fail to mention that childbirth is 13 times more likely to kill you. Thus, four women who die of abortions represent fifty women who had abortions instead of dying in childbirth. Need I point out that, except for conscripting soldiers, we don’t force people to take risks against their will? That’s a strong ethical argument against denying women abortions because you think it’s unethical.
7. As Gloria Steinem pointed out, the basis of the “abortion debate” is denying women the status of ethical beings and legal adults who can make up their own minds about important personal decisions.
8. And, no, I’m not speaking up for “the child.” The man on the street has no right to use my body against my will. Neither does an embryo. Even if it were in there reading the New York Times and thinking about which bank to knock off first when it developed hands and feet. (The second qualifier reminds us that its much-touted “innocence” is the innocence of incapacity, not ethical choice.)
9. The “special connection” between mother and zygote is physical dependency. You take that to mean that there should be an emotional connection as well. That’s an assumption on your part which assumes your conclusion: that she should want to keep it. Like the assumption that women are “more moral” than men, it imposes a different standard on women than on the rest of us and expects them to act in a less self-interested way. Then they get less praise for being unselfish and more condemnation for acting in their own interests.
10. Finally, Since one can kill a deer or a lamb or a bat, all of which have more brain function and feeling than an embryo, the “it could turn into a person if you supply enough blood circulation, food, care, and pain” argument is, in my opinion, proxy for “But it has a soul! It’s people to God! You’re denying Him another worshiper!” Like “Allow academic freedom and let students question evolution,” it’s an argument that is, at bottom, religiously based. It assumes the presence of a deity and an immaterial, unprovable soul. Consequently, enshrining laws against abortion based on these assumptions is breaching the separation of Church and State that is mandated in the U.S. constitution. If you are in the U.S., that should mean something to you.
10b. Opposition to abortion on the grounds that “This is a person” is also an artificial inflation of the value of an embryo. For a reality check, consider that families don’t mean an early miscarriage or late period (spontaneous abortion) as they would the death of a child or a baby or even a stillbirth or late miscarriage.
Sunny Day,
For some reason, I’ve given you the impression that I want to punish women by being against abortion.
Let me make one attempt to clarify in hopes of clearing that up with you.
I’m a big believer in choice and responsibility, at least since I read Sartre and Kierkegaard back in college. When we, as human beings, make choices, we do so knowing full well that those choices will have consequences. Sometimes the consequences are positive. Sometimes they are neutral. Sometimes they are negative. Regardless, every choice we make has a consequence.
When a man and woman have sex, they know the potential consequences of the act, contraception or no contraception. It is possible that as a direct result of their choice, a sperm and egg will come together, marking the beginning of a unique human life.
Both the man and the woman share in that responsibility equally. Unfortunately, our law inadequately addresses that in the USA, but that’s a different conversation. But, that is perhaps why I’ve given the impression that I want to punish women, i.e., because the woman is the person who bears the ultimate physical responsibility of the choice to have sex if impregnation occurs. But, I didn’t choose it to be that way, and neither did you. That’s just the way we evolved, and that’s the way it is, right?
My point is not to punish women or men but simply to ask them to consider potential consequences more thoroughly before making choices that they are free to make or not make. And if they do choose sex, then it is my argument that they should accept the responsibility for the choice.
Your comment about the intention being ‘fun’ is an irrelevant point. You’re simply sidestepping the entire conversation of choice and responsibility entirely.
So, in short, arguing that we are free to choose but bound to be responsible for our choices is not an argument for punishment, especially in this case.
Well there’s your problem, a Fetus does not equal a person. … 1. Life began shortly after the earth cooled. It is continuous. Ova are alive. That doesn’t make them people.
Person is a philosophical, ontological word, akin to “being.” I will agree to disagree with you about that word in particular; however, I am puzzled why you wouldn’t choose “human life” instead of an appeal to personhood.
2. Aborting an embryo will be equivalent to killing a person when failing to build a house is equivalent to demolishing it. You don’t live in a blueprint, do you? Turning a blueprint into a house takes time, materials and work. So, too, turning a fertilized ovum into a full-term fetus, ready to be born.
In my view, the appeal to development is inherently flawed. In short, because as humans, we are either always developing or degenerating.
3. Abortion is “icky.” Abortion is regrettable. You think that it’s unethical. Other people do not. So let’s say that it’s debatable.
4. If it’s debatable, or could be regretted, then the person most affected by the decision should be the one making it. Students should finish their education, but we don’t chain them to their desks. And we don’t say, “You failed physics so you’re condemned to being a janitor for the next ten years.”
Obviously it’s debatable. I agree. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to challenge it on ethical grounds, right?
And I have never condemned anyone who has had, is considering, or will have an abortion. Never have. Never will.
5. Unfortunately, a lot of the anti-choice rhetoric seems based in a desire to punish women. “She had sex so let her bear the consequences.” The intended consequences were fun, not child-rearing. That’s like saying that people fly airplanes in order to crash. Or banning skiers from medical care after a tumble because “they knew they were taking a risk.” It’s both small-minded and short-sighted. The person who is really punished by forcing an unwilling mother to give birth is the child.
When you get in your car to drive it everyday, do you put on a seatbelt? If so, you’ve just undermined your own argument. Everytime you get behind the wheel, you are risking your own life. It’s a very small risk but it’s there. Hence, you obey the speed limit (generally anyway, for most of us), and you buckle up, and you don’t tailgate, etc. But, in spite of the prepartion you to minimize the risk, you’re still responsible if you crash into someone else’s car.
In other words, you didn’t get in the car with the intention of crashing into someone else, but you assumed the risk of that possibility when you got behind the wheel.
6. It is not a solution to say, “Women should have the baby and give it up for adoption.” Once again, you’re telling her what to do. And childbirth forms a connection mediated by hormones, that condemns a woman to search the crowd for the rest of her life, wondering if she is seeing her child.
First, I’m not telling her what to do. If you read my posts about legislation, you’ll see that. Furthermore, I didn’t tell her or him to have sex. That was their choice, one they were free to make or free not to make.
Second, I’m not the one ‘condemning.’ Arguing that two people take responsibility for the choice they’ve freely made is not the same as punishment or condemnation.
FWIW, I do realize how difficult it is to give a baby up for adoption; I know people who have done so… and I don’t mean to minimize that difficulty.
6b.Also, Having a baby is physically demanding and somewhat risky. The people who make much of the risks of abortion fail to mention that childbirth is 13 times more likely to kill you. Thus, four women who die of abortions represent fifty women who had abortions instead of dying in childbirth. Need I point out that, except for conscripting soldiers, we don’t force people to take risks against their will? That’s a strong ethical argument against denying women abortions because you think it’s unethical.
First, soldiers aren’t forced into the military. There’s no draft. It’s voluntary. Soldiers are made very aware of the risks they could face and choose to enlist; they aren’t forced to. I know, in part, because I’m considering joining the Army National Guard myself. You’re told what the risks are before you sign your name.
It’s actually a very good analogy, because even people in the most under-educating nations know that sex produces babies. The risk is known in full before the choice to act is made.
7. As Gloria Steinem pointed out, the basis of the “abortion debate” is denying women the status of ethical beings and legal adults who can make up their own minds about important personal decisions.
If anything, I’m doing just the opposite. Both women and men are free to choose; women and men are fully equal as ethical agents. And I’ve argued further that when consent is violated, the options for the woman should be different.
8. And, no, I’m not speaking up for “the child.” The man on the street has no right to use my body against my will. Neither does an embryo. Even if it were in there reading the New York Times and thinking about which bank to knock off first when it developed hands and feet. (The second qualifier reminds us that its much-touted “innocence” is the innocence of incapacity, not ethical choice.)
I don’t see your point.
9. The “special connection” between mother and zygote is physical dependency. You take that to mean that there should be an emotional connection as well. That’s an assumption on your part which assumes your conclusion: that she should want to keep it. Like the assumption that women are “more moral” than men, it imposes a different standard on women than on the rest of us and expects them to act in a less self-interested way. Then they get less praise for being unselfish and more condemnation for acting in their own interests.
I haven’t said anything about an emotional connection…?? And I’ve never argued that the woman should “want to keep it.” I’ve only argued that “keeping it” is, in my view, the most responsible decision based on previous choices.
10. Finally, Since one can kill a deer or a lamb or a bat, all of which have more brain function and feeling than an embryo, the “it could turn into a person if you supply enough blood circulation, food, care, and pain” argument is, in my opinion, proxy for “But it has a soul! It’s people to God! You’re denying Him another worshiper!” Like “Allow academic freedom and let students question evolution,” it’s an argument that is, at bottom, religiously based. It assumes the presence of a deity and an immaterial, unprovable soul. Consequently, enshrining laws against abortion based on these assumptions is breaching the separation of Church and State that is mandated in the U.S. constitution. If you are in the U.S., that should mean something to you.
First, I’m not arguing about legislation, as I’ve made clear over and over in this conversation with others.
Second, you have made some incredibly condescending assumptions about me, my values, and my philosophical understanding of the human person — and obviously without reading many of my comments about the topic. I’m not going to respond to you directly about them because I’m angry, and I don’t want to type something I will regret. Suffice it to say, I find your comments here offensive and extremely ignorant.
Third, the separation of church and state says absolute nothing, zip, nill, squadoosh, about creating legislation that is grounded in morality, whether that morality be secular or religious in its motivation. We’ve been around the carousel of what the First Ammendment means here, and I don’t want to rehash ground that’s been covered in depth. However, in my view, the separation clause absolutely does not apply here.
Even If my conversation with you were about legislation, I would be on firm legal ground, because one of the primary forms of government is to protect the innocent — we agree about that much, I’m sure. What we disagree about is what constitutes “personhood,” and we’re appealing to different philosophies of life to define what constitutes a person. The state has no right to prefer yours over mine, regardless of what philosophy I appeal to in order to make that definition.
And mind you, I don’t chuck science out the window. I’ve read up on the topic. I’ve had classes in developmental psychology and the physiology of the human brain and central nervous system and how it develops over time, from the fetus in the womb to the elderly person dying with Alzheimer’s. I understand the issue just as well as you do from that perspective, and those conclusions aren’t somehow tainted or jaded by my religion. So again, I’m back to being angry about your prejudgments about me and my perspective. Your claims about my perspective are stereotypical at best and ignorant at worst. I don’t appreciate it.
Furthermore, we would both agree, I’m sure, that one of the primary responsibilities of government is to protect vulnerable members of society. If that is the case, then it’s perfectly legitimate and acceptable for me to express my concern about this issue to the government and ask them to respond to that concern if I do think that a fetus is a vulnerable member of society.
If you disagree with that, then you’re discriminating against religious people, I think.
10b. Opposition to abortion on the grounds that “This is a person” is also an artificial inflation of the value of an embryo. For a reality check, consider that families don’t mean an early miscarriage or late period (spontaneous abortion) as they would the death of a child or a baby or even a stillbirth or late miscarriage.
Millions of people die all around the world everyday, and I don’t mourn them. Neither do you. That doesn’t mean they’re not people, right?
Sex has more than one function… it serves to bond people, to provide stress relief, to exercise the body, to procreate, etc. When I engage in sex, it is not necessarily to procreate. To insist that this risk entails that I deny myself the other functions of sex does sex a disservice.
I think more Christians need to get laid. Maybe they’d stop being busy bodies poking their noses in other people’s business…
LRA,
you go girl!!
I didn’t write those words but I do agree with all of them so I’ll take my stab at answering your questions.
“Person is a philosophical, ontological word, akin to “being.” I will agree to disagree with you about that word in particular; however, I am puzzled why you wouldn’t choose “human life” instead of an appeal to personhood.”
Terri Schiavo, a human life, but at the end of life she was not a person. The person who was Terri Schiavo checked out a long time ago before her body did.
“In my view, the appeal to development is inherently flawed. In short, because as humans, we are either always developing or degenerating.”
See, that’s your problem, its just your view. It’s wrong to force other people to live according to your views. Especially when you cant come up with any potent facts to back them up.
“Obviously it’s debatable. I agree. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to challenge it on ethical grounds, right?”
When you come up with a reason for forcing someone to act as a life support system for a cluster of rapidly developing cells you just let us know ok? Right now the sole ethical ground you stand on is because its a person/human life because you say so.
“[siily analogy about human body, cars and risk deleted]
In other words, you didn’t get in the car with the intention of crashing into someone else, but you assumed the risk of that possibility when you got behind the wheel.”
Yes and then you go to the Female Specialist / Mechanic to get your body fixed.
“First, I’m not telling her what to do. If you read my posts about legislation, you’ll see that. Furthermore, I didn’t tell her or him to have sex. That was their choice, one they were free to make or free not to make. Second, I’m not the one ‘condemning.’ Arguing that two people take responsibility for the choice they’ve freely made is not the same as punishment or condemnation.
FWIW, I do realize how difficult it is to give a baby up for adoption; I know people who have done so… and I don’t mean to minimize that difficulty.”
I read your stuff. It’s all about making sure the woman FEELS bad enough. You want them to hold their grief, their health care, and their lifestyle up for your inspection. Which is utter bullshit.
You are OK with killing the Human Life if it was created by a non-consensual act. This give me the impression that’s all you care about. You care about the act. If the act was intended to create life You’re fine with that. If the act was intended to express power and torture over another person you’re ok with Aborting. If the act was intended to promote pleasure and a relationship between two people, suddenly you are not OK to Abort. You are exactly all about Punishment and Condemnation.
“First, soldiers aren’t forced into the military.”There’s no draft. It’s voluntary. Soldiers are made very aware of the risks they could face and choose to enlist; they aren’t forced to. I know, in part, because I’m considering joining the Army National Guard myself. You’re told what the risks are before you sign your name.”
You don’t know your history. We stopped forcing people into the military, because its wrong.
You see any analogies now?
“If anything, I’m doing just the opposite. Both women and men are free to choose; women and men are fully equal as ethical agents. And I’ve argued further that when consent is violated, the options for the woman should be different.”
Because you care about the Act and not the consequences, not the precious Human Life.
“I don’t see your point.”
It’s not a person.
“I haven’t said anything about an emotional connection…?? And I’ve never argued that the woman should “want to keep it.” I’ve only argued that “keeping it” is, in my view, the most responsible decision based on previous choices.”
Then you probably should have re-read my post again, especially the part where I said, “Re posting here something that another person said but can sum up my thoughts on the morality of abortion.” It wasn’t exactly responding to any or most of the points you made. I rectified my mistake and posted it separately somewhere down the page.
“Second, you have made some incredibly condescending assumptions about me, my values……….”
Read the above, its fundamental.
“What we disagree about is what constitutes “personhood,” and we’re appealing to different philosophies of life to define what constitutes a person.”
