Yet Another Abortion Debate Thread

[GhostWriter16]

Hey, if people would practice the virtue of chastity (which doesn't mean no sex btw), we wouldn't have this "need" for abortion. I don't know about the other pro-life groups, but I know that here in Dallas, the Catholic Pro-life group runs several pregnancy help centers. So your accusation of us pro-lifers not helping poor mothers is false.

Just to ask a Catholic, is contraception a legitimate case of "Lesser of two evils" here for a Catholic? In other words, even if contraception is a sin, is providing it to stop an abortion an absolute evil? If the acceptance of contraception will lessen abortions, can we do it, as a country?

Now, as a Protestant I don't agree with the Catholic position on contraception since its not in the Bible, but even if it were I'd still think that it would be a pretty clear case of lesser of two evils there. Abortion is so morally horrible, to me, that allowing easy access to contraceptives would be worthwhile in order to slow it down.

 

[NBAfan]

Just to ask a Catholic, is contraception a legitimate case of "Lesser of two evils" here for a Catholic? In other words, even if contraception is a sin, is providing it to stop an abortion an absolute evil? If the acceptance of contraception will lessen abortions, can we do it, as a country?

Now, as a Protestant I don't agree with the Catholic position on contraception since its not in the Bible, but even if it were I'd still think that it would be a pretty clear case of lesser of two evils there. Abortion is so morally horrible, to me, that allowing easy access to contraceptives would be worthwhile in order to slow it down.

I'm not very knowledgeable about how the BC pills works, but if one of the pills only works after fertilization, it is basically an abortion. If it doesn't, then a contraceptive is less reprehensible then abortion. That doesn't make contraception right. Contraception won't reduce abortion, being virtuous will. All mass contraceptives would do is give people a false sense of security as they are not 100% fool proof at preventing pregnancies.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm not very knowledgeable about how the BC pills works, but if one of the pills only works after fertilization, it is basically an abortion. If it doesn't, then a contraceptive is less reprehensible then abortion. That doesn't make contraception right. Contraception won't reduce abortion, being virtuous will.

I've heard variations of this statement. My favorite is "Electing a Republican won't change this country, Jesus Christ will." I agree with your sentiment. That said, in the most elementary sense, contraception would reduce abortion. Sure, it won't save anyone from their sins, but it will prevent people from being killed because the people that will otherwise be killed with simply never have existed. I could see some philosophical quibbling here but that IS a very real difference for me. A person being created and murdered is a much less desirable scenario than the person simply never having existed. This is doubly true with the Catholic views on infant baptism (Which I don't share) and since a fertilized egg is not able to be baptized, they might end up in limbo or Hell.

So is it wrong for contraception to be made easy to get in order to make abortion less desirable, from a Catholic perspective?

Regarding the finer details of BC pills, I'm pretty sure they don't cause an abortion, although I know the morning after pill is at least sometimes an exception. Regardless, any contraception that causes an abortion wouldn't really count as a "Contraception" in my mind. Contraception prevents a pregnancy from ever occurring. Abortion terminates an already existing pregnancy. The latter is murder. I don't personally have a problem with the former, and while Catholics do, it still isn't murder (2nd century theologians who made this error being a big reason for the Catholic teaching aside.)

 

[History_Buff]

Just FYI guys, different birth control pills work slightly differently. But the believed primary mechanism for most of them is to suppress (but often not eliminating) ovulation. Secondary effects are creating a hostile environment for any sperm present, and making it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant itself in the uterine wall.

The morning after pill is similar, and induces all three effects.

Though I gather there's some dispute over exactly which element is doing most of the work. Fairly difficult to get in there and be sure after all. Yet we know empirically that they work.


Edit: In my 17 years in the Catholic Church, including 9 years of Catholic school, I can't remember any specific lecture against contraceptives. I do believe condom use was encouraged. Just for the record.

 

[Truronian]

the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg.

How many human persons does it become at this point?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think I'm going to stay out of this one.

That may describe the "Except for rape and incest..." people but that's really about it.

