an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[BasketCase]

There is nothing civil about government intervention in a woman's decision-making.

Of course there is. Drunk driving, for example. Drunk driving is illegal, whether or not you actually cause an accident. If you make it all the way home without crashing into anything or hurting anybody, you can still be arrested, fined, have your car taken away, etc., and nobody I know of would question this.

There are lots of ways in which we really aren't supposed to have full control over our own bodies.....

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Valka, that´s not a foot, it´s a paw.

It's a parody of the phrase "Talk to the hand" where the individual holds a hand up to the camera.

Of course there is. Drunk driving, for example. Drunk driving is illegal, whether or not you actually cause an accident. If you make it all the way home without crashing into anything or hurting anybody, you can still be arrested, fined, have your car taken away, etc., and nobody I know of would question this.

There are lots of ways in which we really aren't supposed to have full control over our own bodies.....

Drunk driving isn't punished because the government wants control over what women (or men) do with their bodies. It's punished because it's illegal for a drunk person to have control of a motor vehicle.

 

[Agent327]

Drunk driving isn't punished because the government wants control over what women (or men) do with their bodies. It's punished because it's illegal for a drunk person to have control of a motor vehicle.

That´s actually a useful analogy: just as drunk driving isn´t stopped by forbidding it by law, abortion won´t end by making/keeping it illegal to do so. The only effect will be the make the procedure less safe. It´s a medical procedure and should be performed by a medical doctor.

 

[BasketCase]

Drunk driving isn't punished because the government wants control over what women (or men) do with their bodies.

And anti-abortion activists don't want control over what people do with their bodies. They want to prevent unborn babies from getting killed.

It's punished because it's illegal for a drunk person to have control of a motor vehicle.

Exactly. It's illegal for a drunk to control a motor vehicle. My point was, it's still illegal even if the drunk idiot doesn't hurt anybody.

That´s actually a useful analogy: just as drunk driving isn´t stopped by forbidding it by law, abortion won´t end by making/keeping it illegal to do so.

Which has no bearing on whether it should be illegal. You're right; drunk driving isn't stopped by making it illegal. Nevertheless, it should be illegal.

Gay-bashing won't be stopped by banning gay-bashing; does that mean we should simply abolish all gay-rights laws? Kyoto didn't slow down global warming; should we have simply abandoned Kyoto? Anti-war protests didn't stop George Bush Jr. from pummelling Iraq; does that mean they shouldn't have been protesting? Don't answer any of those. Just consider the answers in your mind, and you'll realize this: there's no reason to abandon a law simply because it doesn't work all the time.

No, abortion won't be stopped by banning it. But that has no bearing on whether banning abortion is the right thing to do (something on which I, personally, am undecided)

 

[Agent327]

And anti-abortion activists don't want control over what people do with their bodies. They want to prevent unborn babies from getting killed.

Unfortunately that amounts to the same thing here.

Exactly. It's illegal for a drunk to control a motor vehicle. My point was, it's still illegal even if the drunk idiot doesn't hurt anybody.

It´s beyond a government´s control whether people engage in stupid or unethical behaviour. It is within a government´s control to provide proper medical care.

Which has no bearing on whether it should be illegal. You're right; drunk driving isn't stopped by making it illegal. Nevertheless, it should be illegal.

Gay-bashing won't be stopped by banning gay-bashing; does that mean we should simply abolish all gay-rights laws? Kyoto didn't slow down global warming; should we have simply abandoned Kyoto? Anti-war protests didn't stop George Bush Jr. from pummelling Iraq; does that mean they shouldn't have been protesting? Don't answer any of those. Just consider the answers in your mind, and you'll realize this: there's no reason to abandon a law simply because it doesn't work all the time.

No, abortion won't be stopped by banning it. But that has no bearing on whether banning abortion is the right thing to do (something on which I, personally, am undecided)

Whether abortion is good or bad has no bearing on what a government should provide. Abortions happen. Medical care should be available. Making or keeping abortion illegal is not a solution. Medical care is. If doctors think it is unethical to perform abortions, they can refrain from it; that, however, does not imply that all doctors should refrain from it - on the contrary. Going through an abortion is no joke; it is a traumatical experience, and even when handled with appropriate medical care, it is a physically painful procedure. I would not want to be in such a situation; but there are plenty of girls and women who are. So far I haven´t heard a single word about the ramifications of such an event for a woman - even apart from the ethical dilemmas involved.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I always thought it hinges on the female in question - it being her decision to make.

If the anti-abortionists can make a legitimate case for a fetus being person , then the rights of the woman carrying the fetus are reasonably called into question.

You are assuming I am pro abortion - I'm not

Nah , slight misunderstanding which I'll clarify . I make no assumption as to your views I simply question the rights of women from the viewpoint of the anti-abortionist. What I meant was that from an anti-abortionist view ,which is that a fetus is a person , they can reasonably argue against the decision being the females to make . If a fetus is a person , it follows that abortion is murder and thus the rights of the woman become less black and white .