You need to do better. You need facts to support your case, not philosophical ones. The underpinnings of an idea to declare a cluster of rapidly dividing cells a Human Life and forcing the host to support and care for it is a religious one.
“The state has no right to prefer yours over mine, regardless of what philosophy I appeal to in order to make that definition.”
The state is not to make decisions about religious ideas.
And mind you, …. physiology of the human brain and central nervous system and how it develops over time,…”
Yes I know its all about the act for you, The fetus is beside the point.
“I do think that a fetus is a vulnerable member of society.”
You don’t have any facts to support this just a philosophical stance with religious underpinnings about condemning and punishing people for an accidental conception.
“If you disagree with that, then you’re discriminating against religious people, I think.”
Victim, it looks good on you!
“10b. Opposition to abortion on the grounds that “This is a person” is also an artificial inflation of the value of an embryo. For a reality check, consider that families don’t mean an early miscarriage or late period (spontaneous abortion) as they would the death of a child or a baby or even a stillbirth or late miscarriage.
Millions of people die all around the world everyday, and I don’t mourn them. Neither do you. That doesn’t mean they’re not people, right?”
Try to pay attention. How many first trimester funerals have you attended? Open the paper read the obituaries, ask your “Priest” you tell me how many first trimester funerals there were last week? last month? last year?
I don’t agree exactly. I’d say for cases of rape or incest, that is very difficult for a woman to confront raising a child from a non-consensual act. Even given the opportunity to decide simultaneously that a child from a consensual act or embryo implantation that might have occurred on the same day instead would be wanted, it’s very difficult on the mother. However, with regard to the quality of life for the unwanted child or the child for whom it would be difficult to raise in current conditions – not only for the mother this time, but for the child also – you are saying the consequences of getting pregnant accidentally should not “punish” the unborn fetus. But if the fetus is carried to term, it can and does in a lot of cases cause hardships for both the mother and the child simply on the terms of “not able” or “do not want,” right now or ever. Those cases aren’t examined as closely as cases where it all turned out ok, where the mother steers her life to the care of her child at the cost of her own chosen future, or the child who overcomes a life of abuse, neglect, poverty, etc. to do something amazing or just adequately successful.
While adoption is one alternative, that’s also a very difficult decision to carry a child full term, give birth to it, and then give it to someone else’s care, especially if you do want children someday, especially if you feel inadequate financially or emotionally as a parent, and/or lack familial support. The child may be better off, or worse, I guess the thinking is any idiot who wants a baby will do better than one who doesn’t want one, but you no longer get to say. The child makes the new family happy, but are they going to do right by your child or warp them or turn them into obnoxious little jerks you would punch in the stomach if you met them as an adult? I can’t think of much more haunting a life to live for the mother.
I’ve had mothers say to me, I would rather kill this child then have someone else raise them!!!
yikes.
That’s harsh, but I do understand it on one level. A woman or girl who is pregnant often fears giving up the child to an unknown future.
My best friend in college was adopted and her new parents were mean fakey people. Her mom was a hypocondriac contol freak who had Mia jumping thru hoops until the very end. Like fighting to find her a good assisted living place, then complaining several times a day that the couch had not arrived. Mia was ill from a bad surgery and danced in attendance cause ‘new’ mom said she was lazy. Only a week later, Mom pretended she fell, to get out of that place, and Mia had to find her a new place to live, sell all the furniture that just arrived, and move all Mom’s belongings again.
This was all typical and ongoing.
Her parents swore they knew nothing about her birth family, but eventually she found out they lied to her. She found her family and changed her name from Michelle Renee to her birth name, Mia Williams. Her adoptive mother actually disowned her-she was mad Mia dug into her past and met her old family. Mia lost her house, saving, and her marriage crumbled under the strain.
I would be terrified to send a child away, knowing all the evil in the world. Abusive parents, bad schooling…who knows what would happen to them? I would be haunted the rest of my life. I admire women who were able to do this.
Thats terrible, thanks for sharing through, definitely an emotional issue.
Yeah, it’s tough all over.
Let me guess.. those mothers believed in an afterlife?
“For example, I’m all for allowing women to have the choice in terms of the “hard cases,” i.e., rape, incest.”
WHY?
I understand its a difference between engaging in consensual and non-consensual actions, but the end result is a child they didn’t intend to have. Why should the person who engaged in the consensual action not have a choice unless you wish to punish that sort of behavior?
Why should the person who engaged in the consensual action not have a choice unless you wish to punish that sort of behavior?
Simple answer: to protect the life of the fetus.
It has absolutely nothing to do with punishing anyone; it has everything to do with protecting a life that cannot yet protect itself.
This is an example of society making a distinction between physical health and mental well-being, and you making a distinction between some mental well-beings and others.
If the mother’s physical health is risked in carrying the child, if I understand you correctly, abortion is a valid option. If the mother is ready to have a baby and care for it, had it not been for a non-consensual cause to that end, her mental well-being is or should be attended to, at least in your opinion, an abortion is warranted in cases you call “tough”. The duration of a pregnancy would be a horror otherwise.
If the mother is not ready to have a baby and care for it, regardless of the consent issue, or giving consent, in other words, her mental well-being for the rest of her life, and the rest of the life of her child when it is born is foreseeably impacted negatively, but you draw the line there at birth. If it is a horror for the mother to be pregnant, she invited it. If it is a horror for her that she’s reminded of through the hardship of parenting, she invited it. If it is a horror for the mother for the sacrifices she could have avoided, she invited it and deserves it all. Furthermore, a child left in her care will probably not fare well – as opposed to not being born, his life will probably suck, his mental well-being seems to be of no concern to you here, as he is born and alive and able to defend himself…. really not, until he’s a little older, don’t you think? And by then his foundation is set. Inspiring cases notwithstanding, most people tend to be adult versions of their childhood self, living instead of not having been born, with all the flaws and insufficiencies they were taught.
So I can see where you’d “offer” the alternative of adoption, when what it really sounds like you’d limit the options to a rock and a hard place here. Selflessly bear this child so that someone else can be a parent, ignorant of the mental well-being of the mother before and after she has filled her role. As long as she wasn’t raped or isn’t physically endangered during pregnancy – that’s a huge “UNLESS.” That’s a preferential condition on your part that conveniently ignores the quality of life in favor of mere life.
What if her parents would kill her if they found out she was pregnant, but otherwise, she’s hunky-dory about it? People use the word “kill” dramatically, but suppose this is the foreseeable outcome, isn’t her life in danger, shouldn’t she choose an abortion? What if her parents would just “kill” her but not really kill her? Her mental well-being is at stake now, the shame, the disappointment, the loss of privileges, being disowned or cut off – her immediate choice, remember, hunky-dory. That’s also pro-choice. The mental well-being, the cost of aborting a baby you wanted, or keeping it and losing the approval of your family.
It’s all very difficult. It’s not something you can hypothetically separate on intentions, or define one type of mental well-being as superior to all the others, adjusting your views to only consider the duration of pregnancy to be the conclusion of all issues, both physical and mental. Anyway, that’s why it’s about choice, not limited to what someone else thinks is a good enough reason.
“Simple answer: to protect the life of the fetus.
It has absolutely nothing to do with punishing anyone; it has everything to do with protecting a life that cannot yet protect itself.”
So the Fetus becomes less valuable when the circumstances of its creation is through a non-consensual act?
So an unwanted child is better than no child at all?
Aborted embryos are not human. They are a cluster of cells. One could make a pretty strong case that a fetus is not human until birth, but this argument is far far from that line. First trimester, embryos are a cluster of cells.
First trimester, embryos are a cluster of cells.
Adult homo sapients are a cluster of cells.
no child is an unwanted child.
and children (or embryos) feel pain as early as 8 weeks, the same time that a mother usually discovers that she is pregnant.
“Real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Lily — the father of fetology.”
Wade- you don’t know what you are talking about. Have you taken developmental embryology????? I have.
Quit throwing out “facts” without citations.
Yes there are.
The thousands of children who never get adopted, or live in the streets, or die because their mothers threw them in the trash or in a river or left them in a back alley to die, say otherwise.
LRA,
I see various data showing the child’s development, for instance 9 weeks:
* Baby has begun movement – While still too small for you to feel, your little one is wriggling, shifting, and dancing already! Makes you almost wish for a window to peek in whenever you want!
* Most joints are formed now – and trust that your little one is practicing bending and flexing.
* Fetus will curve its fingers around an object placed in the palm of its hand – This is amazing to see! At only nine weeks, if you happen to have an ultrasound, you may observe your infant fascinated by everything he or she can lay their fingers on (mainly other fingers, toes, ears and nose!
* Fingerprints are already evident in the skin
* Average size this week — length 0.9 inch (2.3cm), weight 0.07 ounce (2gm)
http://www.pregnancy.org/fetaldevelopment
maybe you can clue us in?
You realize alive doesn’t equal personhood right?
I don’t think anyone is contending that the cells in a embryo or fetus are alive, the argument is over at what point those cells are a person with rights.
*aren’t alive
Let’s look at a scientific website, instead of one developed for excited parents (as it over-inflates the milestones and runs short on actual neuroscience):
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
Notice that before 9 weeks, the embryo is called an embryo and after 9 weeks it is called a fetus.
Additionally, please notice that any motion done in the pregnancy is involuntary and unconscious. It involves random nerve firings to help attach muscles to the spinal chord and brain via the peripheral nervous system–
“the behavior of the fetus and newborn is likely a reflection of reflexive brainstem activities which are produced in the absence of forebrain-mediated affective or cognitive processing, i.e., thinking, reasoning,
understanding, or true emotionality”
For those of you who are not neuroscientists, the brainstem is the most primitive part of the brain and no conscious activity happens there:
“In fact, smiling, as well as screaming and crying can be produced from brainstem stimulation even with complete forebrain transection or destruction (Larson et al., 1994; Zhang et al., 1994; reviewed in Joseph, 1996a). Hence,neonatal and premature infant ‘‘smiling’’ or distress reactions to noxious stimulation (e.g. heel lance) are also likely brainstem mediated, particularly in that they may be triggered in the absence of any obvious stimulus source and following forebrain destruction or lack of development (anencephaly).”
http://www.psych.ufl.edu/~steh/PSB4504/Joseph.pdf
So, again, I ask you to get your facts straight. Personhood is granted to newborn babies as they are able to live on their own– even if they lack much consciousness. However it is highly doubtful to grant personhood to an embryo or fetus that not only lacks consciousness, but cannot live on its own.
I wonder. Is one of the biggest differences between Christians and Atheists (and in this case, pro-life vs pro-choice)… that atheists care more for what IS (the woman, children already in the world who’re dying, etc) while Christians care more for what COULD BE (Heaven, unborn children, etc)?
Quite profound!
I wonder. Is one of the biggest differences between Christians and Atheists (and in this case, pro-life vs pro-choice)… that atheists care more for what IS (the woman, children already in the world who’re dying, etc) while Christians care more for what COULD BE (Heaven, unborn children, etc)?
No. The biggest differences are what we think constitutes a human life and how/why that life is valuable.
Why is that life valuable? To whom is that life valuable, if not to the immediate parent? In the past, people had children (1) because it was harder to stop them from coming, and (2) for the labor. When economics is concerned, we don’t as a society really need now all these babies and the people they’ll become, and we can stop them from coming. We’re not stopping all of them, and we know we can’t put them back in when they turn out to be useless, dangerous, or greedy (regardless of how they feel about themselves). We’re also able to presently decide what we’re ready, willing, and able to be responsible for – except it is simply not drilled in how expensive it is to raise a child, not to mention worry every second how you’re doing at it. It’s all blessing this, and adorable that, and cherished other thing. Potential, legacy, anticipation, joy.
It’s like getting something out of a promise somehow. You don’t know, but you can fairly well guess, some of these people will be making lots of the sex someday, having more people they can’t afford, and the rest of us don’t need. I think it’s stunning that people forget this. Most poor people stay poor, especially if they are raising children they can’t afford, which is failure to avail oneself of any choices – education should be more prominent, not just birth control, not just abortions, but a literal demonstration of how much it will cost if you continue a pregnancy, even one someone thinks they want. Menial jobs, miserable lives, resentment, cycles of poverty, unwanted children becoming adults – that thing people don’t naturally associate with ZOMG, babies!!! Innocent, blameless, defenseless, the wonderment of their absorbent and reflective qualities, becoming just like their parents and repeating their patterns.
Maybe they’re nice enough for you to know, but I don’t think that’s enough. I don’t miss people I don’t know and haven’t met. They’re not missing from my life just because they weren’t given a chance to cross my path for any reason including that they were aborted – things could be different on the next egg or a different sperm, the combination of people who never are born because they weren’t made in the first place is staggering. On the other hand, welfare and competition for available jobs, technological progress, outsourcing – we don’t need all the people, as nice, talented, generous, or successful as they may turn out to be. That’s a maybe maybe maybe and I don’t care.
I don’t think so. My main objection to abortion (although I’m pro-choice) is that although I don’t consider a fetus fully human, it certainly has the potential to become a human being. An abortion prevents a future human from existing, which to me constitutes the major ethical problem.
The main difference, I think, is that I don’t consider such a potential life sancrosanct. Up to a certain (undefinable) point in time I also want to take other factors into consideration, such as the future prospects of the life the child will likely have, the welfare of the mother and father, etc.
I will say though, that although I can’t draw the line at where exactly a fetus becomes a human being, I do find it rather ridiculous that it should occur at the exact time of conception. Human life is not something that simply magically pops into existence when a sperm cell meets an egg cell. The real world isn’t black and white like that, and nature doesn’t care about our silly classifications of life and death. That is why, unlike Catholics, I don’t have a problem with birth control, even though it can be said to present the same problem (preventing a future human life). But ascribing an individual life and soul to a single cell is simply dogmatic nonsense to me, as well as being in contradiction with the simple fact that life is continuous. Every cell is a living thing. Saying that something suddenly came into life where before there was nothing, rather than it developing gradually from something already alive, is just dumb. To claim so is to be blind to the world.
“An abortion prevents a future human from existing, which to me constitutes the major ethical problem.
So does a barrier contraception. And masturbation. And oral sex. And anal sex. And celibacy. And the birth-control pill. And vasectomies. And women who don’t have lots of unprotected sex every time they gestate. The problem with framing an ethical problem like that is obvious: Where do we draw the line?
I think the “potential” argument is very weak.
If it doesn’t have a central nervous system, it can’t suffer. Period.
I agree to that much, so maybe this would constitute a good demarcation line when deciding an abortion? But like I said, there are other issues to consider than just the purely biological.
It’s not about suffering. It’s about rights.
A quadriplegic won’t suffer if you kick him in the shins, but he has the right not to be kicked.
If a sleeping quadriplegic is kicked in the shin in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it matter?
Not to you?
Indeed he has that right. He’s a human being, after all. Which doesn’t automatically extend to a fetus. Bad analogy.
