abortion rights, womens rights?

[Strassia]

@1010011010

Inside square brackets type QUOTE=1010011010In cases of hospice care, yes. In cases of brain injury, no. Using the same QOL terminology in the case of brain injury is a nice way of avoiding “Your husband isn’t really a person anymore and never will be again. Let it die.”

Though QOL also plays into the abortion question, too, in terms of growing up in foster care, not having the means to adequately support a child, etc.Not everyone has the same opinion on “fetus’s rights”, for that matter.

Of course, if we all agreed on what rights a fetus has and when it has them, the debate would be over.

Only the birth control eliminates a reason for abortion. The second technology only offers another option besides it. Someone might find the “fetus on ice” scenario more repugnant than abortion.

The ability to safely transfer an embryo or fetus helps eliminate health related abortions(e.g. if the mother develops severe gestational diabetes). The baby on ice may or may not be repugnant(invitro fertilization was once considered unnatural), but there are women who want to have children, but for some reason (job loss, family crisis) do not want it right now. I have personally known women who did not regret delaying having a child via abortion, but did feel sad about that potential child.

There are also myriad other reasons women choose to have abortions that are relatively minor compared to the simple fact of being kept pregnant against your will. “I don’t want that guy to breed with me.”, “I don’t want my offspring to grow up in foster care.”, “I don’t want to make someone else care for my child.” and so on. While your solution may answer the “I don’t want to be pregnant.” concern, it doesn’t address “I don’t want to reproduce.” That’s a particularly hairy issue, because males have a valid cut on that one, too.

That is the point of the perfect positive birth control. If both man and women must take a positive step (like going to a doctor to have an implant disabled) before a pregnancy is possible, no one will become a parent unless they want to. To me that only leaves the case of someone wanting to get pregnant and then changing their minds.

Do I think this will eliminate all abortions? No, but it would eliminate the reasons for the vast majority of them. If the majority of the population can get beyond the all or nothing mentality that defines this debate, maybe we can work towards goals of eliminating unwanted pregnancies before they occur and offering women a wider choice of options. That would achieve both goals of more choice and fewer abortions.

We certainly will say “Whoa, lady,you can’t do that!” but I wouldn’t agree it’s without qualms. Look into the history of infanticide. It’s something of a dirty secret, legally and medically. A mother killing her own child has often been treated differently, sometimes explicitly in the legal code often just in practice. The Puritans apparently had ways parents could get “stubborn” children sentenced to death, for one extreme example. Some people point to trends in SIDS data and question whether it’s a polite cover for infanticide in some cases because our current legal systems don’t recognize it as different from other types of homicide.

And all that is a very western, scarcity of life, equality of the sexes type conversation. Gender motivated infanticide has been present in parts of India and China for centuries. Whether gender motivated abortion is an improvement is a potentially interesting question. Routine ultrasound usually can’t identify the sex of a fetus earlier than 18 weeks (sometimes as late as 26). Wonder how that factors in to “late term abortion” statistics?

I would prefer not to go down the moral relativist path. You can’t point out that rights of personhood for fetuses and infants are western construction without also allow that reproductive rights for women have varied across time and culture as well. It really shouldn’t matter to our debate if the Carthagians threw children into a fire in the belly of their god statue or if Kuwaiti women are not allowed out in public.

Jonathan

[1010011010]

I have no particular issues to discuss regarding the rest of your post.

@Strassia

I would prefer not to go down the moral relativist path. You can’t point out that rights of personhood for fetuses and infants are western construction without also allow that reproductive rights for women have varied across time and culture as well. It really shouldn’t matter to our debate if the Carthagians threw children into a fire in the belly of their god statue or if Kuwaiti women are not allowed out in public.

It’s all made up constructions, the conceit of moral relativism is the idea that any construction is as valid as the next. I don’t agree with that. Some systems of the world simply do not work and can be deemed, objectively, “bad”. Or rather “worse” than other systems that do seem to function usefully and sustainably in the real world.

In that sense, the ways in which various cultures have differentiated between infanticide and other types of homicide is useful data. The fact that it comes up treated in a consistent way tells us something about how the real world works.

But that’s a whole 'nother thread.

[Thee_Erin]

“Does a woman have a right to control her own body? As a general proposition, sure. The question is whether that right trumps all other rights, including those of her unborn child. You think it does. You need to understand how foolishly radical that view is.”

My rights most certainly DO trump the “rights” of an “unborn child.”

There is no middle-ground Cecil.