I know of at least one...

I remember you being a bit more pro-life than even the average person here though. Just wondering, would you consider the extreme pro-life position (Basically what I hold, the fetus is alive from conception and life imprisonment/the death penalty is the punishment in accordance with standard homicide) to be better than the extreme pro-choice position (Allowed and supported for all 9 months?)



Useless basically admitted to it, OK, 8 months and 3 weeks

Just to ask a Catholic, is contraception a legitimate case of "Lesser of two evils" here for a Catholic? In other words, even if contraception is a sin, is providing it to stop an abortion an absolute evil? If the acceptance of contraception will lessen abortions, can we do it, as a country?

Now, as a Protestant I don't agree with the Catholic position on contraception since its not in the Bible, but even if it were I'd still think that it would be a pretty clear case of lesser of two evils there. Abortion is so morally horrible, to me, that allowing easy access to contraceptives would be worthwhile in order to slow it down.

I've heard variations of this statement. My favorite is "Electing a Republican won't change this country, Jesus Christ will." I agree with your sentiment. That said, in the most elementary sense, contraception would reduce abortion. Sure, it won't save anyone from their sins, but it will prevent people from being killed because the people that will otherwise be killed with simply never have existed. I could see some philosophical quibbling here but that IS a very real difference for me. A person being created and murdered is a much less desirable scenario than the person simply never having existed. This is doubly true with the Catholic views on infant baptism (Which I don't share) and since a fertilized egg is not able to be baptized, they might end up in limbo or Hell.

So is it wrong for contraception to be made easy to get in order to make abortion less desirable, from a Catholic perspective?

Regarding the finer details of BC pills, I'm pretty sure they don't cause an abortion, although I know the morning after pill is at least sometimes an exception. Regardless, any contraception that causes an abortion wouldn't really count as a "Contraception" in my mind. Contraception prevents a pregnancy from ever occurring. Abortion terminates an already existing pregnancy. The latter is murder. I don't personally have a problem with the former, and while Catholics do, it still isn't murder (2nd century theologians who made this error being a big reason for the Catholic teaching aside.)

Link to video.

I think I'm going to stay out of this one.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But for those people who are against abortion, wouldnt it make more sense to look into how to prevent and help unwanted pregnancies that often lead to abortion rather than making laws that ban them, that only means they will more likely do it illegally.

As usual, Aimee, you are THE most sensible person in the thread.

There's a question. Now get into huge flamewars VERY POLITE DEBATES until the thread's closed. I'll stay out.

Please don't stay out. You're the youngest of the three women who regularly post in this forum. Your opinions matter.

I think I'm going to stay out of this one. I already pointed out in the other thread about how many of the pro-choice arguments are actually lies. Unless/until someone responds to them I'm not jumping into another debate unless someone ticks me off enough.

How about you list those "lies" here, hmmm? So I won't have to go to the trouble of reading that other thread, composing my reply, and coming back to this thread only to find it's been closed for an extreme number of infractions handed out. Considering the not-inconsiderable amount of time you and I have taken to discuss this issue via PM, it would be a considerate gesture on your part.

Dictionary says "Deriving sexual gratification from being abused or dominated." I really don't think I'm getting off from making this thread.

It also means wanting to be punished in other ways, in this case by setting the stage for what could be a rather explosive, angry thread.

I said I wouldnt post again but Ill post this here. But basically figuring out why pregnancies were unwanted and doing things to change that. No birth control? Increase access and coverage for that. Genetic diseases? Put more medical research into finding ways to fix that. Unable to afford the cost of the medical costs associated with pregnancy? More help for that. Basically stuff like that. Instead of just saying, "nope, you can't have an abortion, deal with it."

Again, this is only common sense. But because it's common sense, that's why the politicians won't do it.

I think that birth control is already accessible enough (doesn't planned parenthood give that stuff out in poor neighborhoods). Your point on genetic diseases I understand and sympathize with. And I don't think that any hospital would turn down a pregnant woman seeking medical help.