Of course it’s a bad analogy. That was the point.
This discussion has nothing to do with suffering.
I measure good and evil in joy and suffering.
By what else should it be measured?
A bully walks up to the geek during recess. The bully beats up the geek. The bully experiences joy. The geek experiences suffering.
So this beatdown was good (for the bully) and bad (for the geek)… what’s your point? Most things are a mix of good and bad.
Also you did not answer: By what should good and evil be measured if not joy and suffering?
You didn’t answer either, either rodney. What is the scientific consensus about the definition of a human life? One that includes biology, psychology, and sociology?
As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus about the definition of life, let alone human life. I am not the scientific community.
I am asking you personally: how do you measure good and evil?
I asked you first in the comments below :)
How do you define a human life? And it’s an appropriate question, because you already claimed that you have no problem with a 99% definition of human life.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/05/18/working-together-on-abortion/#comment-39641
I’m not trying to avoid the question, I’ve given my answer: I don’t have one. I don’t know where the line is. Perhaps birth. Where-ever it is, I think it is definitely after the first trimester.
Life is defined as: Anything with a drive to consume food and air, produce waste and reproduce biologically. Interestingly, do you know that viruses are not technically alive? Strange but true.
I’m not trying to avoid the question, I’ve given my answer: I don’t have one. I don’t know where the line is. Perhaps birth. Where-ever it is, I think it is definitely after the first trimester.
That’s my point as well. I don’t know beyond any shadow of a doubt when the embryo becomes a human life. Based on that, I choose to err on the side of caution. The embyo->fetus could be a human life while in the womb, and it definitely is after birth. So, I choose to err on the side of caution.
“The problem with framing an ethical problem like that is obvious: Where do we draw the line?”
I agree. But although I can’t draw an exact line I can however say that some cases are simply not worth considering. All the examples you mention don’t deserve a second thought, in my opinion. The line should instead be drawn somewhere in the gestation period, up to an – admittedly somewhat unspecific – point in time.
Ultimately, unless you’re a dogmatist it becomes a matter of practicality and pragmatism – like any other ethical questions.
So I think “drawing the line” is a valid approach, as long as you actually do set up the rules that draw a line and don’t just use “the line” as a matter of mindless principle (á la Catholicism).
not true, but good try.
NUH-UH!
is so
I’m going to summarise (briefly) what I’ve already said in various different posts:
I’m pro-choice and do not think terminations should be banned, however I strongly believe that they’re often taken far too lightly and are far too easily available (and for free) in the UK, to the extent that people are irresponsible and end up not bothering to nip out for a two quid pack of rubbers because they know that, if a pregnancy happens, they can just get a free and easy termination. That attitude is just wrong to me.
I’d really like to hear how you define human life and how you flesh out the value of it. I’m intrigued by your post, as we have a lot more in common about this topic that I would have guessed.
That’s not a straightforward question, and some far brighter people than me have failed to answer it well! Still, I’ll have a go.
There are stages of conception, of course; a fertilised egg is not a human being as far as I am concerned. Nor is a zygote, a little coagulated bundle of cells – A zygote is something that could become a person, but it is not yet a person. Then we have the embryo. Now, an embryo looks like a deformed little person (something pro-lifers like to play on our emotions about), but it’s not yet capable of supporting itself outside of the womb, because neither it’s body or brain are developed enough. At this stage, I think we’re not yet dealing with a person. Then, after about twelve weeks, we have a foetus. This is where it all gets a bit sticky. This is the stage in which we can say that the foetus really becomes a “person”. “When” is a difficult question, though. It depends, of course, on the individual foetus’ rate of development. We also have to define what makes a “person” at this point: Is it the ability to survive outside of the womb, per the “you wake up tubed up to a man in renal failure, your kidneys are keeping him alive, do you have the right to sever the connection?” dilema? In that case, it’s almost always 23 to 24 weeks (at 22 weeks the survival rate of micro-premature babies is 0% and at 24 weeks it’s 18%). Or, is it the “intelligent life” test of self awareness? In that case I honestly have no idea what the time frames are; I doubt it’s ever been studied properly. I tend to go with the former “survivability” test, because I don’t differentiate between adults and children in that kind of dilema.
I could point you in the direction of district nurses all over Britain who know many, many young Chavettes who have regular “convenience” terminations instead of just using contraception!
I was trying to reply to Kodie there, obviously!
FWIW, I wasn’t trying to ask a loaded question and trap you or anything. But for me, the debate hinges on whether or not we consider the fetus to be a “person,” which is a philosophical concept more than a scientific one, I think.
Obviously, we can’t just ignore the science in favor of philosophy; instead, the two disciplines work in concert with respect to this issue, obviously.
As I mentioned before, I have yet to be convinced that we will ever reach consensus as to what constitutes a human life scientifically. I think it’s likely that we will be arguing about the development of the fetus/infant/toddler with respect to this issue long beyond my lifespan.
Which is why I choose to err on the side of caution and fall back on my philosophical convictions. But, that’s also part of why I’m hesitant when it comes to the legislation as well.
Did you know approximately half of conceived embryos are spontaneously aborted?
Yes, I did. In fact I think it’s higher than that, world-wide. Raises an interesting point, doesn’t it? Should pro-lifers be picketing God instead of abortion doctors?
“Yes, I did. In fact I think it’s higher than that, world-wide. Raises an interesting point, doesn’t it? Should pro-lifers be picketing God instead of abortion doctors?”
It raises a really disturbing point. If we were to think that “Life begins at conception” and all fertilized embryos are people with rights. Then every miscarriage must be investigated as to the cause of death. Autopsy? Every single one. Engage in risky behavior, did that contribute to the “death”? Unfit mother, how early do we take the child away? How about installing monitors on every woman “of age” so they may be informed they are pregnant and a new set of laws now apply to her. Monitoring the mother to pinpoint the if/when a spontaneous abortion occurs so the investigation can begin.
I said earlier, caffeine and exercise have been correlated with spontaneous abortion/miscarriage. Where are the protesters with posters of aborted fetus’ picketing Starbucks or Gyms?
Did you know that natural disasters killed over 200,000 people last year?
This analogy is inappropriate, no one is lobbying for earthquake machines.
Ostensibly you mean “people die naturally, what’s wrong with killing people?”… which would be a great point if I thought abortion was the same as killing people.
rodney, the difference between you and I:
You have decided that abortion isn’t killing people.
I haven’t yet been convinced that the fetus isn’t a person — and I would consider personhood to be a philosophical term, not a scientific one. We will not convince each other. There’s no point in trying.
But I am curious why you feel the need to respond to every single one of my comments. It’s as if no matter what I say, logical, emotive, belief-based, no matter what, you are going to find something to quibble with. Why is that? Is there something about me that’s so irritating to you? Or, are my posts so fascinating that you just can’t resist?
First, the analogy is not:
“people die naturally, what’s wrong with killing people?
But rather that people are killed…
But, I suppose you are right that in that the analogy is only appropriate insofar as our understandings of what constitutes a human life are similar. As they seem to be very different, I suppose the analogy doesn’t work.
5000 children per hour, die from abortion
In other words, you won’t be successful arguing with someone who is pro-choice that murdering children is wrong, because they don’t think abortion is murder and they don’t think embryos are children. The latter two arguments might work, but I am thus far unconvinced either is true.
The world births in 2008 (from the first source I could find) is 128.9 million
5,000*24*365 is 43,800,000
You believe that 1/4th of all pregnancies in the world end in abortions?
Wade is quoting GOD’S track record…
unintentionally though, right?
Yes– he fails to understand that “God” kills more babies than people do…
That’s not god, that’s just how things are. (I am paraphrasing dwade’s remark elsewhere, in case it’s not immediately obvious).
Good grief people, you should know to ignore everything dwade says by now!
I just don’t understand how “God” is to blame for all the wrong things that occur (of course everyone has their own interpretation of wrong)…
where are you getting this understanding?
He’s either in control of everything and all-powerful, or not. Which is it? If he’s sovereign, then he causes everything to happen. If he’s all-powerful, he could stop any bad thing from happening with ease.
The only people who get God somewhat off the hook are open theists, but then they left with a god who is pathetically weak and ignorant, and still have no evidence this magical being exists.
You can’t give God credit for all the good things, and then just let him off the hook for all the bad things.
At least Calvinists are consistent here.
Well, one could think that an omnipotent being is responsible of all the things that occur, by action or by omission.
But Dwade, don’t forget that we don’t believe such a being exists. We are pointing here at the hipocrisy of thinking all “good” things are from God and bad things happen because of the original sin. We are not doing God responsible, is it you who believes in God
Dont ask me explain everything about God’s character, I would be in great error to try to do it justice.
I do know that God allows bad things to happen for our good. Is He the source of bad things? I Don’t believe He is.
so you don’t know everything about god?
so maybe he allows/is the source of late term abortions being performed practically on your doorstep, and maybe he does it just because he likes the look on your face when you see it.
And Dinesh D’Souza will surely find a reason in there somewhere to pin it on the glory of God. Yes, some things will never change….
I’m a little more dogmatic; I tend to ignore philosophy in favour of science 99% of the time!
So then when it comes to defining human life, you’re up the creek?
I don’t see a problem with a 99% scientific definition of human life.
Then define it scientifically in a way that demonstrates the consensus of the scientific community. And I don’t mean just biological. I mean sociological, psychological, etc.
There is no scientific definition of human life, so it is necessarily hypothetical to say that I don’t see a problem with a 99% scientific definition of human life. I think perhaps you read something other than what I meant.
It’s entirely false to attempt to represent the “consensus of the scientific community” on almost every single topic you could name. Except for global warming, they’re sure that’s happening – and even on that, there’s a few whackos who are naysaying just in case the miniscule chance of them being right comes in, because it’s the only way they’ll ever get “famous”. But I digress and rant.
Both of you have said that you have no problem accepting the scientific definition of human life. In other words, you’ve both rejected my appeal to a philosophy to define human life and instead freely admitted that you choose the scientific one.
I’m asking what that definition is. I realize there’s no consensus. I’ve studied that. And that’s kinda my point…
So, my question remains in an altered form: What is your scientific definition of a human life (and not just ‘life’ in general)? I think it’s completely fair to ask, because you’ve rebutted mine by appealing to science.
Well, “Life” is anything that consumes food and air, produces waste and reproduces biologically. “Human” is any fully developed member of the genus Homo Sapiens.
So what does “fully developed” mean?
FWIW, that’s where I think the problem lies… because in my view, human beings are either 1) developing or 2) degenerating. In other words, it’s not as if there’s a static, “fully developed” human being that we can simply point to and say, “Look, there it is.”
JOEB,
yea, uh no.
what exactly is that a reply to?
Though that fact that isn’t impossible to tell because of you not using the threading correctly shows how little you are advancing the discussion.
sorry this string is getting hard to manure…
it was a response to your earlier rant:
so you don’t know everything about god?
so maybe he allows/is the source of late term abortions being performed practically on your doorstep, and maybe he does it just because he likes the look on your face when you see it.
so what is wrong with that statement?
You were saying you do know everything about god, so then it’s impossible for him to be just messing with you for his own enjoyment?
nobody can know everything about God, I would never make this claim.
So you and anyone else can’t know that god isn’t just mean spirited and lying/messing with people.
Personally, an omnipotent, benevolent god seems a lot less likely than a omnipotent, non-benevolent god with what I’ve seen of the world.
If I was all powerful then I’d need some entertainment *boom* free will/different religions all based on the claim of absolute truth without any collaborating evidence/human suffering
That seems to be a common argument, but I wonder if the actual numbers support the argument. Do people choose abortions as the most convenient method of birth control? I think some people are careless and may be immature or emotionally detached, but I hardly think it’s all for lack of rubbers or the pill and for fun.
What reports are there to support the notion that women and couples choose abortion because it’s easily available and they were careless? It’s easily available and inexpensive so people can find the clinics and pay for the procedure without too much delay in locating and traveling to and saving up for, because the delay tends to make abortion more complicated medically and socially. So, is it positively a social reaction to easy access to be lazy and careless on purpose, and to consider abortion as anything but a last resort? I’m skeptical of this type of opinion. I know you live in a different country than I do, and maybe seen or heard more reported on the subject, but my tendency is to understand what’s often reported on the news or talked about is rumor, not fact, highlighted cases, superior judgment, and isn’t society going to heck and all that. I mean, cite please.
I posted a link in the last thread which breaks it down by motivation. IIRC, the biggest reason cited for having an abortion was economic.
Which doesn’t mean they did not try to prevent it otherwise. Only that they’d rather not raise a child in poverty, kthx.
and for convenience
is that from the link or did you just throw that out there like 5,000 abortions an hour in the U.S.?
Or for the convenience of not ruining somebody’s life, as well as oneself’s, because someone else says so.
I find it so frustrating that this president (like many before) is constantly invoking “spirituality” and other nonsense.
I blogged about another part of his speech today in which he basically said that doubt should strengthen faith.
How can someone this smart believe this crap?
He did mention non-believers in his inaugural address. First. Presidential. Lip service. Ever.
He must appear religious. Hopefully that won’t be true in the future, maybe even in my lifetime.
Bill,
I agree with President Obama that doubt *should* logically strengthen faith.
However, it doesn’t always do that. Doubt certainly tested my faith in Christianity, but it didn’t really strengthen it. I would say that it wasn’t strengthened mostly because I have deconverted.
But I do agree with Obama’s reasoning here. Doubt *should* strengthen faith. Sometimes it doesn’t, when it appears that the faith isn’t really merited.
I think you guys are reading too much into a propagandistic–appease everyone–sort of statement by the president. What he says is not as important as what he does. Let’s wait and see if he puts his money where his mouth is.
The way I see it, it is an improvement, compared with what his predecessor had to say on the issue.
I still have difficulty getting my head around the position that abortion is acceptable in the case of rape but unacceptable in other circumstances. Surely the moral status of the fetus can’t depend on the circumstances in which it was conceived?
If abortion were wrong (which I believe it isn’t), it would be because fetuses had a moral right not to be killed. Such a right would not be outweighed simply because a rape victim might have a particularly strong interest in obtaining an abortion as compared to the next woman — unless we’d also be willing to say that a rape victim’s killing of her 3-year-old child is more excusable than such a killing by another mother. Likewise, such a fetal right would not be diminished simply because the fetus’s father was a rapist — we’ve long since abandoned the idea of punishing people for the crimes of their parents.
For me this point is rather academic, since I don’t believe abortion is wrong. But the rape exception does strike me as logically inconsistent if you are in fact opposed to abortion.
I think it’s an attempt to reconcile the trauma of the mother and still hold onto the notion that the life of the fetus is valuable… at least I think that’s what it is for me.
