ok it was 2 questions, but they combined into one
yes it is, but anti abortion people have compasion and see that it is unfair for a woman to have to suffer through pregnancy and childbirth for something she didn’t do (in the case of rape) and that gets the better of them.
As for labels, how about “pro-legalization” (I’ll call it “PL”) and “pro-criminalization”(I’ll call that “PC”).
The crux of the matter is not “is abortion good or bad” but "should we punish women for having an abortion and doctors for performing it. With the matter described this way, I am staunchly pro-legalization.
I doubt you’ll find a PL advocate anywhere who thinks abortion is just nifty and we should all have one. I believe that whatever circumstances drive a woman to consider abortion as a viable alternative are too complex and too subjective for an outside party to have final say. Furthermore, I believe abortion will always be with us - legally or otherwise - until we solve some very basic problems that stem from human nature and human biology.
We could have, if we wanted to, have stopped the need for elective (as opposed to therapeutic) abortion years ago. We have capability to figure out a permanent, reversible form of birth control for both sexes. We have the capability to educate everyone about sex and its consequences. We have the capability to provide birth control to everyone.
If I have an argument against pro-criminalization advocates, it’s an offshoot of the argument already posted. I don’t expect a PCer to shelter, feed, and counsel every woman with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. I do expect them to support measures that would reduce the perceived need for elective abortions - comprehensive sex education in school, research into new, more effective forms of birth control, subsidizing of birth control. I see so few who do that I feel like most PCers really are only interested in denying a woman’s right to control her body and future.
I’m not a starry-eyed romantic. I understand that ensuring abortions are legally available means that some women will make choices that make my skin crawl. However, I believe that criminalizing abortion will never, ever, fix things.
Criminalization is a simplistic answer to a complex question, an easy way out of a hard problem, and because of that, I am filled with suspicion for it.
katie:
Two quotes that may shed some light–or maybe not:
- Any woman has “a parental duty to administer to the needs of a human being conceived through her voluntary intercourse.” But–“The raped woman, on the other hand, does not voluntarily participate in the act producing a new human being. Consequently, she has no parental duty prior to the child’s birth.” – pro-life philosopher Susan Nicholson
IOW, intent matters…if you voluntarily do something that COULD produce new life, you’re obligated to that new life…but if you didn’t make that choice yourself, then that lack of intent trumps the created life.
- “If it is a terrible thing to play God by terminating physical life [and according to the source it is], it is also a terrible thing, in another sense, to play God by imposing as a divine absolute a prohibition that may cause immense suffering both to individuals and society.” --sorry, mislaid the source, but it’s another pro-life ethicist. That is, sometimes there are just plain no good answers. Pick your poison.
Philosophers like to split hairs this way. Allowing exceptions for rape and incest is only an inconsistent position if you start from the assumption that abortion either IS or IS NOT murder and is always one or the other. It’s more consistent if you start from the assumption that things are murky and that a decision about the ethics could go either way, depending on the circumstances. In fact, as a society we see most issues this way: murder is o-u-t out, except in self-defense and in wartime and maybe when society puts especially vicious criminals to death…
Hope these help clarify
If that question is ever adequately resolved, of course, abortion rights will take a definite and permanent path. Of course, it has to be one way or the other, either the thing is a human life or it isn’t. Until Schrodinger’s Cat meets Pro-Life Baby (even though pregnant women aren’t supposed to be around cats 
) I think the politics of abortion will stay pro-choice.
I agree the death penalty issue is moot, though amusing to consider on the surface. “We want to kill him when we’re good and ready!” The truth is they are totally different topics.
Defining life to be present when we can support it will drive abortion time back, eventually, to the point where by the time a vaccuum abortion (evacuation?) can be performed the damn thing can be nurtured to health in the hospitol and given up for adoption. I am much more willing to pay for abortion funding than adoption agencies and state homes, though I’d rather pay for neither.
