Yet Another Abortion Debate Thread

[El_Machinae]

I'm as pro-choice as anyone, but I don't know if the 'self-defense' argument is as solid as some people think. To my eyes, there's a difference between creating a known risk and merely being a victim. If we view the embryo as an innocent*, then creating an innocent and placing it where you *might* need to kill it is not the same as most normal self-defense scenarios. If I take a baby with me, to swim across the Channel and find that I am (unexpectedly) fatiguing, I don't know if my letting the baby drown is obviously guilt-free.

*obviously, I don't.

 

[Murky]

I was laying in bed this morning when this question popped into my head. So I decided to start yet another thread about abortion. Go figure.

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.

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

Of course preventing unwanted pregnancies is preferable to abortion. The choice should still be there for the mother to make (hopefully after carefully considering it).

One thought experiment I had with this goes something like this. You are a young spirit awaiting placement into life on Earth. You can either wait in a very long line for a good spot to open up and be born into a loving family as a healthy baby. There are many other spots open, but they leave a lot to be desired. One of them is a sickly young woman who doesn't really want the baby and has little means of caring for it. The father is a junkie who is never going to around. What would you choose and why?

 

[bhsup]

Well I dont care for your religious views either but if you talk about yourself being consistent then I am asking you consistent with what?

I was talking about my consistency regarding my abortion views. Most people tend to really backpedal when it comes to life of the mother or rape or incest, whereas I just don't really see where those have any bearing on it at all. I'm still opposed to abortion in those cases.

Agentman! (love ya!)

XXX OOO right back atcha

Would you be mad or outraged if I gave one of your (hypothetical) pet dogs an abortion*? How about if I shot one of your dogs, or if I shot their (hypothetical) puppies? Is giving a (edit: lol forgot about the censor) female dog an abortion the same (morally) as drowning a sack of (sleeping) puppies?

*assume an unplanned pregnancy, please!

Or, to completely dodge the property issue ... how do you feel about me putting down my dog (for convenience-sake, and for convenience alone) relative to me giving my dog an abortion because I don't wanna deal with her accidental litter? Not 'should it be legal', but 'how do you feel morally about it?'

Dang it, El Mac, you always make me strain my brain

Alright, first and foremost, as a general rule I do not place non-human life on the same level as human life. If talking about my OWN pets then that's not really the case, but that's also why I don't like hypotheticals where the person is supposed to place themselves in the situation. It's like asking a mother to sit on the jury of a rape or murder trial against her son.

That said, because it is you I will try to answer your questions...
Yes, I would be upset if you gave my dog an abortion. That actually happened once with a cat of mine. I sent her in to be fixed and the vet told me when I picked her up after the fact that she was two weeks pregnant so they terminated the pregnacy and fixed her. I was mad as hell, but all I could do was switch vets at that point.

If you shot my dog or one of my dog's puppies? I would kill to protect my pets and keep them from harm, not kidding.

So moving away from MY pets to just hypotheticals. Yes, drowning puppies in a sack is morally reprehensible and worse than giving a dog an abortion because it is clearly animal cruelty. But just as a general rule (not my pets, remember), giving a dog an abortion, or putting down a puppy for some valid reason (sadly, like say a shelter that cannot support it and there are no no-kill shelters around), I...ugh, I hate talking about this just cuz it is emotional, but I don't view those things as morally wrong so much as just damned sad.

As far as you putting down your own dog just to not deal with a litter? Man, morally I go with wrong as all get out because you COULD take it to the vet to deal with that. I guess in short with animals it boils down to compassion and cruelty. What is the best way to deal with it? But legally, as I don't view non-humans as being worthy of "human rights", I'm not really opposed to you giving your dog an abortion.

I kinda rambled in this. Ask me to clarify if you need me to.

Your bad analogy shows you've missed the point. How many destitute old people are shot annually due to the absence of ample free nursing home care? I don't have the numbers, but I bet two bottles of whiskey that the percentage doesn't compare to that of unwanted pregnancies aborted. Won't even get into the other comparison because it's stupid in the first place.