On the one hand:
The mother is bound by law to carry the pregnancy to term. She either puts it up for adoption or keeps it. Let’s suppose she keeps it. I don’t know how it would be possible to not remember the rape every single time the mother looks at the child. To me, that’s an extreme situation, one that I think only the mother is qualified to make.
On the other hand:
The mother can choose to terminate the pregnancy. Not an easy choice either, and there’s plenty of research out there that demonstrates how difficult it is for mothers who terminate pregnancies. Again, that’s an extreme situation, one that I think only the mother is qualified to make.
Furthermore, in the case of rape, there is the obvious issue of consent and responsibility. The woman didn’t choose, and in my view, she’s not responsible. But I’ve said all that before.
If it still strikes you as inconsistent, then either A) It is; or B) Someone more intelligent than I needs to explain it better.
People who are against abortions seem to state as fact, or vaguely reference studies, or select quotes overstating that terminating a pregnancy is most often regrettable. I’m not sure that’s true or false. I think if you define abortion as ending a life, then you would appear to automatically project that that “fact” will come back to haunt someone later, and linger, and cause indefinite pain, and that carrying the child seldom matches it, whether it is kept or is given for adoption. The haunting, lingering, indefinite pain that you project rape victims feel seems to override the emotions left over after an abortion, such that merely looking at someone the rest of your life can recall one painful experience and hinder emotional recovery from it makes it a more valid reason than having to take responsibility for raising that child and not wanting to. It’s not just inconvenient to have a child, it’s expensive and a lot of hard work, and I think someone is capable of figuring out for themselves if they’re going to have it in them to do it, do a good enough job at it, and be able to afford to do so, and also to detach this matter of a few cells if that’s her choice, to be mostly happy with her choice as opposed to the alternative. Whatever hard cases you can make to except abortion, what is being aborted does not change at all. Both women are going to have it tough, but you suppose the rape victim has a better excuse to hate her child and exempt her for it.
But these are your associations, and allows you to make exceptions, and also make it all sound so much worse than it really is. People who end up sorrier they had an abortion than they thought are probably either touched by Jesus deeply some time later, missed out on having kids altogether, made a lot of other hasty decisions in their youth, or because they’re told they ought to be. Mostly, the rest just consider it dodging a bullet. I think that covers it.
Kodie, maybe some people do overstate such studies. But I can assure you, I’ve studied them. Most women who have abortions have to deal with a lot of grief.
My only point is that having an abortion is more often than not very difficult as well.
I agree
Care to cite these unbiased studies? If what you say is true, then I think it would be all over the news. In other words, I’ve only heard about the negative mental consequences of abortion from pro-life supporters in discussions like these and on the picket signs they bring to Planned Parenthood. I’m sure some women feel real bad about it the rest of their lives, enough to testify, and then maybe a bunch are just not saying whether they do or not, because of the stigma. They feel fine but they still want people like you to like them, not fire them, still eat lunch with them, etc.
I had an abortion. I was sad for a while, but I have never regretted my choice. And I never felt that my choice was morally wrong. I’m fine now.
I think the abortion experience is like the atheism in social situations discussion brgulker and I had a few days ago (Bloomington Bus thread, I think it was). I don’t think about my atheism. I don’t volunteer this information, but I do answer the question truthfully. As for abortion, I never usually volunteer this information, and I’ve never been asked before. It’s going to go hand in hand that people who don’t already have moral oppositions to it going in aren’t going to feel emotionally scarred for the rest of their life. I know having an abortion was ultimately the right thing to do, for me, but what still guts me is not standing up to my mom for threatening to disown me – I was 26, but not truly independent. That’s a cruddy reason to keep a child, though.
A little more on the experience of persuasion (some of which is alluded to before in general topics) – I went somewhere, I don’t remember where it was, to tell me all about my options, and I’d told them I was not still with the guy. They encouraged me to go with abortion, I might have mentioned I was considering it. The lady there assumed I would hate the child every day and should abort to spare myself and the child. I don’t know where people are coming from when they cast these projections. Oh, it will be so horrible, he was a good looking and fun guy, and if I think about it, the most fun ex-boyfriend I would go back and do it all over again, again and again, every part of it. Of course, he was in favor of abortion. So, this woman doesn’t know what I’m about.
Next, I went to see what types of programs might exist that would help me keep the baby, even in my situation. Here, the lady told me all about WIC and said she could probably set me up with a Christian couple who would take me in while I was pregnant – not to adopt (I’m pretty sure?) the baby, but just to keep me focused and out of despair, while I arrange getting a job, etc. Sort of a half-good deal. I said I was afraid to tell my mother. Nobody knows my mother like I do. She said don’t be afraid, she might be mad for a while, but she will dote on the grandchild, just wait and see what occurs. She threatened me that if I made an appointment for an abortion, I would regret it the rest of my life and cry all the time. I considered that, and went ahead and told my mother.
This was no average fury. If she wants something, she gets the job done. I feel like I held my ground, but I was hurt and alone. Did I want what I want because my mom says I can’t have it, or my ex doesn’t want it, or for any right reason? My brother called (he heard about it from my mother – I don’t know if she told him to call me or he thought of it himself – and told me stuff I didn’t know, and stuff I did know and really what’s the right thing to do, look at my life, and that’s how I arrived at the sensible thing to do. “Wanting a baby” wasn’t enough. The Christian place lady called me in a few days to touch base and I told her I was having an abortion the coming Saturday. She didn’t say anything mean, but she seemed surprised.
I’ve been ok with that. I will let you know if I hear anything from that ex, but I doubt he is in everlasting agony over it.
I’ve known two women who have had abortions.
A) Felt horrible about it. 20 years later, she still mourns on the day she had the procedure done and is convinced that she hasn’t has another child yet because god is punishing her.
B) Used it as a form of birth-control and could care less. For her it was like going to get an oil change.
I’m sure the majority is somewhere in between the two women I knew.
One thing I haven’t seen in these comments is the idea that if we prohibit abortion except in cases of rape and incest…would there then be a rise in false accusations of rape?
probably so, good point
I am not interested in all the semantics about abortion and when does life begin, I have already spent 20 years studying this practice. Because I am labeled “religious” will cause you to immediately discount everything I post. I’ll just say to everyone, there is plenty of scientific data out there showing the development of a child in it’s mothers womb. You need to study the data and decide for yourselves. It doesn’t take a degree in developmental embryology to have knowledge of the facts.
My heart goes out to anyone that has either aborted their children because of a lack of knowledge or knows someone who has.
People here don’t discount everything you post because you’re religious…people discount what you write because it’s usually unsupported twaddle.
“People here don’t discount everything you post because you’re religious…people discount what you write because it’s usually unsupported twaddle.”
QFT!
and the data I share is supported, just not by the crowd you deem acceptable.
Bull.
is too
yeah, Roger. 12 year old girls on you tube are the highest source of information.
exactly, hehe, that wasn’t intended to my factual source but i’m glad you guys are having fun with it….
from the mouths of babes!!
as long as you know we are laughing at you.
thats ok, makes for good discussion.
Considering how wrong you were with the statistics you presented so far, I must question how much effort you put into those 20 years. Of course there is always the possibility that you are just quoting others without doing any actual study at all.
I may have missed it? But I don’t think it was mentioned that pregnancy and birth are much more hazardous to the woman than an abortion. I don’t think it’s right to force someone to undergo a serious medical risk when that clump of cells could have gone at 10 weeks.
cypressgreen,
this simply not true, statistics indicate otherwise.
Please site. CDC I believe says in 2000 the women’s mortality rate caused by abortion was 1%. I admit I am having trouble fining numbers, but I have been pregnant myself. And being a woman, I obviously have heard many stories from other women. My sister got hypertention, my blood sugar spiked, etc. We both had C-sections, which people forget are a major surgery. I work at a large hospital and see and hear a LOT.
Cypressgreen,
I will bring some data soon. It’s going to be difficult though, many of the botched abortions go unrecorded. For instance, I have witnessed death through abortion, that has occurred at an abortion clinic that never made the news. Some hospitals (at least in my town) refuse to see abortion victims as the liability has increased signifigantly. (probably some insurance company out there dictating)…
And many abortionists attempt to keep the botched procedures under wraps to protect the families. Kinda sounds like back alley, wouldn’t you say?
So the data may be distorted….
dwade,
no one is going to trust you at all on uncited data after that laughable 5,000 abortions an hour in the U.S. claim.
Nobody is going to trust him, period. The numbers could be written in twelve foot high letters of fire across the sky, and if Dwade pointed them out I’d still struggle to believe it.
here’s the first from worldnetdaily:
Abortion is four times deadlier than childbirth.
Abortion advocates routinely claim that childbirth causes six, 10, or 12 times more deaths than abortion. Abortion clinics advertise that legal abortion is many times safer than childbirth. The statistical analysis agency for Finland’s government conducted a very accurate and complete study that reveals that out of 100,000 women, there were 281 cases of maternal deaths – 27 were women who had given birth, 48 were women who had miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and 101 were women who had abortions.
When the researchers calculated ratios, they determined that women who abort are 3.5 times more likely to die within a year than are women who carry to term. More startlingly, the researchers reported that the risk of death from suicide within a year of an abortion is more than seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth. A Canadian study revealed similar findings, as did a study of Medicaid payments in Virginia.
Sadly, many women have none of this information about the dangers of abortion. Instead, they know only the front-page information that has become conventional U.S. wisdom. Indeed, only a minute number of abortion deaths are classified as such in official data — which leaves women at the mercy of abortion lies instead of being well informed about abortion realities.
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., is a Concerned Women for America representative to the United Nations. She is reporting from New York on the 50th Session of the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women.
you can go to:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49165
for more read
I notice you excluded the start of the article
Quite a neutral source, no?
Oh yeah, Worldnut Daily–Now THERE’s an unimpeachable source.
How about this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm
Or this: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
The internet just doesn’t go very far in your little world, does it?
Of course that data is almost a decade late because the CDC, unlike Worldnut, can’t get by just by making stuff up or distorting the data to fit its world view.
not purposely, but then again, most of your data is coming from the Allen Gutmacher institute, a pro-choice organization that has financial gain this practice.
so where can you find a neutral source? Anyone know?
Ok then.
Fact is, as I stated before the numbers are skewed to protect an industry with billions of dollars of revenue. Would I want to believe someone who is attempting to protect life and women or someone who has financial gain in the matter…hmmmm?
and another good question:
where does the cdc get their data, Allen G, no doubt, looks like they’ve got that one all wrapped up…
dwade, there’s a very big difference between a source that has a pro-choice org. among it’s many citations and a straight press release from a pro-life source.
the CDC report cites 65 sources, 3 are from the Allen G org.
Yes, I skipped over the Planned Parenthood stats cause I know ‘pro-lifers’ consider them to be as credible as I think WorldNut is.
Joe B
I still stand behind my statements that the “pro-choice” camp has great losses in revenue (to lose) and the “pro-life” camp has nothing to gain other than a better country to live in. So I think I will choose an unbiased source.
a source that advocates Pro-Life is unbiased while the Center for Disease Control is biased?
But allen G is one of the greatest providers of abortion statistics in the US…the only data that comes from the medical community are those rare instances of mothers life, health, etc….so Allen G has worked very hard over the years to back up their claims and gain acceptance of abortion whenever and wherever….so the data is still slanted to their gain.
So those 3 citations are for all of the abortion statistics, and the other 62 sources in a report on abortion are about rare instances?
Not sure, do you think they would divulge that info?
If so, good luck.
you should also know that Allen G and Margeret Singer (Planned Parenthood) are in bed together
Now you’re not sure?
You sounded pretty sure that there was no data on abortions from medical organizations there.
pics or it didn’t happen
Er, excuse me dwade, but I’m the “pro-choice camp”, and I don’t make a single red cent out of abortion! Neither do the vast majority of us!
Joe B,
I like this game of cat and mouse with the bloggers on this site. Someone shares data that they believe to be true (like you) and as soon as someone misspeaks or doesn’t know everything about everything they get the Aha!
If you know everything about everything than I congratulate you and look forward to your longstanding fame as the smartest person that ever lived.
I am allowed to say I am not sure. so are you. Get real.
custador,
I didnt claim that. I am referring the industry of abortion.
You are certainly allowed to say you aren’t sure.
You aren’t allowed to talk like you are, then when challenged back away from your incorrect claims.
Joe B,
be careful I am a photoshop pro, you cant believe everything you see. And this is common knowledge btw. AG and PP.
Plus, I don’t want DF to ban me from the site for posting images like that. hehe
Caring for pregnant women, new mothers and babies’ health care bring in WAY more $ than a simple abortion.
Your reply to someone challenging you for proof is to say you are capable of faking the proof.
AWESOME STRATEGY, MAN.
I knew I just read this…on the Friendly Atheist’s site: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/05/16/arizona-governor-bans-planned-parenthood-from-health-expo/
taken from the article:
Arizona Governor Bans Planned Parenthood from Health Expo
What sort of services does Planned Parenthood provide for women?
Breast exams
Pap smears
Cervical cancer screenings
Infertility testings
Physical exams
Mammograms
And, yes, abortions, which make up approximately 3% (PDF) of PP’s total services.
With all that they offer, it makes sense that they would participate in the Women’s Health Expo this past week in Arizona.
Which is why it makes no sense that Governor Jan Brewer banned them from attending:
According to [president of Planned Parenthood Arizona Bryan] Howard, his group was advised of the ban about three weeks ago. He said he asked the governor’s office for an explanation and was told by a low-level staffer that “our presence would contradict the governor’s policy.”
Howard said he was unable to get an explanation of the policy.
Paul Senseman of the governor’s office said he did not know specifically what policy was involved.
The Governor would rather prevent women from getting access to numerous life-saving health services than allow them access to abortion information.
cypressgreen,
Planned Parenthood has been lying about their involvement for years, people just keep buying it.
Did you know that Marherat Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood maid claims that blacks were an inferior race and needed to be killed?
Look that up in your histoyr book, it’s absolutely true. Glad they are keeping that data under wraps, might hurt their sales.
“here’s the first from worldnetdaily:
Abortion is four times deadlier than childbirth.”
Thats just a plain lie. Way to be to ratchet up your Scumbag score!
@Dwade:
You say about Margaret Sanger: (and sound a little Ad hominem about it):
“”Did you know that Marherat Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood maid claims that blacks were an inferior race and needed to be killed? Look that up in your histoyr book, it’s absolutely true. Glad they are keeping that data under wraps, might hurt their sales.”"
A quote by President Lincoln:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
Guess what, even the great ones of our past were not perfect, and were a product of their times.
In fairness to Lincoln, he did later change his mind. But his campaign platform was to prevent slavery from spreading west, not to end slavery.
dwade,
There is no circumstance in which “wing nut daily” is a good source for you to use, especially when you’re conversing with some of those who have prior experience with its vast wingnuttery, such as I have. It is *not* a credible source. You should be ashamed.