[rwjefferson]

@Cecil

3. We may then say that, personhood having been acquired, the child is entitled to our protection. One accepts that abortion in such cases may be necessary when the mother’s life is in peril, but it doesn’t seem to me it can be justified (as some would have it) merely because the child is a product of rape or incest or is defective. These things weren’t the mom’s fault, and may impose some hardship on her, but they weren’t the kid’s fault either, and he’s one of us.

@Thee_Erin

“Does a woman have a right to control her own body? As a general proposition, sure. The question is whether that right trumps all other rights, including those of her unborn child. You think it does. You need to understand how foolishly radical that view is.”
My rights most certainly DO trump the “rights” of an “unborn child.”
There is no middle-ground Cecil.

Cecil and what made Straight Dope great is dead. The new Cecil seems to have lost his moral compass.
Alas it seems ignorance has won yet another battle.

No one has the right to take or use another’s body without permission. Not even a fetus or embryo of blastocyst.

There is no middle ground.

Long live the old Cecil and his fight against ignorance. May he rest in peace.

ItS
Peace
rwj

[HoboStew]

@rwjefferson

No one has the right to take or use another’s body without permission. Not even a fetus or embryo of blastocyst.

There is no middle ground.

No need for the melodrama. We are trying to resolve one of the larger disputes in modern history. You claim no one has the right to use another’s body without permission, others feel an unborn child needs to be considered. It will help everyone in this debate to accept that this is a complex issue, and statements like “There is no middle ground” are counterproductive.

[gprimos1]

The argument about abortion seems to go around in circles, because it seems that there are two fundamental issues being discussed here that people are using interchangeably.

1. Assuming that at some point a fetus is a full legal human being, does a woman have the right at that point to remove it from her womb before birth even if that kills it?

If the answer is yes, there is not much to discuss. I suspect most pro-choice folk would fall under this point. If the answer is no, it leads to the next question below.

2. At what point can a fetus be considered to be human (at least with respect to murder/notmurder)?

This is the question that Cecil tried to answer. There obviously uncertainty at what point this occurs. Cecil’s choice of brainwaves was an attempt to a provide a lower bound where most people would agree that before that before that point there is no “human”. An upper bound that most people might make is would be third trimester, given all the political attention on partial birth abortion. One thing to keep in mind with is that although the method Cecil provides is “scientific” there is still no absolute certainty as to his claim of no “human” before that point, rather that it is only pretty unlikely. It is this lack of certainty that makes the choice of it unlikely to satisfy religious objectors. They might say, why take the risk?

Going back to point 1):
Even if RvW is preserved however, I would like to caution feminists about celebrating too much. Would you go so far to support the women’s right to an abortion even if it was for purposes of sex selection (ie: abort girls only)? If a test could be developed with high degree of certainty to determine if a child was gay or lesbian, would it be ok to abort then? My point with these two questions is to hint that abortion might just as easily be used to oppress women as to liberate them.

Although I feel a lot of sympathy for the pro-choice position, I would prefer that abortions would be illegal (except in health, etc). However, that that would result in painful divisions in society, so a drawing the line would be a better consensus position. I appreciate what Cecil tried to do in coming to some compromise, but this column is really not the place for it. I enjoy his column and I hope he stays clear of political issues in the future so he can keep on publishing.

[1010011010]

@HoboStew

You claim no one has the right to use another’s body without permission, others feel an unborn child needs to be considered.

Go look a the hypothetical examples of what sort of woman seeks an abortion. Is it a fornicating young woman mainly concerned about how pregnancy will interfere with her carefree lifestyle? How dare she think she should be able to evade the consequences of her poor choices. At the very least she could give it up for adoption. How selfish.

Why isn’t the example ever a mother of two whose husband has been laid-off unexpectedly, making it impossible for them to afford a new baby? Harder to build up a head of steam about that woman having an elective abortion… it’s not really her fault. Adoption isn’t so easy either… how will her other two children take it? How will her husband react? Can she get a job while pregnant? How are they going to pay the medical bills for the birth?

A fetus doesn’t deserve death because its father was a rapist. The whole idea of anti-choice is that women deserve to “face the consequences” of their immoral behaviour. Concessions in the case of rape or incest are considered reasonable because it doesn’t fit to punish the woman for getting pregnant. There’s a reason why areas that assert the most consideration for an unborn child tend to show the least consideration for the same child once born. Lack of social support continues the rationale of punishing the immoral and reforming them by making them work. Calling it “pro-life” is misdirection.

[HoboStew]

Fair enough. Why exactly was this directed at me?