Planned Parenthood is happy to help poor women with birth control - when the politicians don't take away their funding.

Ignoring for a moment the cellular and sentience aspects that definition fails to address, does that mean if the body self-aborts the fetus* it commited involuntary manslaughter?

*Let's hope I am remembering 9th grade Sex Ed correctly right now.

Actually, I think we're supposed to either regard it as "God's will" or, in the states where insane miscarriage laws have been attempted to be put into place, the mother would be tossed into jail whether she wanted the baby, didn't want the baby, or even if she knew she was pregnant in the first place.

I'm not very knowledgeable about how the BC pills works, but if one of the pills only works after fertilization, it is basically an abortion. If it doesn't, then a contraceptive is less reprehensible then abortion. That doesn't make contraception right. Contraception won't reduce abortion, being virtuous will. All mass contraceptives would do is give people a false sense of security as they are not 100% fool proof at preventing pregnancies.

Birth control pills do not cause abortion. They prevent the pregnancy from starting in the first place. It's the "morning after pill" that stops the pregnancy from continuing - if it started at all.

 

[LucyDuke]

Sorry to chop this up, they call for separate responses.

Hey, if people would practice the virtue of chastity (which doesn't mean no sex btw), we wouldn't have this "need" for abortion.

That's a wish. In happy fairy dreamland you won't have nearly as much abortion, but until you can make chastity happen in reality it isn't relevant to this policy discussion.

I don't know about the other pro-life groups, but I know that here in Dallas, the Catholic Pro-life group runs several pregnancy help centers.

Yes, that's probably a step in the right direction. Keep walking and I'll shut up.

So your accusation of us pro-lifers not helping poor mothers is false.

I didn't accuse self-identifying pro-lifers of not helping poor mothers. I said that self-identifying pro-lifers are hypocrites and not really pro-life if they don't both "help poor mothers" and promote good contraception.

That doesn't make contraception right. Contraception won't reduce abortion, being virtuous will. All mass contraceptives would do is give people a false sense of security as they are not 100% fool proof at preventing pregnancies.

You're back in happy fairy dreamland again. In reality you are dead wrong and when you say those things you are consequently promoting abortion.

 

[LucyDuke]

Birth control pills do not cause abortion. They prevent the pregnancy from starting in the first place. It's the "morning after pill" that stops the pregnancy from continuing - if it started at all.

Oral contraceptives usually work by preventing ovulation, which obviously prevents fertilization, but ovulation may occur and implantation of an embryo may be prevented. (The "morning after pill" may also work by either preventing ovulation or by preventing implantation.) Some of these folks say that the pregnancy begins when the zygote forms. They're using the word pregnancy incorrectly when they say that, of course, but preventing implantation is on their naughty list. Even if it's only a very small chance that implantation will be prevented and a very large chance that ovulation will be prevented, they'd apparently rather allow for some actual abortions later than risk a very small chance of preventing actual pregnancies in the first place. More of the same hypocrisy. Not the worst of it, but still the same dissonance in practice.

EDIT: Sorry, History Buff, just noticed you discussed the mechanics. I'll just cover the implications.

 

[El_Machinae]

Probably worth it in the long run, though, decreasing unwanted/unhealthy pregnancies results in less abortions.

I always love how every abortion debate on this forum seems to be about at what stage of pregnancy even though Im talking more about social-policy-making than biological stuff in the OP.

Well, quite a few abortions happen because the fetus is diagnosed as (probably) having Down Syndrome. If this is one of the genetic diseases that should be researched in order to reduce the number of abortions, how would an average pro-lifer help something like that?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Well, quite a few abortions happen because the fetus is diagnosed as (probably) having Down Syndrome. If this is one of the genetic diseases that should be researched in order to reduce the number of abortions, how would an average pro-lifer help something like that?

Well, for example, donating funding to research for that, and supporting laws that increase funding for research, or (short-medium-term) more social assistance (not just welfare cheques) to help those who have children with Down Syndrome and the adults who live with it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I can agree with that but then you would have to define "natural" as well.