Speaking of your claim to have witnessed “death by abortion” (I’m presuming that you’re speaking about the woman, not the fetus), you seem to claim to be eyewitness to a lot of things that somehow have no other supporting evidence.
Roger,
Yes I am, because I showed up at the clinics, quite a revealing experience. Yes the women (not woman).
I think seeing for yourself is better than believing someones written data, sorry to let you down.
who needs written data when a 12 year old on youtube can tell you how many abortions are performed in the U.S.?
So, you “showed up” and somehow, got access to rooms where abortions were being performed? I’m gonna call “BS” on that one.
Roger,
Imagine this. A girl comes to a clinic to receive an abortion. I talk to her outside. She tells me she has a late term pregnancy. She goes into the clinic, comes back several days later still pregnant, and goes in for several hours. When she comes out her belly is gone.
Or she comes out in an ambulance with no lights oon.
That to me is a late term abortion, and death….wouldn’t you agree?
dwade,
Imagine this. Thorn sneaks into the basement of the government-assisted suicide facility, where he sees corpses being loaded onto waste disposal trucks. He secretly hitches a ride on one of the trucks, which is driven to a heavily guarded waste disposal plant. Once inside the plant, Thorn sees how the corpses are processed into Soylent Green wafers.
That to me means Soylent Green is people
just keep your head in the sand its a safe place for now.
just keep spouting off upsupported claims, it’s a way to preserve your skewed worldview for now.
Major Tom is fine., and God’s love is with him.
Again when you have no facts to back up your ludicrous claims, it must be a conspiracy.
On a aside: Hows life in the spaceship?
@Dwade: Of course you don’t. It appears that anyone who disagrees with you must be looking at stats that were created to fool people. You know, maybe the clinic you are at IS exactly as you claim.
What does that prove? What are the thousands of other clinics doing?
I work at a major hospital in cancer treatment and we treat many rare and late stage cancers no one else will. Ones their local doctors won’t touch and maybe have never seen. People from all over the country and world.
As a result, or stats for ’survival rate at 5 yrs’ make us appear to be a sucky place compared to many little hospitals. So is that representative of cancer treatment as a whole?
Your clinic does a lot of ‘ugly’ cases, you claim. Sounds like you get something different than a lot of other places.
I hope I am being clear.
cypress (cool name btw)
I cannot account for what goes on around the world, although this blogosphere has opened my eyes to more info.
I can only share what I have personally experienced outside of dozens of clinics around the US over the past 20 years. and that info is somewhat limited. just being honest.
!
Thanks. I took Chinese in high school, and they said westerners are ‘assigned’ names that sound like their own. I’m Barbie, and that translates to Cypress Green.
“Will bring data soon …”
Christianspeak for “This discussion is over.”
Or possibly “Soon as I can find it on ‘Answers in Genesis’.”
namely references #12 and #16, genius!
I’m no genius. Just able to do research and assess information.
Re. your references at #12 and #16 … Would those be the links you posted before you claimed you’d come back with a reliable citation or two (and followed up with Worldnet Daily, which you should know no-one here is going to consider remotely reliable).
Why yes, I believe they would. Genius.
You have no real facts nor data, so you cite WND. Fine, but when you’re bluffing with no cards, don’t be surprised when you get called.
You’re not the one who has to make the choice about an abortion. You just want to limit the options for those who do. Fine, but at least try using honest argument and statistics we can come to some agreement on to back your opinion.
Not that I’m holiding my breath or anything. I just let your intellectual dishonesty get under my skin. Sorry ’bout that.
Another great discussion is why would I abort a child in my last term of pregnancy, when the child is obviously viable and capable of living outside his mothers womb, Obama is in support of late term abortion. Martin Haskle, local abortionist here designed the technique. Does AG report how many late term abortions occur in this country?
No because it is big money, nobody wants to discuss it, lets keep it under wraps.
Premature babies don’t survive before 21 weeks of gestation. Period. At 24 weeks, the survival rate is only 18%. 24 weeks is the legal time limit for abortions in the UK.
no limit in the US, girls can go all the way up to full term.
Not true. Once a foetus becomes “viable” (i.e. able to survive on its own outside of the womb), an abortion would be illegal. If a woman at full term had an abortion (we call this “giving birth”) and the baby wasn’t viable, it would die anyway.
this is referred to as still birth and it does happen every week in Kettering Ohio. Don’t bother looking it up on the internet, (not available) but if you want to come over sometime, you can see for yourself. no data necessary.
I’m sorry, are you so obtuse that you think every baby which dies in utero (a very common occurence, by the way) is actually an abortion?! What on Earth do you think happens to a baby that dies in the womb?! It has to come out, the mother doesn’t just absorb it into her blood stream!
NO Dwade – Data IS neccesary if you want ot make that kind of ludicrous assertion!
Custador, I didnt make that claim.
Well then, why else would you invite me to come look at some still births?
I am simply suggesting that you get up, walk away from your computer and go see for yourself what really goes on at the abortion clinics, than you will see the difference between what is being reported and what you are seeing for your self.
so dwade, you’ve gone out and seen more abortions than are being reported
You’ve seen over 900,000 abortions a year
or just talking late term, 12,000?
and you still have time to talk to us?
thanks for the ludicrous claim, but no.
than who do you “know” the statistics are false. If you haven’t seen more abortions, or more late term abortions, than are being reported, how do you (or any of us, as you suggest)
You’re treading close to paranoia. First, you need to qualify what you’re saying about Obama’s “support” of late-term abortions. The way you’re construing it, you’re making it seem as though Obama supports late-term abortions as a medical standard. He doesn’t. (But hey, why let facts and nuance stop you when you can have paranoia, full-stop?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/04/obama-on-late-abortion-me_n_110884.html
Second, you claim that late-term abortions are “big money”–proof, please?
The “biased” CDC stats say 1.4% of abortions were performed at 21 weeks or later.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
CDC must not have come out to Kettering. Maybe they are relying on trusted sources like AG
Typical, if you don’t have any facts, then it must be a conspiracy against the “real” truth.
if you dont believe conspiracy is possible than you are simply not paying attention.
just because dwade is paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get him.
Roger,
Call Martin Haskel at his Kettering Ohio office and ask him how much a late term abortion procedure is. (last time I checked it was around $4500), he performed at least 3-4 a week, last I understood. He is not the only abortionist performing these….
That’s not proof. That’s an assertion–and, again, a rather paranoid one at that.
you see even when someone has real face to face experience with their particular area of expertise, they are discounted, it’s a no win.
Um, no, it’s still just your claim. Maybe if it were verifiably the doctor making the claim, but it’s just some guy on a blog. Evidence would be, like, a link to his web site with a price sheet, or an article in a respectable publication that mentions it, or something.
So you think this guy wants to advertise that he does late term abortions? When I heard it was going on, I went out and discovered it for myself. Best way to claim evidence is an eye witness account, don’t you agree?
dwade – it’s still just an assertion, and even if it’s true for Dr. Haskel of Kettering, OH doesn’t give any support to the claim that his way of doing things is the way it’s done all over. Maybe the CDC did go out to Kettering and Dr. Haskel accounts for the statistical 1.4% of abortions that are performed late in the term overall. That sounds like it’s wild when I say it like that, but that’s how it comes off when you say what you’re implying is true based on your experiences with Dr. Haskel in Kettering.
Haskel invented the technique and it went worldwide, he got plenty of press and attention to his gruesome practices, did seminars all over the world. So did George Tiller in Kansas…he was fined for burning the bodies in an incinerator without a license…..
Are you slow or just stubborn?
No one will believe your statements of fact without supporting evidence. That’s true of everyone in general, even moreso when the person has been factually incorrect earlier in the discussion.
Either stick to opinion or support your statements.
No, a different doctor invented iD&X, but Haskel wrote a paper describing and advocating it. In 1992. This procedure, a type of late-term abortion, was called “partial-birth abortion” by the US government (a term rejected by the AMA), and it was outlawed by the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. None of this information supports any of your points. If you can’t find citations that support your argument, consider that the possibility that no reliable sources support your argument.
“Haskel invented the technique and it went worldwide, he got plenty of press and attention to his gruesome practices, did seminars all over the world. So did George Tiller in Kansas”
Still anecdotal and vague. First he’s hard to find, then he’s massively popular, and you’re still betraying your bias. Come to us with facts, not words like gruesome and two examples.
Look who’s making all the money:
http://www.amport.com/store/procedure.html
http://www.marianland.com/apf/anti-abortion-procedures.html
http://www.squidoo.com/Jill-Stanek
This one just makes me laugh because it’s called “FunTrivia”:
http://www.funtrivia.com/en/History/Abortion-11052.html
not being stubborn, just going to have a very difficult time getting evidence that would convince you. As I stated earlier in a post, my wife and I, and hundreds of others can provide eye-witness accounts that never make the papers. Even our local papers keep these truths hush, hush. We have protested many of the liberal papers in our city asking why they wont publish this info. So other than you are going to have to believe me. I can’t offer much more. Sorry but I will make an attempt to find some data.
Late term abortion in OH is one of the best kept secrets, I do know that Haskel is facing many trials of botched prcedures and may lose his practice. It’s taken an outcry from the citizens to get the officials to move…
Rodney,
then Haskel is a liar, because he is claiming he invented it locally.
LOL
Joe:
dwade:
WIN!
All you have shown for evidence of anything is maybe one doctor in one specialty might be unethical. That’s still for the AMA to decide, but if I were you, I wouldn’t get your abortions from him, just in case.
I get it now.
dwade is Martin Haskel and this is all a elaborate ruse to advertise his abortions services.
Because everybody’s having late-term abortions and getting RICH off of them, didn’t'cha know, Joe?
aahh, they’re on to me, drat!
just for cleverness of the plot I’m driving over and getting two
So Dwade is just some Tourettes-esque babbling nincompoop?
That’s pretty much my assessment of him.
People with Tourettes’ don’t act anything like this. I should know, I had Tourettes’ as a child.
Enough people made fun of me without these ridiculously stupid and untrue stereotypes influencing peoples’ misconceptions. I blame f***ing Adam Sandler…and yes, this is the first time I have sworn on UF…and it wasn’t about religion, it was about Adam Sandler and his stupid Tourettes’ jokes. If you had had my childhood, you wouldn’t think it was funny, either.
Okay, rant over. Hopefully all of you understand where I’m coming from.
Of course we do, Tele!
*hug*
Thank you.
For the record, I may have laughed at a Michael J. Fox or a Stephen Hawking joke in the past, so I do realize that I am not entirely blameless; but I do hope that all of us can be much more sensitive and empathetic.
I think Tourette syndrome has been misrepresented longer than Adam Sandler. Though that doesn’t have any impact on the jokes’ stupidity.
I know this sounds like I’m cutting and running, but I DO have to go, got some errands to run, I will check back sometime. Thanks for the chat.
I’ve had enough of (ignorant, misogynistic) Wade.
Wade, here is a scientific (and therefore less biased) source on abortion statistics:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933648?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Feel free to look around at the related articles. You will find that you are, once again, WRONG on your “facts”.
Next, you accused me of “killing my child”. I did no such thing. It was an embryo/fetus, like what you’d find in the freezer at a fertility clinic. Next, of all the women I saw in the clinic, none of them were showing. NONE. My procedure involved getting a shot and coming back a week later for a second shot. Then I had a heavy period. Hardly blood covered babies.
You, like other anti-choice fanatics are in the business of spreading misinformation. That makes you ignorant. You do this in order to keep women from controlling their reproductive/sexual choices. That makes you a misogynist.
And you do it in the name of an invisible man. That makes you either foolish or crazy. Your choice.
I hope when the message board come we’ll be able to private message people so then I could bet you a substantial sum that dwade will claim he never accused you of those things and isn’t ignorant or a misogynist, without effecting his actual reply.
He won’t support or stand by any of his claims, that’s why he’s retreated to unfalsifiable ones.
He will continue to “know” and “believe” whatever makes him feel nice no matter how much suffering it causes or how crazy and irrational. He’s been touched by the Alrighty. If it were just a voice in his head, it wouldn’t give him goose bumps or emotional awe, right? According to his own words he’s met Christ.
He can’t explain everything about the character of his God and yet he can go on and on and on and on without answering the critical point that Anyone who is all powerful and all knowing isn’t also all responsible. The damning truth is that if his God were real, He would be responsible for all abortions. Dwade should be picketing his church.
Wade will likely argue it’s about the potential life of the embryo. I will counter that if this is the moral imperative, then we have no right to abort embryos conceived by rape or incest, who are also potential lives, regardless of how they were conceived.
I will also criticize this choice as monstrous and misogynistic. Wade said that he thought my fetus should be asked it if wanted to live. I counter that we should ask the fetus of a rape victim or of incest if it wants to live. Ask a person living today that was conceived by rape if they want to live… Then I will add that regardless of whether or not the potential child wants to live, it has no chance to do so without my say so– since it is my body and my health we are talking about here, and enforced motherhood is a violation regardless of how the child was conceived. In other words, my will, as an actual person, takes precedence over the will of any potential person, period.
If he counters that it is a matter of responsibility, I will counter that such responsibilities lie with the individual– unless he wants to live in a country that denies people individual rights (like China). It is my right and my responsibility to decide when to become a parent. I don’t need the government to step in and decide for me. And given my regular use of contraception over the years, I have been responsible. Further, at the time of my procedure, I recognized that I was not responsible enough/ready to be a parent, and that the responsible choice for my health, my body, my life, my career, and my significant other at the time was to make the choice I did make.
If he counters that it is “God’s will” that embryos should survive, then I will counter with the high rate of spontaneous abortion in the first 4 months of pregnancy. I will also cite the mortality rate of pregnant women over the centuries and note that the “worldly wisdom” we call science is what has made childbirth deaths go down, not “God’s will”.
If he states that abstinence is the only 100% effective birth control, then I will counter that abstinence is not really a reasonable expectation when we live in times that afford us ways to enjoy our sexuality responsibly. I will add that you Christians can piss and moan all you like that it is wrong to have premarital sex, but so few of you actually follow that creed. You can complain that abortion is wrong, but you complain about having to pay taxes for welfare mothers as well. You believe that children should be brought into this overpopulated world, only to starve to death or die painfully from preventable infectious diseases. You anti-choice, anti-birth control, abstinence-until-marriage people are deluded and don’t face facts. You harangue people like me with offensive language, and you try to scare girls into forced motherhood.
It has nothing to do with your supposed defenses of life (for many of you are pro-death penalty) it has to do with the desire to control women.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-family/#3
Your arguments are weak, based on fallacies, and they are necessarily cruel to exactly 1/2 of the actual, existing people on this planet. You are living with Bronze age mentalities, and we modern people are sick of it. Grow the f**k up and recognize that life isn’t some black and white situation. Things are complicated, and it isn’t really your place, with your overly simplistic thinking, to decide what the rest of us get to do. If you are against abortion, THEN DON’T HAVE ONE. If you are against pre-marital sex, THEN DON’T DO IT (good luck with that, though). Those are YOUR choices. Fine. And MY choices are MINE.