So for someone like myself who is generally pro-abortion , it is important to firstly address the "personhood" of a fetus when debating abortion with an anti-abortionist . This can be a civil discussion . Without this discussion , matters become enflamed in a slanging match of "womens rights" and "fetus' rights" that is unresolvable.

 

[Cutlass]

Susan Campbell

6:50 p.m. EDT, May 11, 2012

I was a young, single Christian woman who taught Sunday school and knocked doors for Jesus.

And I was pregnant.

A few years earlier, I'd been told by a quack gynecologist that I would never have children. I'd mourned that loss because I thought I'd be a good mother, if given the chance. And here it was, the chance.

Rest of article HERE

Century Later, Male Politicians Still Don't Get It

Gina Barreca Not That I'm Bitter

5:40 p.m. EDT, March 21, 2012

The political "war on women" has been in the spotlight recently, so it might not shock you to read a prominent newspaper headline blaring, "Never before in the history of the United States have women taken a deeper interest in a presidential campaign than this year."

What might surprise you, however, is to learn that this headline appeared 100 years ago in the New Orleans Picayune.

Rest of article HERE


If you care to read them, these explain why I can't oppose abortion.

 

[El_Machinae]

I find the ethics of reproduction to be very interesting. They're hard to pin down. I'm allowed to apply teratogens to my sperm, if I want. But I'm not (morally) allowed to apply teratogens and then use the sperm to create a baby - that would be monstrous.

If I were to put the Huntington's mutation into a sperm and make a baby, I'd be in big trouble. But if a couple with Huntington's has a baby (with, say, a 75% chance of having Huntington's) they'd be in much less trouble - and not only because of the 75% probabilities.

We naturally miscarry a horrendous number of embryos, and while sad they don't seem to be worth saving. If I created an injection that eliminated the possibility of miscarriages but dropped the IQ of all the treated babies by 20 points ... people would rather have the miscarriages and 'select' for normal IQ babies (I'm sure). But the idea of killing low-IQ babies (or even denying them life essentials) is also horrific.

 

[classical_hero]

There is currently a private member's bill in Parliament to reopen the matter of whether or not abortion should be allowed in Canada. I remember the case of Chantal Daigle, whose boyfriend managed to get the courts to try to prevent her from obtaining an abortion. She sneaked across the border into the U.S. and got her abortion, and I remember being glad. Not because I hate babies (or whatever), but because she absolutely would NOT let this guy dictate what she could or could not do with her own body.

What is your opinion of the current situation? Should this whole issue be reopened?


Bravo. Just yesterday I was reading on Care2 how there are some Catholic hospitals that refuse to perform abortions for women who have ectopic pregnancies (where the fetus is growing outside the uterus). These are cases where the fetus has ZERO chance of survival, and the woman has an excellent chance of dying if the fetus is not removed. And yet the hospitals scream "Oh noes! We won't abort that baby - that would be MURDER!" And if/when the woman dies, they have the gall to spout some platitude about "God's will."

No. Such things are not "God's" will. They are the "will" of fanatics who claim to be pro-life, but have the most hypocritical way of showing it.

So you are saying that women don't have choice by not having sex in the first place? The fact that some women don't bother to do the right thing and they proclaim it's their choice is a terrible argument. From biology we know that the foetus is human and from a scientific vie the child is human. The facts are that the majority of women who have abortions are single women and also many of them have had more than one, which shows they aren't treating their body right. The fact that these women harp on about choice when they refuse to choose other choices is a cop-out for bad behaviour.

 

[Winston Hughes]

It's quite easy to have a civil debate over abortion, but it becomes far harder when the participants begin to self-identify as Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

These labels denote fixed (though not necessarily rigid) political positions, wherein the essential arguments have already been decided, and opposing views are written off as little more than heresy. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that, inasmuch as they fit the labels, Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers rarely debate anything. Nearly all of what they do is merely shouting slogans at one another - behaviour which is aimed primarily at demonstrating tribal loyalties and/or ideological righteousness.

For the United States in particular, abortion rights have been politicised to the point where it seems virtually impossible to untangle the moral and legal questions from the left-vs-right dichotomy. What's especially odd about this is that, when you look at polling data, you will find that the largest group is always the one in the middle - that is, the one which says abortion should be legal in some, but not all circumstances. With roughly half the population falling into this group, it seems clear that many Americans recognise that this is a nuanced question, and, therefore, that it is one which is open to civil debate. The problem for them, and for American political life in general, is that the poisonous and utterly implacable opposition between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life has become the dominant narrative.

 

[Farm Boy]

What's the difference between killing a fetus and not having a child when you can have one?

One requires an active action to create a human, the other requires an active action(usually) to prevent one from being born?

Which basically sums up most abortion ´debates´: men telling women what to do.

So yes, it´s still about women´s rights. Men can´t get pregnant, but they love to tell the other party what´s right and what´s not.[/SIZE]

I think this line of logic is largely a crock. It's human sexual reproduction. Yes, a woman should and does have more of a say in her pregnancy as it is her body, but trivializing and writing off the role and rights of men in fatherhood falls far short of a reasonable point of view.