It wasn't how often it occured that I was trying to get at... actually, el mac answers it later which I quoted at the bottom. You're looking at this like an issue of self-defense apparently, but for it to be self-defense, someone has to be actively trying to harm you, yes? What has the baby done beyond living? Nothing, it is an innocent.

You don't have to justify opposition to abortion. You think it's wrong, fine.

But yeah, you're a hypocrite if "BAN IT ALL" is your only answer, because there are a whole lot of other ways that are more humane and politically viable to avoid the question in the first place. When you blow off the easy preventions in favor of "just don't do that or I'll punish you", you clearly value punishment over prevention. You're letting preventable abortions happen. When you suppress things that prevent abortions, you are promoting it. (Catholic problem.)

Personal responsibility, yeah, that's nice to talk about. I want people to take responsibility for their actions too. It's not policy that services your goals.

In my defense, I've in previous threads that are now long gone in the bowels of archived Off Topic, stated my support for unwed pregnancies, family planning, and so forth. I even in one suggest splitting Planned Parenthood into two totally separate groups. One that does everything BUT abortion which I would be totally fine in having the State help out financially, and one that does abortions that is restricted to private donations until such time as we can finally shut it down for good, legally.

I'm still not keen on condoms in high school, though. We shouldn't be telling our high schoolers that it's cool to go out and bang away, and that is exactly what giving them condoms does. Because giving them condoms is very obviously approval of their future actions with that condom... and I don't mean filling it with water and throwing it at people.

That said, I still stand by my view that I shouldn't have to justify it. They are two totally separate issues. The taking of an innocent life should never be contingent on whether there are safeguards in place for people who are not willing to take responsibility for their actions.

I'm as pro-choice as anyone, but I don't know if the 'self-defense' argument is as solid as some people think. To my eyes, there's a difference between creating a known risk and merely being a victim. If we view the embryo as an innocent*, then creating an innocent and placing it where you *might* need to kill it is not the same as most normal self-defense scenarios. If I take a baby with me, to swim across the Channel and find that I am (unexpectedly) fatiguing, I don't know if my letting the baby drown is obviously guilt-free.

*obviously, I don't.

Not related to the quote above as that was included for Lucy, but I want to add something to my previous remarks.

I said that I am opposed to abortion in every instance and in that respect I am consistent. That isn't actually true and I have to be honest about that. I don't know what to think about situations where, for example, the baby is developing without a head...just a nerve stem ending or something and clearly would not be viable outside of the womb, or even be capable of making it to term. I just don't know and in the interest of total honesty had to say this.

I don't know the percentages, so just pulling one out of my backside, I'll say my previously stated views on abortion probably cover 99.9% of pregnacies. But yes, then in 0.1% of pregnacies (again, out of my backside), I don't know what to do or think. I'm not perfect and all-knowing.

 

[El_Machinae]

I know we value human lives over animal lives. Heck, I certainly do too.

I was just wondering that, if people think of a human embryo as the same moral weighting as a baby, whether an animal embryo was weighted the same as an animal baby. I honestly would've thought that, no, instinctively we don't. I certainly don't.
I know we value animal suffering well over non-suffering (i.e., boiling a fertilized chicken egg alive is vastly different than boiling a chicken alive), but I don't know if all pro-lifers value the life of the animal embryo as much as the baby version.

Yes, drowning puppies in a sack is morally reprehensible and worse than giving a dog an abortion because it is clearly animal cruelty.

Well, I hoped to dodge that aspect by specifying that puppies were sleeping. The gist of that qualifier was to remove the pain portion to negate the animal cruelty concern. "Putting a fatal sedative in their food" would've been a better realistic way, I guess

 

[History_Buff]

I'm still not keen on condoms in high school, though. We shouldn't be telling our high schoolers that it's cool to go out and bang away, and that is exactly what giving them condoms does. Because giving them condoms is very obviously approval of their future actions with that condom...

Wait, people really think this? Any time I've ever seen condoms provided in high school, it's always with the line "don't have sex. But if you have too, use le condom". That hardly sounds like approval.

That's like saying paying for your child's car insurance is giving them permission to crash their car.

 

[Flying Pig]

Wait, people really think this? Any time I've ever seen condoms provided in high school, it's always with the line "don't have sex. But if you have too, use le condom". That hardly sounds like approval.