LRA,
this discussion has obviously struck a nerve with you, so I apologize if I offended you. I was not outright accusing anyone. I am for care, not condemnation.
That’s just is Wade, you don’t give a crap what happens to the child after it is born. I mean, what do YOU care if a welfare mom gives birth to a kid who has to be raised in the ghetto with a bunch of crack whores hanging out on his corner where he catches the bus? What do you care if this kid is shot to death at 21 years old? You don’t care. You don’t think of the long term consequences, do you?
To be fair to Wade, I don’t think he’s said anything that could be construed in a way such that he doesn’t care about any of those things you’ve listed.
However, I do agree with you that many of the things you’ve listed as motivations for the “pro-life” positions are factors which seem to account for a substantial percentage of the tenacity of some factions of “pro-lifers” in the abortion debate.
I believe that it would be fairer to say that some people may have bad reasons to hold their positions, but I don’t think this prevents bwade and others from caring about children or poverty or public health in other ways. I do know people who are ostensibly “pro-life” who are passionate about those things. I do realize that you may have been specifically referring to bwade alone, but I wanted to reiterate that for many people, they are worried about abortion in addition to what they perceive as other social justice issues.
Well, where I live (in Texas), the fundies in the Republican party speak out against abortion, then actively criticize welfare, gun control laws, and fair/progressive taxes that don’t bleed the middle class and working poor dry… all while supporting the death penalty. If Wade is from the South, there’s a good chance he believes this too.
midwest, I am for welfare with stiffer regulations and job education, for fair tax, and a gun in every household. Death penalty is proven to reduce serious crime so I can see where this has a positive effect on society.
dwade, have you learned anything?
No one will believe your statements of facts (“Death Penalty is proven to reduce serious crime”) without a link to something more objective than a press release from an organization with a set, stated position on the issue.
sorry just being lazy, my bad
Sloth is one of the 7 deadly sins you know.
thanks for the reminder
You are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty? Wow.
wel that does line up with protecting the innocent. and justice.
BTW Texas Rocks, my wife was born in Abilene.
Well, well, Wade… I just knew we’d find something to agree on at some point! Texas does rock! I live in Austin (but also lived for years in Houston and Dallas).
yo yo, shoutin out to all the people in TX!!!
Austin is the most amazing place, been there and had a blast, my wife worked for KCEN in Temple!!
LRA,
as I stated earlier I am a foster parent of 10 years, so I play an active role in my community. I do care very much.
Yes, but if abortion suddenly becomes unavailable to women, there will be millions of births here in the US alone. What are you going to do about millions of births??? Our society is shamefully negligent of the children already here– what about millions more?
I dont think we need abortion in this country, I think we need more education. We (as a society) view everything as disposable, everything is for our entertainment and convenience. I am not saying that you personally have this attitude, but the population in general is all about “me”.
I am saddened by all the selfishness and self seeking attitudes that I see continually in our youth. There has to be a point in our society were we get back to reality and start appreciating life, and health and family.
I guess you can say we are the Mcsociety.
Fine, those are your values. Those aren’t eveyone’s value. My values are education, hard work, and meaningful existence. I don’t know if I want a family. That doesn’t make me a bad person, and I shouldn’t be forced to have one.
If you want to see a decrease in abortions, then you’d better start advocating proper sex education!!! Sex has been around a long time and it isn’t going away!!!
Not putting teen mothers who promote an ineffective form of sex ed on the cover of people magazine might help decrease abortions too
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20280071,00.html
LRA,
I respect that. It’s what makes this nation great, free will and a choice to live. Education would cover sex eduction as well. Family to me means anyone that I care for, not just the naturally born kids, (ie. kids friends, my friends, cirlce of influence, etc) just to let you know where I am coming from.
YES! Free will and CHOICE! That is why I’m pro-CHOICE! I want to say how I want to live, and being forced to be pregnant for 9 months isn’t my CHOICE nor how I want to live!!!
Also, remaining abstinent my whole life isn’t how I want to live either!!!
I thought you were married, abstinence isnt required
You said you’re not allowed to do it for fun, but that’s actually what the church seems to expect you to do.
Exactly– anti-choice people say that the “risk” of sex is to have children. If I don’t want children, then according to you, my only recourse is abstinence (which is bs– because married or not, I have sex in order to fill other needs!)
No I am claiming to have fun in the context of marriage. The way it was designed. If sex occurs outside of this experience, it’s for selfish reasons. Sex between a husband and a wife is a supernatural experience, one that cannot be counterfeited. Outside of marriage, sex is just plain old sex. In my humble opinion.
So dwade’s wife was better in bed than all the women he was “with” before going fundy.
Ah, so this is one facet of why it’s crucial that humans are not animals.
What about people who don’t share your humble, untestable, unfalsifiable opinion? You want to impose your opinion on them.
Well having had married sex in addition to unmarried sex, I can attest that it’s pretty much the same… pretty great!!!
Yet, I don’t want children (at least not for a while, if ever), so according to you, I have to remain abstinent, since otherwise you advocate forcing me to have a kid.
JoeB,
that was not necessary
LRA,
I am not telling you what to do. It’s not my place to judge. I choose to live a less-complicated life, one woman, for eternity.
Rodney,
I am not accountable for what you do with your life. My opinions are based on experience and life, and the Word of the one who created life.
JoeB,
and my wife is better at everything, compared to all the women I have dated.
dwade, I’ll speak respectfully to people who haven’t lost my respect due do a disregard for truth and honest discussion.
besides it was a compliment. Don’t be so sex negative, I thought sex within a marriage was amazing and godly, shouldn’t you be all about it?
It’s my understanding the church expects you to have sex for fun and for closeness, and just accept all the babies that surprise you from time to time. So Team LRA (and lots of other couples) would be in a pickle if the church really mattered.
Yes you are. You want to make abortion legal. You want to legally enforce an untestable opinion.
“Murder is wrong” is an opinion, but it is widely (perhaps universally) shared. “Abortion is murder” is not so universal; you’d have to come up with a pretty strong case to convince people who strongly disagree! So far your cases have been pretty weak. What’s your strongest argument that abortion is murder?
*illegal
yes you are Wade!!! You’re trying to tell me what to do with my body! You’ve stated yourself that you’re one of these people that sits outside of clinics and tries to “counsel” women (which, btw you have no license for!!!) If it was up to you, you’d have the law on your side, and you’d FORCE me to bend to YOUR will with MY body! You would VIOLATE my body if you had the chance by FORCING me to carry an embryo that I don’t want and am not prepared to raise. Further, you’d CONDEMN me to a life without sex rather than allow me to rely on current medical practice simply because you have a preconceived opinion about MY sex life!
You would FORCE me to do your will if you could.
You can say abortion is wrong all you want. Don’t have one. Discourage your friends. Hell, discourage everyone. Start a blog. But the moment you start trying to pass a law, you’re crossing the line to “controlling people” territory.
LRA,
not true. Counseling is only about sharing information. No force involved here.
LRA,
not my will, but His will.
dwade, the word LAW came in, between your “counseling” and her FORCE and CONTROLLING language.
Who is “His” refering to? It better not be the “He” who you’ve admitted you and all other people don’t know everything about. If you don’t know everything about “Him” then you don’t know the full detail of “His” opinion on abortion and you don’t know if what you believe “He” has told you is true.
Whose will, Wade? You don’t know anyone’s will but your own. And further, abortion is, as others have already pointed out, a hot button issue in American politics– you would TOTALLY overturn Roe v. Wade if you could (in fact, this is one of the PRIMARY issues that you fundies vote on in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION).
So, yes, you would FORCE me if you could. Don’t deny it.
and LRA,
I was at the clinics to councel the men, not the women. I think women that have suffered from abortion should counsel othe women. This is not practiced inside the clinics, thats why we provide this information, tus the “informed choice”
Who says having an abortion=suffering? I had an abortion and I’m fine! Yes, I was sad for a little while, but I was sad for a little while when I graduated from college and left that town for a new job, and when my grandad passed away, and when my parents got a divorce, and when my best friend got married and didn’t have as much time to spend with me, etc.
You see thats where it gets complicated. It used to be an outlawed practice. Someone was convinced that women were being damaged by “back alley” abortions. In reality, botched abortions are still occurring in the US, even death from abortion, so how does legalizing abortion protect women?
I am all for protection of women and not allowing some quack mutualating her genetaila.(SP)
It really comes down to someone making lots of money and women are the target. I don’t buy the Planned parenthood crap about providing women services. These are mean, hateful, self consumed people.
I am referring to the hundreds of women that I know have suffered, you are a rare case indeed. POS is an identifiable affliction.
Are you kidding? Of course medical procedures involve risk. ALL medical procedures involve risk. Getting your teeth cleaned involves risk… are you really advocating that we not help women who (like me) don’t want to be forced to carry a child by leaving them in the hands of Dr. Coat-hanger or Dr. Bleach-in-the-Womb when they could have had a procedure like mine.. a series of two shots that resulted in a heavy period???? REALLY????
And you didn’t address whether or not you’d overturn law to deny me control of my body..
Rodney,
lets just say this. I didnt believe abortion ws murder, until I saw the dead carcus of a 24 week old baby lying in a dumpster, outside of Haskells clinic. Then I was convinced.
Sorry if this shocks you, it shocked me too.
“I am referring to the hundreds of women that I know have suffered, you are a rare case indeed. POS is an identifiable affliction.”
You really need to offer a scientific citation here… otherwise you’re just pulling “facts” out of your a$$. And do, pray tell, let us know what POS is exactly…
POS stands for Post Abortion Syndrome, many women experience this after abortion, some never recover.
After seeing the harm that this causes women, families and the unborn, yes I would vote for this law to be changed.
And do you know the inside medical story of this supposed 24 week old? I mean, how do you know it wasn’t acephalic or had some other horrible genetic disease? Hmmmm? My guess is that you don’t.
sorry PAS, its getting late
Of course I don’t, but a genetic disease is not cause for terminating. Just like aborting your child because they aren’t the right sex…
JoeB,
either you are not thoroughly reading my posts or you are trying to distort my words and intentions, not sure here.
LRA,
I am also not naive, I dont believe ROE can simply be overturned and I dont believe the GOV should be involved in financially supporting this. It will take years of education and support to make abortion go away, if it ever does.
It’s not as simple as right wing fundies make it sound, we have a culture that uses abortion like a trip through the drive-thru, over turning ROE would be a catastrophy, in my opinion. It will take people helping people to turn this thing around.
dwade, for the second time, your lack of explanation beyond a variation of “you’re wrong”, both makes it impossible to tell what you are referring to and shows the depth of your contribution to the discussion.
Here is the ONLY article on PAS that I could find that dated within the last 15 years:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15999304?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
It was conducted in Spain (a catholic country). Essentially, women who experience this supposed “condition” (which is more often categorized as PTSD) do so because of tremendous GUILT.
Ummmmmmm, who do you think puts that guilt there? Who do you think goes around haranguing women and calling them murderers? Who do you think presents (inaccurate) posters of dead, blood covered babies all over the place, and resorts to unethical tactics to get their “birth at any cost” message out there? Who do you think makes up statistics about how women are sooooo traumatized by this and if they are not are insensitive cruel bitches? WHO DO YOU THINK CAUSES THIS GUILT WADE???
Fortunately for me, I see through your tactics, and I will NOT allow you to create guilt in me where none is needed. I will not allow you to use incorrect language (like “child” for embryo) and I will not allow you to disparage me for my choices. NO- my response is not unusual, in fact I’m sure that other women in my circumstance are also just fine. I think it is people like you who traumatizes these weak/insecure/religious-minded women into having a mental breakdown. I mean, how many times has a preacher in a church gone on an on about the evils of abortion while a girl that has done that sits there and takes that crap in.
No… I suggest that it is you fundies who create the guilt, and then try to offer your Jesus pill to solve it.
And what exactly was poor innocent pro-choice dwade of the past doing looking inside a abortion clinic dumpster and how did he know how many weeks through development an aborted fetus was?
Wade, what do you know about genetic diseases? HMM? Nothing, right? You don’t know about acephaly (born without brain) or other painful conditions (like ichthyosis [snake baby disease]– go ahead and look it up, I dare you!) in which the child will die within days of birth. Abortion is the merciful procedure in these circumstances. PERIOD. And you not being a medical doctor have no right to say so other wise. And your comment on Roe v Wade proved that you would VIOLATE MY BODY and MY LIFE with your OPINIONS if you had the chance.
“we have a culture that uses abortion like a trip through the drive-thru”
Can you cite any reference for this claim? I had an abortion, and I don’t do this…
JOEB,
maybe its getting late for me, but I have simply shared my experiences over the last hour. I am not citing evidence other than what I have witnessed in person. Seems kind of preposterous to have to validate my claims. I have already stated that most of what I am sharing is not being published. Hard to believe I know. But you will be hard pressed to se any of this in the news or recorded in public records. Some even go as far as to lie about the cause of death for protection. Not sure what else I can offer at this point.
Just call me a liar and move on.
I think that sums you up better than anyone else ever could.
LRA,
you have obviously bottled up this anger and are unloading on me. I am not the person that you are describing. You may have met people like you are describing. I know people like you are describing. I am not that person that you are painting.
I again, am sorry if I have offended you. You are obviously passionate about what you believe. I assure you though that I understand the immensity of this topic. It’s not clear cut, not for me anyways.
It will probably go down in history of the greatest civil war that ever was.
JOeB,
dumpster was open, child was there.
You can tell a childs age by the size of the child, at least reasonably close within 1-2 weeks.
LRA,
Repeat abortions were 20% in 1973 but rose to 44% in 1987. In the U.S., by 1995, 45% of all abortions were repeats. S. Henshaw et al., Ab. Characteristics, 1994-95, Fam. Plan. Persp., Vol. 28, No. 4, July ’96, p. 143
Numbers have been dropping from some of the last 2 years stats though.
Int J Androl. 2006 Feb;29(1):34-45. Links
Fertility and abortion rates in the United States, 1960-2002.
Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ.
Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, USA. bhamilton@cdc.gov
This paper provides a general overview of trends in the United States (US) birth, fertility and abortion data from 1960 to 2002. Rates by age, race and Hispanic origin are also discussed. Data presented in this paper are derived primarily from published reports of the US government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. In 2002, there were 4,021,726 births in the US. The general fertility rate was 64.8 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, the total fertility rate was 2013.0 children per 1,000 women, and the net reproduction rate was 968 daughters per 1000 women. These rates have declined in the US since 1960, down by at least 44% for all rates. While these rates have been declining, there are substantial differences in fertility patterns by age and race and Hispanic origin. Rates for women, 30 years of age and over, increased between 1980 and 2002. In contrast, rates for women under 25 years of age rose considerably during the late 1980s, and then decreased sharply since 1991. Rates for women in their late twenties (25-29 years of age), the principal childbearing ages, have fluctuated within a narrow range throughout this period (1980-2002). As a result of the increase in births to older women, the mean age of mother at first birth increased by nearly 4 years from 1968 to 2002. In 2000, the latest year for which data are available, there were 21.3 induced abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44 years, down from 27.4 in 1990. The total abortion rate, average number of legally induced abortions that would occur to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 women, was 672.0 abortions per 1,000 women in 2000, down from 785.5 in 1980. The abortion rate has declined fairly steadily since 1980. Like the birth and fertility rates, substantial differences in abortion rates exist by age and race and Hispanic origin. The rates of induced abortion increased for women in their thirties between 1980 and 2000, whereas rates for women under 25 years of age and women 40 years of age and over decreased since 1980. The rate for women 25-29 years of age changed little. The rate of induced abortion was considerably higher for non-Hispanic black women (57.4) in 2000 than for non-Hispanic white women (11.7). The rate for Hispanic women (30.6) was intermediate. The total abortion rate was also much higher for non-Hispanic black women than non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women.
Here is the abstract of the article you cited, Wade:
Fam Plann Perspect. 1996 Jul-Aug;28(4):140-7, 158. Links
Abortion patients in 1994-1995: characteristics and contraceptive use.
Henshaw SK, Kost K.
Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, USA.
Results of a 1994-1995 national survey of 9,985 abortion patients reveal that women who live with a partner outside marriage or have no religious identification are 3.5-4.0 times as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion. Nonwhites, women aged 18-24, Hispanics, separated and never-married women, and those who have an annual income of less than +15,000 or who are enrolled in Medicaid are 1.6-2.2 times as likely to do so; residents of metropolitan counties have a slightly elevated likelihood of abortion. When age is controlled, women who have had a live birth are more likely to have an abortion than are those who have never had children. Catholics are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, while Protestants are only 69% as likely and Evangelical or born-again Christians are only 39% as likely. Since 1987, the proportion of abortions obtained by Hispanic women and the abortion rate among Hispanics relative to that for other ethnic groups have increased. The proportion of abortion patients who had been using a contraceptive during the month they became pregnant rose from 51% in 1987 to 58%. Nonuse is most common among women with low education and income, blacks, Hispanics, unemployed women and those who want more children. The proportion of abortion patients whose pregnancy is attributable to condom failure has increased from 15% to 32%, while the proportions reporting the failure of other barrier methods and spermicides have decreased.
PIP: This article reports data collected in a 1994-95 Alan Guttmacher Institute survey of 9985 abortion patients on a broad range of characteristics, including socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, residence, childbearing intention, and contraceptive use prior to pregnancy. The survey found that women who live with a partner outside marriage or have no religious identification are 3.5-4.0 times as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion. Non-Whites, women aged 18-24 years, Hispanics, separated and never-married women, and those who have an annual income of less than $15,000 or who are enrolled in Medicaid are 1.6-2.2 times as likely to have an abortion; residents of metropolitan countries have a slightly elevated likelihood of abortion. When age is controlled, women who have had a live birth are more likely to have an abortion than are those who have never had children. Catholics are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, while Protestants are only 69% as likely and Evangelical or born-again Christians are only 39% as likely. The survey further found that since 1987, the proportion of abortions obtained by Hispanic women and the abortion rate among Hispanics relative to that for other ethnic groups have increased. The proportion of abortion patients who had been using a contraceptive during the month they became pregnant increased from 51% in 1987 to 58%. Nonuse of contraception is most common among women with low education and income, Blacks, Hispanics, unemployed women, and those who want more children. The proportion of abortion patients whose pregnancy is attributable to condom failure increased from 15% to 32%, while the proportions reporting the failure of other barrier methods and spermicides have decreased.
this was a good step:
In the U.S., states are beginning to pass “Women’s Right to Know” laws. These require the abortionist to see the patient and mandate a waiting or “cooling off” period. Most require that an information booklet be given her. Probably the best such book is from the Ohio Department of Health and was approved by the Ohio Medical & Hospital Associations.
LRA,
good data, I see that even the christians are having abortions., hmmm.
You realize that the biggest % of people having abortions are non-christian. If you think about it, the christians will eventually outnumber the non-christian population in the US. The liberals are not planning well…Somebody better rethink their plan to take over the world…
tongue in cheek here.
From that article that you cited:
“For 55% of respondents, this abortion
was their first; 7% had had three or more
abortions (not shown). In 1987, 57% had
not had an abortion before, and 5% had
had at least three. The principal reason for
the continuing long-term increase in the
proportion of abortion patients who have
had prior abortions is that with each year
since the procedure was legalized, a larger
proportion of women in the population
have had a first abortion.7 The proportion
of abortion patients who have had a previous
abortion reaches 60% among
women 30 and older, who have had more
years of exposure to the risk of a first abortion
than have younger women.”
That is the ONLY mention of repeat abortions on that page (I have the pdf of the article right here). 5-7% is hardly McAbortion culture…
Wade, so what? That is simply a reflection of their beliefs. If they do not believe in abortion, then they are having them in less numbers. That only demonstrates beliefs, not rightness or wrongness. But do note that fundies ARE having abortions! So apparently beliefs aren’t so lock stock and barrel.
“In the U.S., states are beginning to pass “Women’s Right to Know” laws. These require the abortionist to see the patient and mandate a waiting or “cooling off” period. Most require that an information booklet be given her.”
This is largely a way for pro-lifers to picket inside of clinics. You are assuming women don’t make this decision with a lot of care.
Also, Wade, you messed up the statistics when you claimed from that paper that:
“Repeat abortions were 20% in 1973 but rose to 44% in 1987. In the U.S., by 1995, 45% of all abortions were repeats. S. Henshaw et al., Ab. Characteristics, 1994-95, Fam. Plan. Persp., Vol. 28, No. 4, July ’96, p. 143″
Those “facts” are not found there. The ones I copied and pasted are.
I also posted the first abstract by Hamilton and Ventura in response to this claim:
“Numbers have been dropping from some of the last 2 years stats though.”
Re posting here something that another person said but can sum up my thoughts on the morality of abortion.
1. Life began shortly after the earth cooled. It is continuous. Ova are alive. That doesn’t make them people.
2. Aborting an embryo will be equivalent to killing a person when failing to build a house is equivalent to demolishing it. You don’t live in a blueprint, do you? Turning a blueprint into a house takes time, materials and work. So, too, turning a fertilized ovum into a full-term fetus, ready to be born.
3. Abortion is “icky.” Abortion is regrettable. You think that it’s unethical. Other people do not. So let’s say that it’s debatable.
4. If it’s debatable, or could be regretted, then the person most affected by the decision should be the one making it. Students should finish their education, but we don’t chain them to their desks. And we don’t say, “You failed physics so you’re condemned to being a janitor for the next ten years.”
5. Unfortunately, a lot of the anti-choice rhetoric seems based in a desire to punish women. “She had sex so let her bear the consequences.” The intended consequences were fun, not child-rearing. That’s like saying that people fly airplanes in order to crash. Or banning skiers from medical care after a tumble because “they knew they were taking a risk.” It’s both small-minded and short-sighted. The person who is really punished by forcing an unwilling mother to give birth is the child.
6. It is not a solution to say, “Women should have the baby and give it up for adoption.” Once again, you’re telling her what to do. And childbirth forms a connection mediated by hormones, that condemns a woman to search the crowd for the rest of her life, wondering if she is seeing her child.
6b.Also, Having a baby is physically demanding and somewhat risky. The people who make much of the risks of abortion fail to mention that childbirth is 13 times more likely to kill you. Thus, four women who die of abortions represent fifty women who had abortions instead of dying in childbirth. Need I point out that, except for conscripting soldiers, we don’t force people to take risks against their will? That’s a strong ethical argument against denying women abortions because you think it’s unethical.
7. As Gloria Steinem pointed out, the basis of the “abortion debate” is denying women the status of ethical beings and legal adults who can make up their own minds about important personal decisions.
8. And, no, I’m not speaking up for “the child.” The man on the street has no right to use my body against my will. Neither does an embryo. Even if it were in there reading the New York Times and thinking about which bank to knock off first when it developed hands and feet. (The second qualifier reminds us that its much-touted “innocence” is the innocence of incapacity, not ethical choice.)
9. The “special connection” between mother and zygote is physical dependency. You take that to mean that there should be an emotional connection as well. That’s an assumption on your part which assumes your conclusion: that she should want to keep it. Like the assumption that women are “more moral” than men, it imposes a different standard on women than on the rest of us and expects them to act in a less self-interested way. Then they get less praise for being unselfish and more condemnation for acting in their own interests.
10. Finally, Since one can kill a deer or a lamb or a bat, all of which have more brain function and feeling than an embryo, the “it could turn into a person if you supply enough blood circulation, food, care, and pain” argument is, in my opinion, proxy for “But it has a soul! It’s people to God! You’re denying Him another worshiper!” Like “Allow academic freedom and let students question evolution,” it’s an argument that is, at bottom, religiously based. It assumes the presence of a deity and an immaterial, unprovable soul. Consequently, enshrining laws against abortion based on these assumptions is breaching the separation of Church and State that is mandated in the U.S. constitution. If you are in the U.S., that should mean something to you.
10b. Opposition to abortion on the grounds that “This is a person” is also an artificial inflation of the value of an embryo. For a reality check, consider that families don’t mean an early miscarriage or late period (spontaneous abortion) as they would the death of a child or a baby or even a stillbirth or late miscarriage.
That was very good! I am starting to think why no one harasses men over abortions. This occurs to me because I see it missing on both sides of the issue.
The woman is the one who has the abortion, goes to the clinic, undergoes procedure, i.e. “makes the choice.” She’s the one with the dire consequences.
If you ask the man in those unintended pregnancies, not counting the ones who might not have been informed (a different issue), it would come out that abortion was the man’s choice a lot of the time, or don’t care, or doesn’t think it’s his decision to make. When I say man’s choice, I can either mean that he was in agreement with the woman on her decision, or that he’s scared and doesn’t want to be on the financial hook the rest of the baby’s life, and presses her to choose abortion (whether or not she ultimately agrees or strongly opposes and doesn’t change her mind). The “don’t care” or “doesn’t think it’s his decision” guys are not taking a firm pro-life position on this, and allowing the abortion to proceed (if that’s what the woman decided).
I have NEVER heard about their emotional turmoil or their grief, or anyone accuse them of being murderers. Nobody is warning all the men to keep their babies, under threat of addiction problems, suicidal thoughts, a lifetime of regret that they will probably never get over. Nobody I’ve ever heard of is telling men that they’re doing the wrong thing. In a lot of cases, they are driving the woman to the clinic and waiting with her, and waiting for her, and in my case, took me out for chocolate milkshakes after.
Y’know, that reminds me: those who say “this is a life” are awful absent when it comes to picketing or protesting fertility clinics and the embryos they discard every day…
I know someone who used to work in public relations and had to deal with some of the protests over IVF treatments back in the ’80s. So I’d never say never.
Never said never :p but I don’t see all the hysteria that abortion clinics receive. At least not around my neck of woods. That, to me, creates a double standard – and reinforces the notion that anti-abortionists are more interested in punishing people who have sex than in saving lives.
Well, that’s what this is all about. If women *dare* to enjoy their bodies, then they *should* be punished, meanwhile, King David gets to have 300 concubines…
Indeed.
In fact, pro-lifers – or should we say, pro-birthers – should argue against fertility clinics as much as they could – since they’re so keen on all women who can giving birth whenever they get pregnant. You’d think they’d campaign for more adoptions.
Dont forget, King Dave later repented and turned his life around.
Dont forget, King Dave later repented and turned his life around.
So It’s OK to have an abortion if you feel really bad about it and repent later?
depends on if you believe that God is a forgiving God. You don’t continue in sin after the fact. true repentance is turning away from the old and putting on the new man.
It’s OK to do anything if you feel really bad about it and repent later.
Rodney, you are not paying attention. God knows your heart, your motives, don’t you think He would know if you were just going through the motions of
“sorry God”?
True Repentance is turning away from your old ways, and living the new life.
Did I say something that sounded like “pretend you feel really bad”?
“depends on if you believe that God is a forgiving God.”
So whatever you conceive god to be, he is? That’s convenient.
I’ve said my peace. I’ve learned from you all.
And more importantly, I have a job, and I’ve given far too much time to this discussion.
I’ll only say this in closing: I sincerely hope that Obama’s desire to see abortions minimized comes to fruition for a whole lot of reasons. But in my opinion, the most important one for folks who view the world as I do and for folks who view the world as many of you here do, it’s an attempt at compromise. I view Obama’s remarks as a way to bridge the gap that clearly exists between our two perspectives, and although they are far from perfect, his remarks do make an attempt at legitimizing the concerns on both sides of the debate.
That, I think, is an attempt worth replicating.
Here’s what I think of Dwades “No baby is unwanted” bullsh*t:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8059826.stm
“The five-volume study concluded that church officials encouraged ritual beatings and consistently shielded their orders’ paedophiles from arrest amid a “culture of self-serving secrecy”.
It also found that government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.
Police were called to the commission’s news conference amid angry scenes as victims were prevented from attending.”
custador,
I am not sure how this relates to unwanted children but thanks for the post. I was referring to children tht might otherwise be aborted and stating that many families like my family wouod be willing to adopt. A good friend of ours adopted a child that was about to aborted and I know plenty of people that would do the same….
So what you meant was “one or more children are not unwanted”. True.
the amount of people waiting to adopt is staggering, yet we are throwing children away in trash cans, doesnt quite work for me.
If there were more people waiting to adopt than there were children in need of adoption there wouldn’t be any need for foster parents. Since you are a foster parent, there is a need for you to be one, so there are more children in need of adoption than parents willing to adopt.
Joe B,
foster parents have the option to adopt. Dont ask me for citations, I am a licensed foster parent.
Then you ought to have a whole folder of research materials handy.
also, the adoption process is international, more couples are going outside the US to adopt simply because the “slow” US has too many regulations and fees involved in adoption. The rules need to change to allow for easier adoptions here in the US.
So then we should make adoption easier before banning/restriction abortion then?
So that all the children can be appropriately cared for.
That would be a good start. Why complicate the process to detour people from adopting?
So then we should expect you to drop this whole nonsense about forcing women to give birth until we get the whole adoption thing fixed first?
Or am I expecting too much intelligence from you?
so that would be an accurate statement as we are not aware of all the children who need care.
Do not say “all” when you mean “some”.
sorry some.
