I’d have to go with “neither” - sorry, Sisters, but as much as I believe in freedom of choice, I’m just too much aganst the DP to let it continue if the choice were in my hands.
But I’d work to make pre- and post-natal care, daycare, education and contraception freely available to all to make up for it.
I expect the women forced to bear children against their will in places where it’s illegal care. Or those who died from unsafe abortions, or because they weren’t allowed to get an abortion. Or pregnant women who suffered or died because the available hospital refused to help them out of fear of being accused of abortion if she miscarried. And so on.
Abortion is a major issue that affects millions, not the trivial thing you obviously think it is.
Yes, very much so. I got pregnant in a time and place where I could not obtain a legal abortion, so I was forced to bear a child. I am very strongly prochoice. I was prochoice even before that happened, but afterwards…
And to all of the people who haven’t read this before, that particular pregnancy was the result of both the contraceptive foam AND the condom failing at the same time. Yes, I know the odds are astronomical. But it happens now and then.
I’m curious, and I don’t want this to sound snarky or disrespectful. How old is your child? Does he know the circumstances you describe? What’s his perspective on this situation in particular and abortion rights in general? (Assuming he knows about what you would have preferred.)
Ah, but something I should bring to your attention is that a significant amount (if not a majority) of crime in the U.S. is committed by people under age 30 (I’m looking for relevant stats) and this cohort represents your primary breeding stock. You’d be killing Americans just before they made new Americans, birth rates would plunge, the population would become increasingly geriatric and I figure within my lifetime, the U.S. could easily cease to exist.
Now, if some politician was declaring that gun-toting seniors were the problem and you should execute without trial anyone over sixty who was suspected of a crime, the demographic impact would be greatly reduced.
Two, and I think that will eventually be the state of most modern societies. Abortion is a moral aberration in the progression of society. The death penalty is a throw back to more ancient and more brutal times. As a life long Catholic I find both morally repugnant and the justifications for both wholly uncompelling.
I bet they would care a whole lot if they had been forced to have those babies they chose not to carry to term.
As much as I despise the death penalty (and I have no love for abortions either), I would take both over neither.
I can’t quite reconcile “Catholic” and “modern society”, myself, but no matter.
#1
The Catholic church has shown more ability to modernize than any other major branch of Christianity. Evolution has been taught in Catholic High Schools since before I was in diapers.
Fine, then I can’t reconcile “Christian” with “modern society”. And if you object to that, it’ll be “religion” and “modern society”.
Fact is, a number of nations we consider to have some degree of “modern society” (i.e. the so-called 'post-industrial" nations) do in fact allow abortion. What are the exceptions? Ireland? Similarly, most of the nations have dispensed with the death penalty, with the major exceptions being the U.S. and Japan. If there’s a “modern society” that has dispensed with abortion and the death penalty, or one that is headed in that direction, please point it out to us. So far, I can only think of Ireland, again, and I’m not aware that they represent a particularly shining example of modern society.
Christians are by and large responsible for modern society. Read about Faraday some day, he probably more than any other single man is responsible for our modern technologies.
Essentially technology says we’ll eventually view all embryos as viable lifeforms and I think given the trend to anthropomorphize everything, that will eventually (probably long after we’re all dead) lead to abortion being illegal. We’ll instead probably see women having the option to have the embryo “removed” but not killed.
In ages past abortion was detested because man in the simpler times viewed all pregnancies as being a woman “with child”, they didn’t understand the relatively primative state of the fetus in early development. Additionally, women and the children they birthed were seen as property of the male partner, and it would have been unthinkable for a woman to deny a husband a child. In large part the birthing of children was one of the primary reasons for a woman’s existence in society.
We moved away from that sort of society and also came to understand that early stage fetuses don’t really look very cute and cuddly. We also developed very safe methods to kill them off without it being hugely dangerous to the woman.
However eventually I see this trend going the other way. It was unthinkable that a large portion of society would genuinely claim it is morally wrong to eat animal flesh because of the rights of the animal. Now you have a growing segment of the population that believes animals are essentially to be treated as “persons.”
In the history of law I think you’ll find that everything moves towards a state of being a piece of property or a person. Initially slaves were pieces of property, and that meant the slaveholder had property rights over the slave that the state could not infringe upon. Women were pieces of property, children were pieces of property.
Eventually most people agreed that if you were a member of the human species you shouldn’t be regarded as a piece of property, but as a human being with equal rights. (When I say most people I mean the first world, as that certainly isn’t a prevalent opinion in the developing world by any means.) However we’ve increasingly seen this same movement with things outside the definition of “human.” Cows aren’t human, period. No one can argue against that, but people do argue they should be treated as persons under the law.
Right now it is more mainstream (at least amongst the left) to view fetuses not as a person but essentially as property. However if we can anthropomorphize a cow or chickens (species that exist in large number almost solely because humans like eating them) then I don’t doubt that people of the same mindset as those who are part of PETA today will eventually oppose abortion. Right now opponents of abortion are primarily religious and/or reactionaries. But eventually, once the abortion debate is mostly divorced from that (as religion becomes less and less relevant and as those of us who lived in this era die) the Martin Sheens of tomorrow will empathize witht he clumps of cells that today are so easily discarded.