[1010011010]

@HoboStew

Fair enough. Why exactly was this directed at me?

Your comment got me thinking about the idea that the anti-abortion rhetoric is primarily motivated by heartfelt consideration for an unborn child.

It’s not melodramatic to say there can be no middle ground when the goal of one side is to render the other subservient.

[M.Anthony]

@1010011010

The whole idea of anti-choice is that women deserve to “face the consequences” of their immoral behaviour.

Very respectfully, as someone who thinks abortion is an act of desparation, I can tell you that you misunderstand the thought process motivating abortion opponents. I’m not sure if you really believe what you wrote, but if you do, let me explain. I promise I’m not trying to trick you.

I’ve met a few anti-abortion activists, and know a good many people who strongly oppose it though they aren’t “activists.” Absolutely none of them have had the judgemental, masochistic attitude you described. None have been sanctimonious, bitter or angry. None of them have believed that the rights of a fetus ought to supersede the rights of the mother, or have used false compassion to cloak selfish, misogynistic motives. In fact the only sentiments I’ve seen them express regarding women who had abortions are sorrow and pity. They are quite sure of the humanity of both the mother and her unborn child, and therefore want both the rights of the mother and child to be respected equally. For the many people who doubt that a fetus is really a human person that seems crazy, but even if the abortion opponents are misguided fools I can tell you that their intentions are benevolent.

It’s impossible that there aren’t exceptions to what I just said, and I realize that. I’m not denying that inconsiderate, misguided or even flat-out bad people might self-identify as “pro-life,” but I’m just saying that, in my experience, I have yet to meet a “pro-life” person who behaved in an ugly or ungentle manner. (By the way, I agree with you that “pro-life” is too broad, like “pro-choice,” but I wouldn’t call it misdirection.)

I might also respectfully take exception to your “anti-choice” characterization. Nobody is anti-making-decisions here. If you hear someone shouting, “I hate freedom! I hate freedom!” then I suppose you could call them anti-choice. As it is, we can all agree there are some choices no one ought to ever make. Like, “I choose to strap a bomb-vest on and go to the office,” or, “I choose to give kids switchblades for halloween,” or, “I choose to pay attention to Paris Hilton.” The first two put others’ lives in danger and the third is self-destructive, like drinking poison. Those kinds of destructive things are never legitimate choices, so opposing them is not opposing the freedom of choice. If an abortion actually kills a person, as the abortion opponents contend, it would be wrong for the same reason as the other bad decisions above where one person willfully harms another. Even if they’re wrong, they’re not against all choices, just the one to have an abortion, so it’d be only accurate to call them anti-abortion. “Anti-choice,” in my humble opinion, just sounds angry and manipulative.

[Quepasa]

I can’t imagine forcing a woman to not abort a rapists baby. Would it be ethical to tie her to a bed so she couldn’t throw herself down the stairs? If a pregnant woman tried to commit suicide could the state prosecute her for attempted murder?

Being pregnant simply strikes me as a huge burden. I don’t think the government really should have much say in it. Even though, it’s pretty much infanticide/murder in the later stages.

In any case, we just elected the most pro choice president ever. It’ll be a while before the pro lifers get another chance.

[Irishman]

@Quepasa

I can’t imagine forcing a woman to not abort a rapists baby.

Is it okay to prevent her from terminating a rapist’s baby after it has been born? To me, the critical issue is not whether she was impregnated through rape, but at what point in the child development the termination is to take place.

Being pregnant simply strikes me as a huge burden. I don’t think the government really should have much say in it. Even though, it’s pretty much infanticide/murder in the later stages.

That last sentence is the key for some people. Of course I realize not everyone agrees.

[Thee_Erin]

**It is sickening to have learned that Cecil Adams is one of those people who assume his judgment of some hypothetical pregnancy scenario is more reliable than some woman’s judgment about her own, very real, life situation.

What he and his ilk fail to understand repeatedly is this: You are free to have any opinion on personhood etc., but if a pregnancy ain’t happening to you - to your own body - then you don’t get a say in what happens. Period.**

[SeanArenas]

@Thee_Erin

**It is sickening to have learned that Cecil Adams is one of those people who assume his judgment of some hypothetical pregnancy scenario is more reliable than some woman’s judgment about her own, very real, life situation.

What he and his ilk fail to understand repeatedly is this: You are free to have any opinion on personhood etc., but if a pregnancy ain’t happening to you - to your own body - then you don’t get a say in what happens. Period.**

I’m not trying to be contrary or disrespecting of female rights, I honestly want to know…

Why is it a decision only a woman can make? Or why is it that only women are allowed an opinion on this topic? Because they can think about what it might feel like to go through a pregnancy and give birth, should they become pregnant someday?