Indeed. I can tell you now that there's not a force on Earth that can stop teenagers from having sex if they're that way inclined. Sex education doesn't open their eyes - puberty does that for them - it's just damage limitation.

 

[Borachio]

<random nonsense deleted>

 

[GoodGame]

I was laying in bed this morning when this question popped into my head. So I decided to start yet another thread about abortion. Go figure.

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.

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

Aimee you deserve an internet cookie. This is how I feel about the issue too.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes, I would be upset if you gave my dog an abortion. That actually happened once with a cat of mine. I sent her in to be fixed and the vet told me when I picked her up after the fact that she was two weeks pregnant so they terminated the pregnacy and fixed her. I was mad as hell, but all I could do was switch vets at that point.

If you shot my dog or one of my dog's puppies? I would kill to protect my pets and keep them from harm, not kidding.

In these instances, you and I are in complete agreement. Except I didn't change vets after he aborted my cat's kittens (I hadn't known she was pregnant at the time I took her in to be spayed). The only reason I didn't raise hell with the vet was the realization that it would have been her THIRD litter within a year or so (she moved in with us while pregnant with litter #2), and she was very definitely not ecstatic over having the second litter (5 kittens). She'd weaned them as soon as possible, and I honestly don't know how well a third pregnancy would have turned out. But the vet damn well should have called and asked if I wanted him to continue.

And yes, I would kill to protect my pets. No question at all.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'm as pro-choice as anyone, but I don't know if the 'self-defense' argument is as solid as some people think. To my eyes, there's a difference between creating a known risk and merely being a victim. If we view the embryo as an innocent*, then creating an innocent and placing it where you *might* need to kill it is not the same as most normal self-defense scenarios. If I take a baby with me, to swim across the Channel and find that I am (unexpectedly) fatiguing, I don't know if my letting the baby drown is obviously guilt-free.

*obviously, I don't.

I don't entirely agree with your premise, but either way, I don't see guilt-free as a requirement, and if there's a wrongness in the baby drowning then it happened long before the drowning.

It wasn't how often it occured that I was trying to get at... actually, el mac answers it later which I quoted at the bottom. You're looking at this like an issue of self-defense apparently, but for it to be self-defense, someone has to be actively trying to harm you, yes? What has the baby done beyond living? Nothing, it is an innocent.

In the case of a pregnant woman's life being on the line, yes, it's obviously self-defense. I don't give a snot about "actively trying" to harm. When something directly threatens your life like that, you have the right to defend yourself. Whether or not an embryo or fetus is "guilty" of anything is not relevant.

Besides, like I mentioned to GW, a fatal pregnancy is probably going to leave both parties dead. Not making a rape exception, that at least makes sense. Not making a woman's life exception, you'd have women die just so you don't have to re-fit your simple rules to the complicated world. Stubbornness, laziness, rawness, I don't know, but again, I do not believe that you believe that passively allowing both parties to die, or, hell, actively preventing one from defending herself, that that is more morally sound than acting to save one life. You're a decent person, you can't possibly believe that.

Self-defense wasn't what I was talking about when I trashed your old people comparison. The point is that there are effective, humane, and politically viable ways to proactively make fewer abortions happen. So what's the priority? Years more fighting about whether to punish people, or actually doing things that would prevent even the abortions that would happen illegally?

I'm still not keen on condoms in high school, though. We shouldn't be telling our high schoolers that it's cool to go out and bang away, and that is exactly what giving them condoms does. Because giving them condoms is very obviously approval of their future actions with that condom... and I don't mean filling it with water and throwing it at people.

It's not approval, it's acceptance, and what difference does that make? Like some kids are just waiting for "approval" to bang each other? Hah. Condoms in high school is a weak measure anyway, teenagers aren't a huge percentage of abortion-seekers.

That said, I still stand by my view that I shouldn't have to justify it. They are two totally separate issues. The taking of an innocent life should never be contingent on whether there are safeguards in place for people who are not willing to take responsibility for their actions.

Yeah, and I stand by the post you're replying to that says "You don't have to justify opposition to abortion. You think it's wrong, fine."

