A pro-choice mum responds

[Oreo]

Reprise, congratulations! Best wishes to you and yours.

I am pro-life. But that doesn’t mean I condemn all pro-choicers. How can I? I believe that a fetus is “human” from conception. Therefore, it is wrong to take its life, plain and simple.

But (most) pro-choicers don’t believe this. They truly believe they are not taking a life, therefore they are not morally incorrect. While I disagree, I cannot claim to be morally superior to them just because we disagree on a technical point.

To those pro-choicers who do believe that the fetus is a human but still advocate the right to abortion, I don’t understand. If it is human, how can it be right to take its life? For instance, Badtz Maru I know you believe the baby constitutes a danger to the life/health of the mother. Does that mean it’s okay for me to kill the guy who’s driving down the street yapping on his cell phone? He’s certainly endangering my life, and he has a choice about it to boot, unlike the unborn baby.

Also, a point people seem to conveniently forget or put aside: most women get pregnant because they choose to have sex. (I don’t believe women who are raped should have abortions, either, but that’s another whole kettle of fish.) If the mother’s life is in danger, or if her life is going to be completely turned upside down, it is her own fault, not the baby’s, and she should be the one to pay the consequences, not the innocent child.

FTR, I’m an agnostic, not a Christian Fundie. And yes, I’m against the death penalty.

[Polycarp]

Good grief.

First, Reprise, I would like you to select two “normal” names for yourself and your daughter, and post them here. You two will be in my wife’s prayers and mine, and I have this personal quirk about praying for people by name (doesn’t have to be your own name; God knows who I’m talking about; I just feel weird about sounding to myself like I’m praying for Frank Sinatra’s record company :))

The advice to see an Ob/Gyn is wise (I assume you already are doing so), and I’d add to get a referral to a specialist who can determine if the embryo has been affected by the oral contraceptives.

Second, Na Sultainne and One Cell, you do your case (ably represented by Sen. Cornpone and Oreo) no good by hurling insults.

For the record, I classify myself as pro-choice. I believe in the potential humanity of every fertilized egg – and make the distinction only because prior to physical adulthood nobody is totally independent; one’s full stature as a human being is something one grows into. In my ideal world, no viable healthy fetus would ever be aborted; I wish this passionately. But equally passionately I insist that it is the right of the woman to choose to carry this child within her body until its time for birth – or not.

Just as you have every right to express your foul-minded condemnation of people who are trying to weigh moral values and do the ethical thing and who happen to have come to answers different than your small-minded, let’s-legislate-the-right-thing-for-everyone-to-do attitude. You have that freedom. It can be taken away, if human rights are not defended. And reprise’s daughter has that right.

May I say, reprise, that I honor your decision to stand by her no matter what her choice. That takes strong moral character, and you deserve our praise, not the foulness you’ve been subjected to by some here.

And One Cell, I am usually tolerant of that typo, but in this case, based on the remainder of the post, I believe it was intentional. I will expect your apology, under the rules of this board, to both myself and the woman who you decided to insult. (I do play hardball, but prefer a battle of wits with a worthy opponent, not an unarmed man.)

[Dangerosa]

*Originally posted by Oreo *
**R

Also, a point people seem to conveniently forget or put aside: most women get pregnant because they choose to have sex. (I don’t believe women who are raped should have abortions, either, but that’s another whole kettle of fish.) If the mother’s life is in danger, or if her life is going to be completely turned upside down, it is her own fault, not the baby’s, and she should be the one to pay the consequences, not the innocent child.
**

I don’t forget. But I also remember that while two people are involved in that initial choice, only one bears the physical burden of pregnancy. And that, having the two children I want, I’m not quite up to a celebate marriage to null the risk of pregnancy (nor is my husband, at least I don’t think so, I’ll ask for you though).

I fail to see how you can describe my sex life as “my own fault.” There seems to be some sort of judgement against people who have sex in the use of words like “fault” and “consequences.”

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by Badtz Maru *
**My apologies for that last post, those statistics are for Thailand. In North America the maternal mortality rate is 1 in 3700. Quite a bit safer, still not safe enough to force someone into it. Would you go into a stadium full of 37,000 people if you knew that 10 of them would be chosen randomly to die painfully? **

I think that’s a false analogy. In your stadium example, there’s no way of knowing who would die. In the case of pregnancy, this can be determined with a modest amount of effort. In addition, corrective action can be taken to avert maternal death. (The most common such case is ectopic pregnancies, which are readily detected via ultrasound.)