Natural, as in not connected to machinery or placed inside of special machinery that keeps people alive that would die when not connected to or placed inside said machinery.
Durpa Durp

I have two objections. One, the pro-choice side needs to have a solid point when human life begins. There is no room for ambiguity. Two, with modern means, a baby can survive outside the womb from conception to term.


Fertilization is the most logical start place for human life. No growth takes place before, while explosive cell growth takes place right after fertilization. This assumes that you believe human rights come from just being a live human.

The bolded sentence is not true. Not true by a long shot. You take a zygote out of a womb and tell me how that turns out?

 

[GhostWriter16]

How about you list those "lies" here, hmmm? So I won't have to go to the trouble of reading that other thread, composing my reply, and coming back to this thread only to find it's been closed for an extreme number of infractions handed out. Considering the not-inconsiderable amount of time you and I have taken to discuss this issue via PM, it would be a considerate gesture on your part.

Of course

Granted, these are general things, and I will take the time to explain if and when they apply. I will also note that there may be pro-choice arguments that do not fall under these. In fact, I know for a fact that they are. But very few people argue in such a way.

First of all: "People who oppose abortion rights oppose female autonomy over her own body!" I've heard many variations of this one. The simple truth is that nobody believes this argument unless they support abortion for all nine months of the pregnancy. If you will restrict any abortions at all, you don't believe this argument. The reality is that most people who argue this want more toleration of early abortions and will use this argument to shut the opposition up. But most of them will admit that they'd rather not have any abortion occur, and that they'd be willing to ban late (Usually at least the third trimester and sometimes part of the second) term abortions because the baby IS alive at that point. Now, since the body being destroyed is just a more developed version of the same one destroyed early on, "Its the woman's body" is actually a lie anyway, because the baby IS a separately existing body. The real question is, does that body have human rights. Since the thing has all of its organs from two months into the pregnancy, its just inconceivable to me that anyone would argue that it doesn't matter until 5-6. But that's besides the point, the reality is, the fetus is a distinct organism, and even if it weren't, the argument is still a lie because the people that make it would usually ban SOME abortions.

2. You can't be pro-life/are inconsistent if you oppose abortion but support the death penalty. I was aggressively attacked for holding this view in the other thread. The reality is that both issues are completely different and based on different questions. Ask yourself, is it consistent to support abortion but oppose capital punishment? Most pro-choice people on this forum oppose the death penalty. The reality is, the death penalty is not about taking personhood from certain people like abortion (arguably) is. Abortion is about "At what point does this organism acquire human rights" The death penalty is about "At what point does this person commit such a heinous crime that he loses his right to life." Some have said, even worse "You are supporting punishing what you consider to be murder with murder." Perhaps there are some true anarchists who can make this argument, but to anyone else, to falsely equate the death penalty with murder in order to say I support murdering people for murdering (I actually got this criticism in the other thread) is laughable because if the death penalty is murder, imprisonment is kidnapping and fines are theft. The reality is, its another example of left-wing people deciding they would rather attack a perceived but nonexistant inconsistency than to actually debate.

Those were the two biggest ones. I may edit in some updates to this later on, but I have stuff to do ATM.

 

[Truronian]

First of all: "People who oppose abortion rights oppose female autonomy over her own body!"

I think you leave of an important addendum here: '...within reason. I don't know of anyone who claims that people should have full autonomy over their bodies which is why we ban things like heroin, organ selling and jaywalking.

2. You can't be pro-life/are inconsistent if you oppose abortion but support the death penalty.

I think this is a semantic argument rather than an argument about abortion. It seems disingenuous to claim to be pro-life when supporting the death penalty, but then calling oneself pro-life-in-some-situations-and-not-others would be a bit of a mouthful.

 

[Zack]

Sex education and access to contraceptives both need to be improved greatly.

Also, I'm baffled how someone can claim to be so vehemently "pro-life" while being so vehemently in favor of capital punishment.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Of course

2. You can't be pro-life/are inconsistent if you oppose abortion but support the death penalty. I was aggressively attacked for holding this view in the other thread. The reality is that both issues are completely different and based on different questions.