Aynrandlover said “That isn’t to say that post-abortion we weren’t a little shaken up emotionally about the affair. But it is to say that it doesn’t feel like murder…it feels like failing a test. You could have done better.” This is an intriguing quote to me… can you explain it a little bit more? I mean, I’ve failed tests before, and it doesn’t shake me up emotionally. I do feel like I could have done better, but I’m not sure what that has to do with abortion. How could you have done better? Gone through with the pregnancy? Why didn’t you? I don’t mean to pry, so feel free to ignore at will; it’s just an odd (IMO) statement, no offense.
Sort of related to that are some questions I’ve never had fully explained about the pro-choice camp. An argument I often hear is that the embryo/fetus is just a part of the body, like a tumor. No one cries when they get a tumor removed (well, not from the emotional loss of the tumor, anyways), and yet abortion IS emotionally racking. Why, if it’s just some operation? If you’re attaching special significance to it, as evidenced by tears etc., then why is it difficult to see why pro-lifers attach the same special significance to it, just perhaps to a greater extreme? Also, why should the so-called “partial birth” abortion be seen as “more heinous” than a run-of-the-mill abortion? Either it’s a life, and you’re ending it, or it’s not, and there’s no big deal. Can someone explain to me the middle ground? A final related question is: why do pro-choicers always say, “I’m in favor of a right to choose, but you shouldn’t use abortion as birth control.” Why the hell not? Again, it’s the same dilemma… either it’s a big deal, in which case yeah, 6 abortions are worse than 1, or it’s no big deal, in which case, 6 abortions, 15 abortions, who cares, as long as it’s the woman’s choice?
I guess my area of confusion is that I see pro-choicers taking some sort of middle ground: abortion is morally fine, but at the same time it’s not. I don’t see that there’s a middle ground. Can someone explain this to me?
Thanks,
Q
They doubtlessly are motivated by compassion. However, should this compassion entail taking a human life? Should the unborn child be killed, simply because it would reduce the mother’s suffering?
First of all, why should that be the crux of the matter? After all, if abortion is morally desirable or morally neutral, then it clearly SHOULD be legal. Alternately, if abortion is murder, then that’s a good argument for outlawing it.
Second, de-legalizing abortion does not mean automatically imply that women would be punished for having one. Back when abortion was illegal in the USA, there were few (if any!) situations wherein the woman was prosecuted. Furthermore, I don’t know of any pro-life organizations which demand that the mother be punished. By and large, they view the abortionist as the criminal, and they consider the women to be victims in difficult situations.
(Remember that even in “traditional” murder cases, the courts draw distinctions based on the severity of the crime. That’s why there’s a difference between outright homicide and mere “wrongful death,” for which little or no penalty may be prescribed.)
I think it’s because the manner in which the murder is conducted has some bearing on its heinousness. For example, we’d all agree that it’s murderous to push someone off a cliff. However, I think most people would also agree that it’s more appalling to cut out someone’s still-beating heart and crush it to a pulp.
Both are murder, but by traditional standards, the latter is considered to be more reprehensible.
Having said that, I agree that some perspective is in order. If the unborn child is a human being, then partial-birth abortion IS murder, but so are traditional abortions.
quixotic: *A final related question is: why do pro-choicers always say, “I’m in favor of a right to choose, but you shouldn’t use abortion as birth control.” Why the hell not? Again, it’s the same dilemma… either it’s a big deal, in which case yeah, 6 abortions are worse than 1, or it’s no big deal, in which case, 6 abortions, 15 abortions, who cares, as long as it’s the woman’s choice? *
I think you’re being a bit too simplistic here. There are plenty of things that aren’t particularly good or desirable in themselves, and which we don’t like to see people heavily relying on, that we nonetheless don’t dispute their basic right to do if they feel it necessary.
Example: divorce, which entails breaking up a marriage and washing out solemn wedding vows and generally a lot of hurt feelings and trauma. Should divorce be outlawed? Most people would say no. Does that mean that going blithely through life discarding spouse after spouse in a cycle of failed marriage and knee-jerk divorce is a good thing to do? Again, most of us wouldn’t draw that conclusion.
Example: bankruptcy, which entails reneging on your legally incurred financial obligations, damaging your credit, and causing other people to lose money. Should bankruptcy be outlawed? I don’t think you’d hear a lot of support for that, either. But does that make it right to lead a financially irresponsible life and trust to bankruptcy court to avoid the worst of the consequences? No.