Second, even if abortion is dangerous on the average (which it isn’t), it doesn’t mean that any given is dangerous. So even if we grant the logic of your position, it would only apply to those dangerous pregnancies.

Third, if a pregnancy places the mother in imminent danger, there are reasonable actions which can be taken. If the fetus is viable, a premature delivery can be taken. If the fetus is not viable, then abortion can be prescribed to save the mother’s life. Few pro-lifers would take issue with this stance, since it’s better for one to live than for both of them to die.

And finally, is avoiding danger always the morally correct thing to do? Clearly not. If one’s home were to catch fire, it would be far safer for the father to abandon his children and run to safety – but that would be callous and immoral. Similarly, if his infant daughter were drowning in a deep swimming pool, it would be safer for the father to stay out of the water – but that would be monstrous and cowardly.

[Oreo]

*Originally posted by Dangerosa *
**

I don’t forget. But I also remember that while two people are involved in that initial choice, only one bears the physical burden of pregnancy. And that, having the two children I want, I’m not quite up to a celebate marriage to null the risk of pregnancy (nor is my husband, at least I don’t think so, I’ll ask for you though).

I fail to see how you can describe my sex life as “my own fault.” There seems to be some sort of judgement against people who have sex in the use of words like “fault” and “consequences.” **

It’s true. Only a woman can bear a child. Not fair, maybe, but that’s life. I don’t see how this is an argument for taking an innocent life. “If men don’t have to, why should I have to?” Doesn’t sound like a valid argument to me.

Did I say you should live a celebate life? I certainly don’t believe that, and I don’t live a celebate life myself. What I do believe is that if you make the decision to have sex, you need to also make the decision to be responsible for the possible consequences. (I’ll bend on use of the word “fault” but pregnancy IS a possible consequence of sex, plain and simple.) To me, having an abortion is not an acceptable method of “taking responsibility.” I’m not passing judgement on those who have sex.

I just don’t like the argument of the poor, helpless woman who suddenly found herself in a horrible situation. It’s not as if she got pregnant by “magic.” She made a choice. It’s not the baby’s choice, and he/she should not have to give their life for it.

[Polycarp]

Jubilation: I fully understand and respect the fact that you were responding to another poster who raised the “safety” issue.

To me, however, that’s not the point. Do I have any right, based on my thinking, to compel another to devote her life to the care and nourishment of a third party? If I were to insist that there be a law in place requiring you to give ten hours a week or a quarter of your salary to feed the poor and house the homeless, you would be justifiably offended – even if you were already doing so in point of fact. Or take it one further step: you must, everywhere you go, take along this handicapped veteran, care for and feed him. If he’s physically unable to do something, you must refrain from doing it yourself, because he must accompany you.

Maybe it would be fair to ask you – to implore you – to do so – even to tell you it’s your moral duty to do so. But to compel you? No.

This is what we are doing to each pregnant woman, when we insist she continue to carry a child. How she got pregnant, the child’s condition, her relative safety, all that are immaterial – we’re forcing her to do something. Not prohibiting her from taking another act (the abortion) – mandating that she carry that child to term.

That to me is the bottom line.

[Dinsdale]

Best wishes to you and yours, reprise, and thanks for posting this in a manner to encourage some introspection on my part. Yeah, I believe strongly in the woman’s right to choose among all of the options. But like many (dare I suggest most) advocates on either side of the spectrum, I freely acknowledge a grey area in which I am less that thrilled with some consequences of my stance. Such as mothers using serial abortions as birth control, and extremely late stage abortions - including partial birth. Perhaps folk on the other side may have some qualms when it comes to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or with significannt deformities.

I believe the desired situation is for women and men to either abstain or engage in sex responsibly. Should the woman become pregnant, she should be sufficiently aware of her condition that should she desire an abortion it can be done at an early stage. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. That is why such moral debates become sticky.

Another wrinkle is when you apply your morality to your own situations, as reprise is now having to do. Should my (now 13) daughter become pregnant, I hope she would confide in her parents. And unless the father is Bill Gates, I am quite certain that we would strongly urge abortion. Of course, we would continue to love and support her were she to choose differently.

[Oreo]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**

Maybe it would be fair to ask you – to implore you – to do so – even to tell you it’s your moral duty to do so. But to compel you? No.