So essentially I don’t think my religious morality will be why abortion is eventually turned against, but rather the leftist anthropomorphizing trend is what will bring about this change.
Christians, sure. Christianity… no. Faraday didn’t make his breakthroughs by asking Jesus for clues, after all.
If we’re going to speculate on future tech, I figure we’ll see some sort of one-pill’s-good-for-a-year birth control or a 100% effective morning-after pill sooner than an artificial womb, but no matter. Your idea depends on humans putting anthropomorphism over reason and self-interest, which I find about as unlikely as PETA gaining political power and outlawing meat-eating.
You have a very rosy view of how abortion was viewed in the past. Abortion has been practiced with various degrees of acceptance and safety for thousands of years, and in some ancient societies it was acceptable to leave an inconvenient newborn outside to die of exposure, a post-natal abortion, as it were.
And if PETA gains power, maybe your vision will come to pass, but I doubt it.
But outlawing abortion turns women into property, or at least indentured servants on a finite contract, and this represents quite a severe regression over what most western societies have now. I’m going to assume the artificial womb is too speculative to be useful at this time. When such a device gets invented, I anticipate a significant social effect, but not before.
Anyway, the rest of your argument seems to be about whether or not fetuses are persons, while ignoring women who are indeed persons. I personally don’t care if you or anyone (including Martin Sheen, whose invocation in this argument baffles me) calls a fetus a person or a nonperson, my position relies solely on protecting the rights of the woman.
I don’t see why abortion will inevitably be turned against at all, barring a radical changes in society:
[ul][li]Religious fundamentalists take over, as in The Handmaid’s Tale;[/li][li]We have technology sufficiently advanced that the human society of the future is even further removed from us than we are from any past human society on record; [/li][li]Everybody in society gets simultaneously hit in the head and wakes up with a dramatically altered viewpoint, or[/li][li]Aliens show up with their mind-control beams and… well, the rest of the items continue dropping off steadily in likelihood.[/ul][/li]
Being pregnant is a pretty basic condition, I trust we can agree. Being pregnant when you don’t want to be pregnant is only very slightly less basic. Speculating a time when abortion will be universally unthinkable is pretty close to speculating on a time when eating will be universally unthinkable.
Heck, does PETA even have a public stance on human abortion? I realize it may be comforting to assume everyone left of you is either a PETA supporter or will inevitably become one (similarly, it may be comforting for someone to assume that everyone to the right is either a fascist or will inevitably become one) but it doesn’t lend itself to sound reasoning.
This is a joke, right? You might want to read up on the history of abortion, especially pre-Roe v. Wade. Not to mention on illegal abortions. While I said the fear of wrongful executions was more important to me, I still find the idea of outlawing abortion terrifying.
I can’t believe that – I would imagine if Roe were to be overturned, you’d have some MAJOR riots throughout the nation. SOMEDAY, we might find a way to make abortion unnecessary, but until then, there’s no way I see it being outlawed.
What disturbs me more is the lack of birth control and sex education in our society - THAT is a “moral aberration”. If we want reduce the number of abortions in our society, we need to get over the so-called “abstinence education”, and how actually EDUCATING kids about sex will make them go out and do it. Because they already are – only without knowing anything about birth control or diseases.
By overcoming or ignoring their Christianity ( to the extent that the people responsible for progress really were Christian in the first place and not lying out of fear ). Much of the history of human progress and especially social progress is one of overcoming Christianity and other religions; regardless of whether the people doing so were Christians themselves.
No; it is recognizing that women are people and a fetus is not.
And what of the “leftist trend” of regarding personhood as being more important than meat? Such as allowing brain dead people to be dismembered for their organs, or just for their life support to be turned off.
A society with the attitude you describe is a society that doesn’t value people; its a society that equates humans with meat. Defining human life as meat that isn’t dead yet is a right wing not a left wing position.
From where I’m standing the most progressive societies with the happiest, healthiest, wealthiest citizens (both male and female) are those with access to abortion as well as a wide range of reproductive care and education while those that ban abortion are stuck in the dark ages.
Ask anyone who works with developing nations what is key to ending poverty and they will tell you time and time again that it’s women, including educating them about reproduction and ensuring they can choose when and how they want to give birth. Without this right, they are stuck in roles as subhuman brood mares from puberty onwards, bound to their children and families who only get poorer with each unwanted child.
I am anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, which wasn’t an option, so I choose “neither” also.
Well depends. They have been more accepting of evolution then the fundamentalists but then again most fundamentalist Christians support using birth control among married couples.
Not simply “more accepting”, as in, “Well, it’s not really such a sin to believe in evolution,” if that’s what you’re saying. More or less, evolution is pretty much accepted as fact by the Church – Biblical literalism isn’t a tenet of Catholicism. (Catholic schools teach evolution, for example) It’s the soul that’s considered important, mostly, not how man himself was created. (According to the church)
And as for birth control in fundamentalist churches, think again.
The whole abortion/pro-life argument is a huge straw dog to me. I am interested in protecting innocence. This includes the innocent helpless viable unborn. It also includes potential innocent victims of already established murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Medium to late term abortionists, unless it actually, really, truly affects the life of the mother, should be jailed.
Protection of life for its own sake has nothing to do with it.