 

[brennan]

1) Having sex is not bad behaviour. It is perfectly natural and something humans are pre-disposed to do. Thank this fact for your own existence.

2) Abstinence is the single least effective means of birth control. If you honestly believe that you can pragmatically preach abstinence, in total contradiction to human nature (see point #1) then you can only do so if you can adequately justify arguing for a non-effective policy that cannot ever work and has never worked. Methinks you have your work cut out for you there.

3) If you think that termination of pregnancy is morally wrong, then nature/god has a lot to answer for. Given that you likely think God is responsible for the natural state of affairs, how do you morally justify the fact that the majority of pregnancies are naturally terminated - frequently without the mother ever even being aware that she was briefly pregnant?

 

[Farm Boy]

3) If you think that termination of pregnancy is morally wrong, then nature/god has a lot to answer for. Given that you likely think God is responsible for the natural state of affairs, how do you morally justify the fact that the majority of pregnancies are naturally terminated - frequently without the mother ever even being aware that she was briefly pregnant?

This doesn't make sense to me. All human lives are naturally terminated, yet it is unacceptable for me to commit homicide outside of very specific circumstances.

 

[El_Machinae]

True, but in this case the termination consists of "putting the embryo in a place where it's quite likely to die of starvation and dehydration". If I were to put a baby into a location where it had a 30% chance of death, I'd be seen as a naughty boy.

 

[brennan]

Well if you kill someone it is a deliberate act, rather than being 'natural'. But if your argument against abortion is that it is morally wrong to deliberately end human life once it starts, then you must explain how it is fine for 'god' to design human pregancies to fail most of the time. Nature in effect is designed (by god) to violate the allegedly divine moral law used by some Christians to oppose abortion. It's just an inconsistent position.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I approve of Winston Hughes' post

The fact that some women don't bother to do the right thing and they proclaim it's their choice is a terrible argument.

To proclaim your opinion what is "the right thing" as fact is terrible debating style, very provoking and even a subtle personal attack of sorts. So exactly what this thread was not supposed to yield.

ut if your argument against abortion is that it is morally wrong to deliberately end human life once it starts, then you must explain how it is fine for 'god' to design human pregancies to fail most of the time.

And now you bring God into it? Why? Jeez, this thread went so well at first.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There is currently a private member's bill in Parliament to reopen the matter of whether or not abortion should be allowed in Canada. I remember the case of Chantal Daigle, whose boyfriend managed to get the courts to try to prevent her from obtaining an abortion. She sneaked across the border into the U.S. and got her abortion, and I remember being glad. Not because I hate babies (or whatever), but because she absolutely would NOT let this guy dictate what she could or could not do with her own body.

What is your opinion of the current situation? Should this whole issue be reopened?


Bravo. Just yesterday I was reading on Care2 how there are some Catholic hospitals that refuse to perform abortions for women who have ectopic pregnancies (where the fetus is growing outside the uterus). These are cases where the fetus has ZERO chance of survival, and the woman has an excellent chance of dying if the fetus is not removed. And yet the hospitals scream "Oh noes! We won't abort that baby - that would be MURDER!" And if/when the woman dies, they have the gall to spout some platitude about "God's will."

No. Such things are not "God's" will. They are the "will" of fanatics who claim to be pro-life, but have the most hypocritical way of showing it.

So you are saying that women don't have choice by not having sex in the first place? The fact that some women don't bother to do the right thing and they proclaim it's their choice is a terrible argument. From biology we know that the foetus is human and from a scientific vie the child is human. The facts are that the majority of women who have abortions are single women and also many of them have had more than one, which shows they aren't treating their body right. The fact that these women harp on about choice when they refuse to choose other choices is a cop-out for bad behaviour.

How do you get all that from what I said? What "right" thing did Chantal Daigle not do, in your opinion? Would you deny an abortion to a woman whose pregnancy turned out to be ectopic, and therefore unviable? Women don't choose to have a pregnancy go wrong - that's up to Mother Nature, and sometimes she makes mistakes.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Well if you kill someone it is a deliberate act, rather than being 'natural'. But if your argument against abortion is that it is morally wrong to deliberately end human life once it starts, then you must explain how it is fine for 'god' to design human pregancies to fail most of the time. Nature in effect is designed (by god) to violate the allegedly divine moral law used by some Christians to oppose abortion. It's just an inconsistent position.

Arguments from religious doctrine can be dismissed quite easily without the need to draw bizarre and illogical equivalences.

 

[strijder20]

One requires an active action to create a human, the other requires an active action(usually) to prevent one from being born?

With exactly the same result: one less individual on Earth.

Maybe this difference is the same difference as this one : the difference between killing a man and not saving a man's life while you could do so without a large amount of effort.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm increasingly tending to think that the difficulty of a reasonable ethical debate on abortion lies in the failure to establish as shared metaphysical framework, and given the strength of religious belief (both of the scholastic and irrationalist varieties) among the majority of pro-lifers, I'm fairly sceptical that this would actually be possible.