This is what we are doing to each pregnant woman, when we insist she continue to carry a child. How she got pregnant, the child’s condition, her relative safety, all that are immaterial – we’re forcing her to do something. Not prohibiting her from taking another act (the abortion) – mandating that she carry that child to term.

That to me is the bottom line. **

I know you weren’t addressing me directly, but mind if I step in here, Polycarp?

Your point brings us back to the (IMO unsolvable) question of when exactly does life begin. Because if you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is murder.

We “force” people not to commit murder all the time. We don’t ask them, we don’t try to appeal to people’s morals. We simply forbid it outright.

And like I said before…no one “forced” her to have sex in the first place (in most cases.)

Of course, if you don’t believe life begins at conception, then it’s not murder and your point applies. But the debate always circles around to that one sticky widget.

[Gaudere]

Goo

One Cell you are an ass

Note to mods : I am not trying to be jerk-like in GD, I just have a donkey image in my head at the moment

One Cell

…Polycrap…

[Moderator Hat ON]

I don’t care about your motives or whatever visuals you had, Goo. DON"T POST PERSONAL INSULTS IN GREAT DEBATES. One Cell, if the “Polycrap” bit was intentional and not a typo, I better not see any more of that crap here again.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Also, One Cell, if you’re going to get all high-and-mighty about the purpose of GD, it would be less ironic if you did not stoop to personal sniping and learned how to determine the validity of analogies.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**[To me, however, that’s not the point. Do I have any right, based on my thinking, to compel another to devote her life to the care and nourishment of a third party? If I were to insist that there be a law in place requiring you to give ten hours a week or a quarter of your salary to feed the poor and house the homeless, you would be justifiably offended – even if you were already doing so in point of fact. Or take it one further step: you must, everywhere you go, take along this handicapped veteran, care for and feed him. If he’s physically unable to do something, you must refrain from doing it yourself, because he must accompany you.

Maybe it would be fair to ask you – to implore you – to do so – even to tell you it’s your moral duty to do so. But to compel you? No.**

I think those analogies fall apart in several ways. For one thing, unlike the examples which you identified, the pregnancy is the direct result of the mother’s actions. I think that if one is going to bring about a new life, through one’s conscious actions, then one should bear responsibility for that act.

In addition, abortion isn’t just a refusal to provide for another person. Rather, it is the deliberate killing and dismemberment of that person. To suggest that it’s just a refusal to provide is, IMO, a serious stretch of the imagination.

Most importantly, society already recognizes the unique obligations which parents have to their children. In other words, society already compels the parents to care for their children – or in the case of adoption, to ensure that somebody assumes this responsibility. So even if we grant that there’s no obligation to care for some stranger, the mother still has an obligation to care for her own child.

[Polycarp]

First, there is no legal basis at present for presuming an unborn child to be a person in the legal sense. (That is a truism, not an argument – no court has found, and no legislature declared, an unborn child to be a person as that term is used in law.)

Second, the taking of human life is not necessarily murder. There are crimes of manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary homicide, there is justifiable homicide. It may even be one’s civic duty, as a soldier or executioner, or a policeman in a shootout situation.

Now, back to the drawing board. I have a personal moral objection to abortion except in particular circumstances. This, however, is outweighed for me by my sense that the moral decision is up to the woman bearing the child. I fully admit your stance, but “murder” is as loaded a term as “baby killer” or “pinko bastard” in this context. Agreed that an entity that would become a human baby at birth is going to lose its life if aborted before viability. Agreed that in general the woman was aware that sex might possibly lead to pregnancy. (Question: how about a married woman, half of a chaste couple, who has been told by her doctor that another pregnancy might be fatal – is she expected to refrain from sex with contraception, and refuse her husband sex if he wants it, to prevent the danger that the contraception might not work? And how do you justify demanding this of her?)

[SoccerDuck]

I totally agree with all your points. I myself am pro-life and I believe a child’s life to start from the moment conception occurs. I also agree with that a rape victim should not abort her child (but like you said that’s a whole other can of worms). REPRISE: Good luck with your daughter and soon to be grandbaby, I hope everything goes well for you.
Thanks Oreo for all of your posts, there doesn’t seem to be many of us pro-lifers on this board and it’s good to know I’m not the only one. I don’t believe in murder and I don’t believe in abortion.
Thanks - SoccerDuck

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**First, there is no legal basis at present for presuming an unborn child to be a person in the legal sense. (That is a truism, not an argument – no court has found, and no legislature declared, an unborn child to be a person as that term is used in law.) **

So? Most legislatures and courts (in the U.S.) anyway do not recognize that homosexuals may enter into legal “marriage” unions (with the associated societal and financial benefits). Do you tell our American gay posters to forget about that “right” because of the “truism” of the current code of laws in the U.S.?