How about saying it’s a decision only a mother can make? When it comes down to it, a girl or woman who has never been pregnant or given birth probably doesn’t know a lot more about being pregnant or giving birth than a man does.

How about: only a mother who has successfully raised a child to a certain age.

Obviously, having a child grow inside you and giving birth are experiences only women can go through (although medical science is soon going to bridge this gap), but everything after that point is something the father does as well (with the possible exception of breast feeding).

There’s many types of circumstances that we can consider here of course, but just looking at the aspect of caring for the child after birth … If the father and mother are still together, then the father assumes some responsibility of caring for the child after birth. Their participation may take part in raising money, or raising the child, or some combination, but it’s not 100% the mother.

If they separate, and the mother knows who the father is, and if he’s able (and/or the law makes him) he will end up providing some of the finances for raising the child.

We’re not talking about rights and laws in particular circumstances here, but a catch-all, right?

If man and woman stay together, and the father will have to do 50% (give or take) of the raising of the child, why should he not have any say in it? Why shouldn’t he be able to vote on the topic?

What about when medicine allows men to have babies, do we re-vote at that time because now men can get pregnant, and might want the rights to abortion?

Many people are discussing things like the soul of the child, or the rights a woman has to her body - those sound like deeper or more important issues than providing for and raising the child after birth. But that doesn’t mean that those aren’t things to be considered, and the father is as … liable … for many of those aspects as the mother is.

I think for men to say it’s a decision only women can make is a cop out.

[SeanArenas]

Is it fair for a woman to say that a man has no say-so in whether or not the baby is brought to term, and then legally require that the many pay child support and/or help raise the child?

What if she tricked the man into getting her pregnant (pin through condom, stops taking or using her own birth control, etc.), refuses to have an abortion, and then forces the man to pay/raise?

[outlierrn]

Thee Erin do you feel that a 36 week fetus that you can feel moving, that has human brainwaves and that, if born prematurely, would recognize your voice is still yours to abort?

If so, good luck with that, many pro-choicers will not agree to extend your rights that far.

If not, you and Cecil may be closer than you think

[1010011010]

@SeanArenas

Is it fair for a woman to say that a man has no say-so in whether or not the baby is brought to term, and then legally require that the many pay child support and/or help raise the child?

Does a woman’s responsibility to a child end at birth, or will she also be paying to support and/or help raise the child?

Prior to birth, it’s entirely the responsibility of the woman, which is why only she has the right to choose.

@SeanArenas

What if she tricked the man into getting her pregnant (pin through condom, stops taking or using her own birth control, etc.), refuses to have an abortion, and then forces the man to pay/raise?

Any apparent unfairness, inequality, and/or abuse in the child welfare policies is a separate issue.

It’s an interesting issue, suitable for it’s own thread.

[1010011010]

@outlierrn

Thee Erin do you feel that a 36 week fetus that you can feel moving, that has human brainwaves and that, if born prematurely, would recognize your voice is still yours to abort?

You’re a mother of two. Your husband has just been laid-off unexpectedly. You’re pretty sure you can manage to feed your existing children until your husband gets a job, but it’ll be close. How are you going to afford the medical bills from the birth?

It’s not all selfish fornicating college girls seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and avoid the consequences of their sinful lifestyle. Sometimes, most times probably, its the best choice of a set of undesirable options- a dilemma. What makes one terrible option better or worse than another is too much a matter of intangibles for anyone outside the situation to think they have any right to second guess.

[outlierrn]

@1010011010

You’re a mother of two. Your husband has just been laid-off unexpectedly. You’re pretty sure you can manage to feed your existing children until your husband gets a job, but it’ll be close. How are you going to afford the medical bills from the birth?

It’s not all selfish fornicating college girls seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and avoid the consequences of their sinful lifestyle. Sometimes, most times probably, its the best choice of a set of undesirable options- a dilemma. What makes one terrible option better or worse than another is too much a matter of intangibles for anyone outside the situation to think they have any right to second guess.

Did you read my question, or just quote it? Cuz you sure didn’t answer it and nothing in your post relates to it.

[Zoe]

I think the number of abortions would be greatly reduced if the fathers voluntarily stayed closely involved in the pregnancy. Moreover, if fathers traditionally remained closely involved in the lives of their children – as fully involved as the mothers are – the number of abortions would drop like a rock.

I realize that this is not always the fault of the father, but primarily it is.