But that’s the point. Many people would be willing to adopt. That’s laudable.
But that’s not nearly enough – there’s a lot more children who are already born, some even a few years old, when not teenagers, that nobody wants to adopt – because people are stupid, or prejudiced, or whatever – and then we’re more children to this crop.
Won’t let me reply up there…
@Olon Hyde
Because by then, we have potential for a viable, individual human (unless it’s so grossly deformed it’d be even more unethical to let it survive). Perhaps it’s an arbitrary point to define what’s a person and what isn’t – but at least, we could argue that with neural activity there is potential for consciousness. Before that…
I did it for a reason. I wasn’t implying you believed that; I know it’s an absurd claim. My point is, if we decide a blastocyst is a human being simply because it has the potential to become a human, when it’s little more than they, then every cell in our bodies has that potential. Not on their own, but they do.
But, fine, you say an embryo is not part of the mother. Possibly because it has a distinct DNA – since that’s basically all that differentiates it from any of the mother’s cells, this early. So I ask: a transplanted organ isn’t part of the person who has it. It has distinct DNA and it’s certainly alive. Is it a person?
Not in my country. You’d be charged with assault and battery, but not manslaughter. The trivialities of legislation.
But if we’re saying embryos are people – then that would make perfect sense. It would also make sense to prosecute a woman who engaged in a risky activity (such as, say, taking prescription medicines, riding rollercoasters, vaccinating – I wouldn’t know) that caused miscarriage. That would be manslaughter, wouldn’t it? She’d be deliberately doing things that, while not directly harmful, could cause – and in our hypothetical case, did – an abortion.
Of course not. They are people.
Of course not. They are people. They’re humans. They’ve rights, like any other animal has rights.
My position is: embryos are not children. Embryos are not people. They might become people, but they are not people. I’d rather risk embryos than children.
I’m curious: what do you think of fertility clinics and the people who make use of them?
Do we not have the potential for viable human life when the embryo has attached to the wall of the uterus? I think it is of vital importance to define what’s a person and what isn’t. When Hitler wanted to wipe out the Jews, he removed them from being considered as persons. When Americans wanted blacks to remain slaves, they defined them as not being considered persons. Time and time again throughout history, the way to oppress a group of people is to deny them personhood. So, define what is and is not a person is important. But I do understand your point…you do not think that an embryo classifies as a person. So I am curious, what would be your definition of a person?
Your point is correct, but you made a category error. There is a tremendous amount of difference between an embryo and an organ. An embryo, if allowed to develop naturally, will grow and become a person. An organ does not grow and develop into another person (although it is part of another person).
I would completely agree, that if the mother purposefully caused herself to have a miscarriage that it could be considered manslaughter, just as if the man had punched her and caused a miscarriage. But it is interesting that you point out your country does not legislate this the same way.
At what point then, do you consider the developing embryo/fetus to be a person?
I hesitate to answer this question since it is straying from the topic and opens up a whole other area of debate, but I will go along. I don’t think there is anything wrong with fertility clinics or the people who use them. I know that there are people who want to have children that simply cannot through natural means. (Now why I hesitated to answer) Would I also like these same couples to consider adoption? Absolutely! There are a lot of children waiting to be adopted into a home with parents who would love and care for them as their own. But at least in the United States, it is easier to use a fertility clinic than to adopt a child. I answered your question but I really don’t want to delve into this topic, I would like to stay focused on abortion.
I think that’s the point. You (or pro-life supporters in general) selectively focus on abortion and ignore other similar issues. “It’s not the same thing” or “Don’t ask me to apply the same logic.” We require clarification and consistency.
@Kodie
It’s not that I only focus on abortion. Anyone who visits my blog will realize that abortion isn’t my “thing.” I just don’t want to change topics; we began speaking about abortion and I don’t want to stray off-topic–that’s all. If someone wants to discuss fertility clinics I am okay with that, but I would want to discuss just that and not get off-topic. This has nothing to do with ignoring “similar” issues. If that were the case, I simply would have ignored her question. I just don’t want to finish our discussion on abortion before moving on to another topic, is that too much to ask?
I visited your blog and only have one thing to say. White text on a black background is hard to read. What you say, that I could look at for about 30 seconds before I felt blind and got a headache is generally disagreeable to me, but I can’t give you a fair chance on the fertility clinics from your website if it hurts to look at. This is my personal policy, the issues you support are irrelevant to my policy. I don’t look at any blogs or websites that hurt my eyes to look at.
And BTW, I never said I was pro-choice or pro-abortion, you simply labeled me as such.
I didn’t say you were pro-choice or pro-abortion (there’s no real such thing as pro-abortion except on an individual’s right to choose one if it’s right for them). Unless you wrote “was” when you meant to write “wasn’t,” which I’ve seen happen and obviously changes the sentence. I did say to focus on abortion and especially if someone wants to focus on abortion as “Thing” (they’re opposed to) and fertility clinics as “Another Thing Entirely (that’s perfectly acceptable),” you were saying inconsistent things. It’s not that we don’t want to talk about abortion, it’s that we expect consistency in your argument.
I am always looking to improve my blog, what would you suggest other than white letters on a black background?
And, yes you did call me pro-choice, “You (or pro-life supporters in general) “
Unless you wrote “was” when you meant to write “wasn’t,” which I’ve seen happen and obviously changes the sentence.
Sorry for the grammatical error, I was only pointing out that I never stated my position on abortion (past or present). You imposed that upon me and/or read into my comments what was not there.
“It’s not that we don’t want to talk about abortion, it’s that we expect consistency in your argument.”
Please explain where I was inconsistent in what I said?
I did say to focus on abortion and especially if someone wants to focus on abortion as “Thing” (they’re opposed to) and fertility clinics as “Another Thing Entirely (that’s perfectly acceptable),”
I never said that fertility clinics were another thing entirely. Unless I misunderstood what you meant in this sentence when you put it in quotation marks, but I assumed you were doing so to point out you were quoting me. If I am incorrect about this assumption, I apologize; I just want to be sure I understand your point clearly.
I don’t really have any other hard requirements for a blog other than it be easy on the eyes, and easy to navigate past the first page (search function and/or menu selection of past posts). I can’t make you more interesting (or say whether or not you’re interesting at this point).
And, yes you did call me pro-choice, “You (or pro-life supporters in general) “
Pro-choice and pro-life are not the same thing. They are opposite, in fact. If you don’t get something that basic, I can only infer from your previous statements that you are pro-life, and it would help if you were clear on what the definitions of both are. It’s not like the media is hiding this information.
Your statements regarding fertility clinics seemed to stop at the choice to use fertility clinics vs. the choice to adopt, just another way for a person or a couple to have a baby. You are either ignoring the fact or ignorant of the fact (could happen, see above) that fertility clinics create embryos in a petri dish. Not only do they do this, they freeze them for later, may dispose of them if the parent(s) wish, may use them for stem cells and stem cell research if the parent(s) allow, and as a general matter of course, implant more embryos than they reasonably expect to become babies.
If you think an embryo is a person, and you’ve conveniently avoided learning what goes on at fertility clinics, then you’re being inconsistent and quite apparently ignorant. You are choosing to focus on some embryos and not others or are ignorant of the fact of these discarded or extraneously implanted embryos. It’s been 568 posts and up, and nobody’s changed their mind yet, so I think we’re ready to branch out and refer to relevant topics and consistency therein.
I was asking you to make a suggestion on how to make my blog more interesting; I wanted to know what you thought was easier to read than white letters on a black background.
I apologize, I mistyped in my previous comment. Instead of reading “And, yes you did call me pro-choice…” it should have read “And, yes you did call me pro-life…” That is completely my mistake and made it a little confusing. I also don’t see the reason to define the terms pro-choice or pro-life because I am not addressing either position as being correct or incorrect. I was brining out a point about abortion itself, you were the first to bring out those terms.
But you are proving my point about why I hesitated to answer the question. You have left abortion behind completely behind and are focusing solely on fertility clinics. I don’t mind taking about them, as I said before, I just want to finish the discussion about abortion first.
Yes, I am choosing to focus on some embryos in this discussion. Because the discussion is on abortion which necessarily limits it to those embryos in a woman and not in a fertility clinic. The number of comments is regardless to the discussion. A lot of people can agree on the same thing and all be wrong. I am not expecting to change anyone’s mind, I just want to make sure we are all talking factually about this issue. Bringing in incorrect information does nothing to advance the discussion regarding abortion, it only serves to hinder that advance.
I know you said you hate the appearance of my blog, but here is a link to a post that clearly lays out my position on fertility clinics and the embryos contained therein. Before you further criticize me for being ignorant, take a look and if you think I am crazy leave a comment at my blog and I would be happy to continue discussing fertility clinics.
BTW you didn’t answer my question about anything I said being inconsistent.
http://www.google.com/search
“white text black background”
Also: “mistakes blogs make” for other issues you may want to adjust.
As for being inconsistent, you were asked a question. So I read on your blog that you think an embryo is a person, even in a fertility clinic. That wasn’t the answer you gave when you were asked the question.
@Siberia: “I’m curious: what do you think of fertility clinics and the people who make use of them?”
@Olon Hyde: “I hesitate to answer this question since it is straying from the topic and opens up a whole other area of debate, but I will go along. I don’t think there is anything wrong with fertility clinics or the people who use them. I know that there are people who want to have children that simply cannot through natural means.”
You don’t think there’s anything wrong with fertility clinics and the people who use them. Well, you did post in your link that you do have a few problems with it, unless because you only want to talk about abortions, you can conveniently dodge the more complicated answer, that you do have a problem with many things that actually go on in fertility clinics. I’m not going to paint you with the same brush as dwade (he paints himself really), by supposing you share his feelings about “what really goes on” at Planned Parenthood, aside from abortions. You are focusing on abortions only, that are bad, and fertility clinics are good, they help people make babies who otherwise couldn’t, and that you don’t want to talk about embryos, because that’s what you were talking about, you only want to talk about abortion.
I’m not sure what Siberia was getting at, but I think you might have stepped in it.
I have not been inconsistent; I have consistently said that embryos are persons. Siberia is the only one who has stated that embryos are not people.
I never said in my blogpost that I had a problem with fertility clinics. I was addressing the problem of all the embryos that are unused in fertility clinics. There was never a statement that I had a problem with fertility clinics. So please, stop reading into my statements to try and find an inconsistency. Do I have a problem with the embryos that are left unused, you bet. But do I lay the blame solely at the feet of the clinic, no. The parents sometimes want more eggs harvested to create more embryos than is truly necessary. It is a problem that exists that needs to be resolved with true and open debate, just as abortion does.
I never said I didn’t want to talk about embryos. I only said I wanted to finish my discussion with Siberia about abortion instead of changing topics and side stepping my questions. It bothers me when people change topics because they don’t want to talk about something anymore; if you don’t want to talk anymore just tell me, I don’t mind stopping. But continually changing the topic to avoid the issue seems pretty dishonest to me.
“At what point then, do you consider the developing embryo/fetus to be a person?”
When it can exist outside the body without significant medical intervention.
Even this sensible conclusion is a compromise since human life develops incrementally along a spectrum. It’s interesting that before the egg and sperm hook up they are both alive and ‘human’ but not considered so by many until the sperm penetrates the egg. Picking any point along the spectrum and defining that as the precise moment a human being comes into existence is arbitrary. The political compromise embodied in viability is about as good as one could chose, however, what will happen to this threshold when viability becomes possible earlier and earlier? Theoretically, blastocysts can be removed and placed in a donor mother.
very well said Question. “Life” is a fluke of astronomical improbability… It’s almost incomprehensible that we’re even here discussing it. The egg is “alive” and the sperm is “alive”… think about that. “Life” is the opposite of “non life”…. the question comes down to, when is that “life” not important/valuable enough to keep “alive”?
“The political compromise embodied in viability is about as good as one could chose, however, what will happen to this threshold when viability becomes possible earlier and earlier? Theoretically, blastocysts can be removed and placed in a donor mother.”
My statement still stands, “When it can exist outside the body without SIGNIFICANT medical intervention.”
Removing a blastocyst and placing it in a donor mother is not a trivial medical procedure, nor is it one that meets the requirements of the first part of my statement as all you are doing is unwrapping and re-wrapping its life support system.
A different perspective on Obama’s speech, one that resonates with me well:
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/05/21/discovering-common-ground/
Some excerpts from Obama’s speech I find to be inspiring and that I agree with:
“The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side? … When we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground. … Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”
…….
” Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It’s the belief in things not seen. It’s beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what [God] asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that [God's] wisdom is greater than our own.
And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.”
Amen, Pres.
I blogged about this very passage this week. Needless to say we disagree about how inspiring it was,.
It’s ridiculous to think that faith in the face of doubt and without evidence is a good thing. It scares me that the man in charge of the most powerful nation on earth apparently thinks that way.
http://billpost.blogspot.com/2009/05/obama-doubt-causes-faith.html
It scares you that someone who thinks differently than the world than you do is the President?
*about* the world…
No, it scares him that someone who thinks that faith in the face of doubt and without evidence is a good thing is President. But a lot of people think that, so you get to say it’s just “different”, when the charge is that it’s wrong.
So it’s not just “different” for me to have faith; now it’s wrong. Yikes.
Victim, you are still playing it poorly.
Looks at date, LOL!
Sniping, I’m doing it wrong.
If he didn’t at least claim to think that way, he would have been unelectable in the USA, and you know this.
@ Olon Hyde & Kodie:
Sorry for the late, there’s been a few issues at work and I’d no time to reply.
Kodie, you’re exactly right. I did ask him about the fertility clinics not because I have something against them or the people that use them, but because they, too, routinely discard unused embryos and yet, nobody rails – forgive the expression, I’m not saying you’re railing against anything – against the fertility clinics that do the exact same thing.
To me that is a double standard. Is an embryo less of a human because it’s created on a petri dish? Is it moral to create people in petri dishes and discard them when they are not needed? Why is that any more moral or immoral than the situation of a woman wanting to abort, other than the location of said embryo? Is an embryo less of a person if it’s generated outside the woman? Why?
I’m glad you’ve a standard. At least you’re consistent.
Just for the record: other than a vague distaste about the whole idea – because I’m against creating more humans when there are so many humans in need already – I’ve nothing objectively against it. I surely won’t seek to jail the doctors or condemn the people who make use of it, nor legislate against it.
But if we’re assuming that embryos are persons, which I’ve already said I do not, then they should be held to the same level of accountability as the women and doctors who perform abortions, should they not?
Olon, I’ll give you a more in-depth reply later – work calls.
If men were the one’s that got pregnant and had to go through labor, this thread would not exist because I am certain abortion would not only be legal eveywhere but the Catholic Church would condone it. All Roman Catholic Laws are anti-women. The Church’s #1 fear is women gaining power and control.