I’m amazed at the number of times pro choice folks remind us of the “law of the land”…as if it is some static decree handed down by a diety…

[Oreo]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
First, there is no legal basis at present for presuming an unborn child to be a person in the legal sense. (That is a truism, not an argument – no court has found, and no legislature declared, an unborn child to be a person as that term is used in law.)

This is absolutely true. I just happen to disagree with the law in this case. I think that’s what’s we’re really debating here.

Second, the taking of human life is not necessarily murder. There are crimes of manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary homicide, there is justifiable homicide. It may even be one’s civic duty, as a soldier or executioner, or a policeman in a shootout situation.

Again, true. But I don’t think abortion is manslaughter, or justifiable. (BTW, I’m not familiar with voluntary and involuntary homicide, so I can’t speak to that. Will research.) I think it’s the intentional, deliberate, premeditated taking of an innocent human life. Isn’t that the definition of “murder?” (Leaving out the “legal” aspect of the definition since we’re debating the validity of the law.) I don’t mean to be immflamatory, but if you believe life begins at conception, that’s what it is. Of course, if you don’t believe that, it’s not taking a life, therefore in no way murder.

**
(Question: how about a married woman, half of a chaste couple, who has been told by her doctor that another pregnancy might be fatal – is she expected to refrain from sex with contraception, and refuse her husband sex if he wants it, to prevent the danger that the contraception might not work? And how do you justify demanding this of her?) **

Yikes. What an awful (and I hope rare) situation. But we make our own moral rules when we are not emotionally involved for a reason. It sucks, but yes…I think in this case the couple should abstain from intercourse. Taking an innocent human life is never, never, right, and if that is what would happen if they got pregnant, then they should take all possible means to avoid pregnancy. (It’s not like they couldn’t have a sex life without actual vaginal intercourse.)

Gotta go to a doctor’s appointment. Be back soon.

[B.Gardner]

Oh boy, I sooo look forward to the day when we issue “conception certificates,” and every miscarriage reults in a murder investigation, and the government controls every aspect of reproduction. What a happy day that will be.

[Dangerosa]

Well, not that rare -

My friend with the reconstructed vagina and diabetes has been told another pregnancy would seriously endanger her health and perhaps her life.

My cousin is on medication incapatible with pregnancy (would kill or deform a fetus), but going off the medication would endanger her life.

It seems I have another friend in the same boat, but I’m trying to remember specifics and can’t…

Just to say, it isn’t that rare to be told another pregnancy would not be wise - particularly once a woman reaches a certain age or if she has certain medical condiditions.

[Dangerosa]

JThunder,

When the medical technology enables you to remove a first trimester fetus from my womb without dismembering it and killing it, and transplant it into another womb, either artificial or in a “host mother,” I’ll be happy to sign adoption papers.

Seems to me to be a limitation of technology and the fetus’ problem that it can’t support itself without my body, but I do understand you don’t see it that way.

[Oreo]

*Originally posted by B. Gardner *
**Oh boy, I sooo look forward to the day when we issue “conception certificates,” and every miscarriage reults in a murder investigation, and the government controls every aspect of reproduction. What a happy day that will be. **

What a fantastic and well thought-out argument. Yep, you really got me there.

:rolleyes:

[sub]Thanks, SoccerDuck![/sub]

[Essured]

*Originally posted by Gaudere *
**[Moderator Hat ON]

I don’t care about your motives or whatever visuals you had, Goo. DON"T POST PERSONAL INSULTS IN GREAT DEBATES.
[Moderator Hat OFF]

**

Apologies to the mods and all posters/lurkers for my behaviour. I realise I got personal and petty, which is not what GD is for. I am sorry for lowering the tone of this argument, while others were truly trying to have an intelligent debate. I will withdraw from this debate.

[B.Gardner]

Oreo,

Yes, the ultimate consequences of having your “beliefs” legislated into law aren’t very pretty.

You don’t like abortion? Don’t get one. For the majority of the people on this planet it is common sense that a clump of cells is not the moral equal of a living, breathing, conscious human being.