Similarly for abortion. Most people who don’t agree that abortion is murder nonetheless don’t see it as “morally desirable” or even “morally neutral.” (Most people don’t think of divorce or bankruptcy as really morally desirable or even morally neutral either, though they acknowledge all the extenuating circumstances that can make someone fail at marriage or at financial security.) They don’t think abortion should be outlawed—plenty of things that are not morally desirable still have to remain legal, and people have the right to choose them. But that doesn’t mean that pro-legalization folks have to regard abortion as a good or painless thing, and they certainly don’t have to refrain from disapproving of somebody who doesn’t bother to take any precautions to try to avoid the necessity of facing that choice.
quixotic78, I don’t mind explaining, though I don’t know that I am entirely representative of pro-choicers.
It is, basically, just a lump of flesh. But its a lump of flesh that could have been a baby(and no one give me the semen argument, for god’s sake). This means, at the abortion stage, we reached a critical point: do we or do we not have a baby? Normally, it is something to discuss and emotional enough, but action needs to be performed. In this instance, the action is performed, and then what? No matter what the rationale for the abortion, afterward it is always, “I could have had a baby.” That’s just tough. I still talk to her (though we are no longer together, another interesting point for pro-lifers: the two couples I’ve known to have one are no longer together) and we still think about it from time to time, but never regrets. Just what-if’s.
As well, it is disturbing (from my male view, anyway) to see the pain involved. After getting an abortion, the female is in bad shape. I mean, they basically just ripped out the uterine wall. I was the ultimate servant that weekend, let me tell you.
Anyway, I also have to agree that in theory abortion might as well be birth control, but I pity the reproductive organs of that female. But for once Kimstu and I agree on something practical: first time, well; second time, wear a fucking condom.
The issue shouldn’t even be abortion anymore. It’s a moral choice, not a legal one. It is a choice that the government does not, and should not have the right to make (unless of course Dubya manages to cheat his way into the White House). If the government manages to force itself into people’s lives so much, I know exactly what will happen. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortions will be driven underground. Just as many people will have them, but instead of being preformed by doctors under safe conditions, they will be done by butchers with coathangers in sleazy basements, and far more lives will be lost that way. Not only the lives of the children who aren’t even children yet, but also the lives of the mothers.
Those are good analogies, but I think they miss one thing. And, naturally, I failed to mention it in my other post, so it’s not like you screwed up–those were good analogies regardless. But when I talk to (granted, the few I’ve discussed this issue with) pro-choicers, they’re OUTRAGED that a woman would have 6 abortions. I could understand how one could say, “Wow, so-and-so really needs to look into the latest developments in latex,” but that’s not the reaction. The reaction is fundamentally, “What you’re doing is WRONG–not inadvisable, but wrong.” When I look at that viewpoint, it doesn’t seem consistent with their opinion that abortions, while not the ideal solution, are morally OK. Am I still missing something, or are these people really hypocrites? Have other people had the same experience?
Aynrandlover–Thanks for the honest response. It’s hard for me to imagine (I’m sure as hell not judging you) not feeling regrets, but that’s just my opinion. I don’t know if it’s proper to offer my condolences, but if you want them, they’re heartfelt.
Q
I’ve gotten in trouble for putting words in Kimstu’s mouth before, but as for me…they’re hypocrits 100%. Either an action is good or bad, but it certianly isn’t the quantity of actions that determine it. Ugh. The people I side with
quixotic: But when I talk to (granted, the few I’ve discussed this issue with) pro-choicers, they’re OUTRAGED that a woman would have 6 abortions. I could understand how one could say, “Wow, so-and-so really needs to look into the latest developments in latex,” but that’s not the reaction. The reaction is fundamentally, “What you’re doing is WRONG–not inadvisable, but wrong.” When I look at that viewpoint, it doesn’t seem consistent with their opinion that abortions, while not the ideal solution, are morally OK.