You were rightly attacked. As Farm Boy so succinctly put it, "Ideas don't exist in a vacuum".

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think you leave of an important addendum here: '...within reason. I don't know of anyone who claims that people should have full autonomy over their bodies which is why we ban things like heroin, organ selling and jaywalking.

Here's the thing about that argument though... what's reasonable?

If its reasonable because the fetus supposedly doesn't have human rights yet, just argue that.

That being said, however, it still has nothing to do with the woman's body. The fetus is INSIDE of her body, but is distinct.

That said, I know of at least one poster here who is fine with abortion up to a week before birth. So there are a few people who take that argument quite literally.

I think this is a semantic argument rather than an argument about abortion. It seems disingenuous to claim to be pro-life when supporting the death penalty, but then calling oneself pro-life-in-some-situations-and-not-others would be a bit of a mouthful

I could say the same thing about the term "Pro-choice." You aren't pro-choice in EVERY situation, are you?

The reality is both are propaganda terms that are accurate when placed within the context of what is being discussed (Abortion) but if you try to take those descriptors and claim they have to apply to each and every situation, they don't work.

The reason we use "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" is because they are positive descriptions of one's own position and pretty much anyone will know what you mean when you use them.

Yes, pro-life is technically inaccurate unless your a total pacifist, and pro-choice is inaccurate unless your a total anarchist. But since that's not what the terms have ever meant, I see no reason to apply them that way. Its a description of one's position in the abortion debate.

Of course, there's a bit of gray area. Most pro-choice people are pro-choice up to the first two trimesters, but "Pro-life" almost always means "From conception." What if you only support abortions in the first trimester? In my mind you're still "Pro-choice" just up to a different point than most pro-choice people. Same as if you accept abortions in the third trimester, although "Pro-murder" might be a term more than half of the population would AGREE WITH ME on at that point

You were rightly attacked. As Farm Boy so succinctly put it, "Ideas don't exist in a vacuum".

Way to take a quote out of context! In actuality, Farm Boy was saying that my position wouldn't be taken seriously if I held both pro-life (on abortion) and pro-death (For murderers) and advocated for both. At least in some circles, and especially on this forum, he is correct. I have a bit of context that you don't though, the two of us have discussed that topic at length before. I think he understands my position, even if he disagrees with it, but feels that it would be impossible to actually win both. That's different than saying that I am actually being inconsistent.

But even if he were saying that, Farm Boy is pro-life and against the death penalty (Although I think he himself is a little inconsistent in still saying that said abortions should be legally permitted, that's just a case of idealism VS pragmatism I suppose, however) so between those two issues, he'd allegedly have a "Consistent life ethic." I disagree with that term for a few reasons, but regardless, your arguing that its inconsistent to support life in one realm and not in another, well, Farm Boy supports life in both. Most pro-choice people, on the other hand, are against the death penalty, and thus are inconistent because they support life for killers and not for the innocent. By that logic, that's also inconsistent. The reality is the death penalty is about whether a person can deserve to die and whether the state should ever make it happen. Abortion, on the other hand, is about whether or not we are really killing someone in the first place. Nobody denies the death penalty is "Killing." Proponents think its justified killing. Abortion, on the other hand, is about whether we are really killing a human being at all. As I believe the answer is yes, I oppose it and think that those who do it do deserve to be killed for their crime of murder.

 

[Zack]

Dommy, you're missing the point. Why are you so vehemently opposed to aborting fetuses, many of which are arguably not even fully human, while at the same time so vehemently in favor of killing people who are 100% certifiably human?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Way to take a quote out of context! In actuality, Farm Boy was saying that my position wouldn't be taken seriously if I held both pro-life (on abortion) and pro-death (For murderers) and advocated for both.

That was the context. Less spam please.

 

[Truronian]

Here's the thing about that argument though... what's reasonable?

That's the question behind the entire abortion debate.

I could say the same thing about the term "Pro-choice."

Indeed you could.