Why no reply to personal responsibility? It's back to the same thing. You can hope all day for people to make good decisions. But a bunch of them are still going to make bad decisions. Scolding and waving your hands won't change that. If you sincerely believe that we're talking about innocent life that needs to be protected, then you're completely dropping the ball when you say "hey, not my problem".

(Sorry to chop you up.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

In the case of a pregnant woman's life being on the line, yes, it's obviously self-defense. I don't give a snot about "actively trying" to harm. When something directly threatens your life like that, you have the right to defend yourself. Whether or not an embryo or fetus is "guilty" of anything is not relevant.

Besides, like I mentioned to GW, a fatal pregnancy is probably going to leave both parties dead. Not making a rape exception, that at least makes sense. Not making a woman's life exception, you'd have women die just so you don't have to re-fit your simple rules to the complicated world. Stubbornness, laziness, rawness, I don't know, but again, I do not believe that you believe that passively allowing both parties to die, or, hell, actively preventing one from defending herself, that that is more morally sound than acting to save one life. You're a decent person, you can't possibly believe that.

Self-defense wasn't what I was talking about when I trashed your old people comparison. The point is that there are effective, humane, and politically viable ways to proactively make fewer abortions happen. So what's the priority? Years more fighting about whether to punish people, or actually doing things that would prevent even the abortions that would happen illegally?

Just so we're clear, I'm in favor of legalizing the exception in the life of the mother case.

 

[Truronian]

Just so we're clear, I'm in favor of legalizing the exception in the life of the mother case.

Still waiting...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Just so we're clear, I'm in favor of legalizing the exception in the life of the mother case.

If you abort the baby to save the mother, aren't you thereby playing god and ending one life to save another? How is that morally more acceptable? -->Not that I agree with this or see it as an acceptable 'compromise' on abortion in any way, I just don't get your logic.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you abort the baby to save the mother, aren't you thereby playing god and ending one life to save another? How is that morally more acceptable? -->Not that I agree with this or see it as an acceptable 'compromise' on abortion in any way, I just don't get your logic.

This is one of the easiest arguments to make as a pro-life individual. I hope GW doesn't mind me ninja-ing. Aborting a baby that will likely kill it's mother isn't a matter of one life over another. It's a matter of one life over zero lives - the likely result of taking no action. Barring an "alpha and omega, what will be will be" argument, there is no disagreement here at all. Note this also applies to treatment that is necessary to save the mother but may also harm the fetus. If the mother's life is surrendered at a non-viable point in a pregnancy there is again no tradeoff being made, it's simply lose/lose.

The only circumstance I can see friction would be in a case where the pregnancy is semi-viable, but a premature cesarean section may be dangerous to the mother, medical realities here will differ depending on the case. In a situation where a viable premature baby can be delivered and then treatment administered to the mother, well, that is already standard procedure.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This is one of the easiest arguments to make as a pro-life individual. I hope GW doesn't mind me ninja-ing. Aborting a baby that will likely kill it's mother isn't a matter of one life over another. It's a matter of one life over 0 lives - the likely result of taking no action. Barring an "alpha and omega, what will be will be" argument, there is no disagreement here at all. Note this also applies to treatment that is necessary to save the mother but may also harm the fetus. If the mother's life is surrendered at a non-viable point in a pregnancy there is again no tradeoff being made, it's simply lose/lose.

The only circumstance I can see friction would be in a case where the pregnancy is semi-viable, but a premature cesarean section may be dangerous to the mother, medical realities here will differ depending on the case. In a situation where a viable premature baby can be delivered and then treatment administered to the mother, well, that is already standard procedure.

But it's still playing god and making a life or death choice in his place, rather like abortion itself. What I do not understand is how someone can be against abortion, euthenasia (I'm not trying to drag this OT, just make a point) and be all for extending life artificially but then decide it's ok to make the choice to abort a baby, when the mother wouldn't necessarily die.

The mother's life is in danger, sure. But for a religious person, it should be up to god who dies. But in this case it's somehow justified to make the decision to abort to save the mother instead of letting nature take it's course.