Well, I don’t know your pro-choice friends, so I couldn’t swear that they’re not hypocrites. But that reaction doesn’t seem to me all that different from how some people seem to feel about selfish, casual attitudes toward divorce, say. (Two words: Donald Trump. There now, didn’t you get a moral revulsion reflex? :)) That doesn’t mean that such people secretly believe that divorce ought not to be allowed. They just hate to see a seriously problematic solution to a very painful dilemma lightheartedly treated as an “easy out”.
Another factor may be that pro-choice advocates are worried about the negative impression made by such a casual response. We spend time and effort trying to persuade people that the right to have an abortion doesn’t imply that we like abortions or just want to be selfish and irresponsible. And along comes a selfish and irresponsible person who provides perfect propaganda fodder for the subset of opponents who have no interest in listening to or understanding our views, but are simply out to make us look as bad as possible. Grrr! Thanks for your service to our cause, sister! Here we are fighting for a very important right that you thoughtlessly take advantage of because you can’t be bothered to plan ahead. Yes, it’s still your right to have as many abortions as you choose, but believe me, if rights were handed out only to those who deserved them you wouldn’t get this one.
I daresay that it’s far more than “just a lump of flesh.” Check out http://www.unborn.com for high-quality real-time ultrasound images of what the unborn child REALLY is like, even at early stages of development. (I especially liked the footage of a ten-week-old fetus. Amazing!)
After just three weeks – long before most mothers know they’re pregnant – the embryo already has a beating heart and an circulatory system. At four weeks, the arms, legs, ears and eyes become noticeable. After five weeks, the unborn child has five distinct fingers. After six weeks, its liver starts to produce red blood corpuscles and its muscles start to move.
After seven weeks, the jawbone and teeth buds begin to form. At eight weeks, its stomach starts to produce digestive juices and the kidneys start to function. At week nine, fingerprints become developed and the fetus learns how to curve its fingers around objects placed in its palm. And so forth…
Just a blob of tissue? No way. In fact, that argument is seldom used by the more sophisticated pro-choice apologists nowadays. It’s a rather difficult one to defend, thanks to the preponderance of fetal photographs and real-time ultrasound footage available nowadays.
kim…
What a delightfully detatched argument.
Sure divorce = usually a bad thing
Bankruptcy = usually a bad thing
I think for example you should try to pay off your debts or make a marriage work. But, hey if you don’t, at least you can be certain your not killing anybody. With abortion you can’t be certain.
Here is an argument parallel to your perpendicular thought process:
I have to pee really bad, there is no bathroom. Do I wait and maybe pee my pants (which is really inconvenient for me). Or do I pee on the side of a building, or on a tree in the park. (Applies to Men Only as Abortion applies to women only) Well there going outside may be somewhat morally undesirable. Nontheless I have dry pants. Therefore women should be free to choice abortion?
Don’t mean to sway the thread, but perhaps we could discuss the following…
Under the current liberation for abortion choice… Women who are having babies on purpose can be the losers. If a pregnant woman is physically abused or attacked and loses her “baby” as a result; she can not get a murder conviction.
Now, if she chooses to believe that this fetus is a baby, a person. She cannot get justice because the courts will not consider it. This makes the pro-choice argument seem narrow in that we won’t respect a womans belief that that fetus is her child.
I KNOW, that the pro-abortion choice people will now scream about incrementalism… but isn’t this a valid concern?
IMHO
Any anti-abortion person who believes that full human life begins at conception and has sacred respect for human life MUST come to the realization that rape can NOT be a reason for abortion. There is no reason to kill one victom of a crime (the baby) to ‘help’ the other (mother)- I would suggest going after the criminal instead.
I think many havn’t put the needed thought into this and therefore seem (and are) inconsistant
Yes k2dave,
I agree with that argument entirely. i think many haven’t put the needed thought through. Others however don’t want their side to seem to lack compassion. I for one believe when someone commits a crime against someone else, there are unfortunate results. I think it better to live through them than to sacrafice a life. However, Pro-lifers are willing to take this compassionate approach, again for the sake of incrementalism. That is “let’s get people to agree that abortion as a result of consensual sex is wrong first”. After all that would stop many if not most abortions