Argh, I guess I'm ignoring this:

Barring an "alpha and omega, what will be will be" argument

I don't mean to be combative or argumentative for arguments sake, but that was really my entire point.

 

[Farm Boy]

But it's still playing god and making a life or death choice in his place, rather like abortion itself. What I do not understand is how someone can be against abortion, euthenasia (I'm not trying to drag this OT, just make a point) and be all for extending life artificially but then decide it's ok to make the choice to abort a baby, when the mother wouldn't necessarily die.

The mother's life is in danger, sure. But for a religious person, it should be up to god who dies. But in this case it's somehow justified to make the decision to abort to save the mother instead of letting nature take it's course.

Argh, I guess I'm ignoring this:

I don't mean to be combative or argumentative for arguments sake, but that was really my entire point.

Not all of the religious(Hiya there!) are so pre-deterministic that they decline medical care. I don't even know where this reasoning would stop. Should I not pull over at a car accident? Obviously if somebody is bleeding out on the road it was ment to be, helping would be playing God. I'm hungry and will die of starvation? Best not to leave the couch to go buy food, God would have willed it here if it was meant to be, other ridiculousness, etc.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Not all of the religious(Hiya there!) are so pre-deterministic that they decline medical care. I don't even know where this reasoning would stop. Should I not pull over at a car accident? Obviously if somebody is bleeding out on the road it was ment to be, helping would be playing God. I'm hungry and will die of starvation? Best not to leave the couch to go buy food, God would have willed it here if it was meant to be, other ridiculousness, etc.

Good point, and while it hits my argument in the last post head-on, it largely sidesteps the issue in question. Why is abortion wrong except in this one particular case? Why is it alright to selectively play god in the case of end-of life care and abortion in the case of possible death of the mother, but not abortion in general or euthenasia?

While I appreciate and await your answer, I'd really like to see GhostWriter16 tackle this and maybe show some nuance for once.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If you abort the baby to save the mother, aren't you thereby playing god and ending one life to save another? How is that morally more acceptable? -->Not that I agree with this or see it as an acceptable 'compromise' on abortion in any way, I just don't get your logic.

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it morally. However, since we take actions all time time, we'd be "Playing God" in that sense, so Farm Boy is right.

That said, most of our actions don't involve taking one life to spare another. I think its comparable to self-defense in this way as well, should you really shoot an agressor against your life, or should you let God decide who lives and dies? It might morally be debatable, but legally I absolutely have a right to defend myself.

I don't really hold to fatalism anyway, "What God wills will be." I do trust God but my choices still matter and still have to be right.

Morally, God might want to have a mom have her kid and give up her own life, but the law shouldn't require her to do so.

 

[Ironsided]

Morally, God might want the child sacrificed in a slow an painful procedure. You know, like his own son?

 

[Farm Boy]

Good point, and while it hits my argument in the last post head-on, it largely sidesteps the issue in question. Why is abortion wrong except in this one particular case? Why is it alright to selectively play god in the case of end-of life care and abortion in the case of possible death of the mother, but not abortion in general or euthenasia?

While I appreciate and await your answer, I'd really like to see GhostWriter16 tackle this and maybe show some nuance for once.

I've no qualms to dying with dignity options. I believe patients should be able to make their own end of life decisions.

Why is abortion wrong in general? The answer to that is pretty simple, sorry to disappoint. Life is precious. Mine is, yours is, the life of everybody is. I see no fantastical reason that the life of a 16 week-old bundle of developing human is any less precious by it's age than the life of convicted felon or an ailing grandparent. If we value each other as a whole we shouldn't write off the existence of any of these as inconvenient or expendable if at all possible. I've seen a couple studies(forgive me for not pulling them now) posted on this forum(I forget which of a dozen threads) that cite the most common reason for aborting as unwillingness or inability to parent once the child is born. This rips me apart seeing as how available today is the option of an open adoption. Why end a life just as it is getting ready to begin when the most frequent problem is circumventable without killing?

I would like to, but can't condone a legislative ban on early term abortions. The horrors of state and societal valuing of control over the reproductive process instead of the personhood of 50% of our population are too real. Sometimes we can pick between our evils. We just have to try our damnedest to pick the best of bad options.