If a just-fertilized egg is a “person”, then that means 2 out of every 3 “people” die before they’re even a month old.
Because 2 out of every 3 fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterine wall, and are flushed out with the rest of the menses at the end of the cycle. And this is in a normal woman who’s not taking birth-control pills, morning-after pills, or anything like that.
scooby:
If my sister were to become pregnant, she would cause herself irreparable physical harm during the pregnancy, and possibly the delivery. She might choose to abort.
If my cousin were to become pregnant, she would be forced to go on welfare after quitting her job (not a job she could do pregnant, and she doesn’t qualify for FMLA). She might choose to abort.
And if one of my college friends gets pregnant, the fetus has a high likelihood of having muscular dystrophy. She might choose to abort.
Again, they might not be reasons you agree with. But you don’t have to agree with them.
scooby: You want a reason? I’ll give you a reason. Let me tell you a story.
My wife and I plan to have children. However, she’s currently finishing her PhD; if we were to start a family now, her degree (and career) would be back-burnered. We would rather bring a child into a family where both the mother and father have their life and career plans solidly in place, because it would be better for the kid. Therefore, for the time being, we use birth control to prevent conception.
Now: A while back, she was in an auto wreck, and broke her back. She wasn’t paralyzed; the fracture was in the wing of the vertebra, not the main body, so the spinal cord was not in danger. However, it was extraordinarily painful, and limited her movement. She tried physical therapy, cortisone shots, and all sorts of other treatments. Finally, we had to resort to surgery.
The surgical solution for this involves putting a titanium cage around the affected section of the spinal column to lock those vertebrae in place. (The operation is called “spinal fusion.”) First, the surgeons go into the back, removing bone fragments and such, and then screw the back half of the cage to the spine. Then they turn the body and enter through the belly, pushing all the internal organs aside to expose the spine from the front, so they can attach the other half of the cage.
The operation lasts for many hours, and recovery is extremely painful. My wife was in a wheelchair for weeks afterward, and still now, a couple of years later, has reduced flexibility in her lower back. It is not, by any means, a minor procedure.
Here’s the thing: About a month after the surgery, we discovered that the birth control had failed, and she was pregnant. Not only that, but she had been pregnant for between two and three months.
That’s right – she had been pregnant during surgery. The developing fetus was bombarded with x-rays as they were planning for the spinal work. It was filled with narcotics during and after the surgery. It was physically traumatized by the entry of the surgeon’s hands into my wife’s abdomen and the shifting of her organs.
We were heartbroken. We looked at the ultrasound that confirmed the pregnancy, and we cried and cried. Given what the fetus had been through, it would have been cruel and irresponsible to bring it to term; the odds were very high that it would be negatively affected, if it even survived. And moreover, my wife was in no physical shape to carry a child; the stress on her healing back, all the way through pregnancy and up to birth, would have been extremely dangerous.
We decided we had no choice but to terminate the pregnancy. It was a difficult, horrible decision. It was painful and deeply depressing. I still get bummed out thinking about it; this is not easy to write.
And if we had the opportunity to go back, knowing what we know now, knowing how emotionally devastating it was, we would make the exact same choice – because, really, there is no choice.
You wanted a reason? That’s a reason.
And the emotional trauma we suffered as a result, the pain we went through, is why I have nothing but a vehement, bitter, and angry “fuck you” response to all those people who believe they can dictate my morality and who would insert themselves into this painful, difficult, and entirely personal and private decision for their own selfish purposes. We have firsthand experience with it, we know exactly how painful it is, and we still support freedom of choice.
Any more questions?
You’re falling into the same trap as the OP did (albeit from the other side of the debate). Whether 9 months out of a woman’s life (and let us not forget that we aren’t just talking time here, we’re also talking the physical and emotional demands of pregnancy and labour) constitutes “a lot” isn’t the central issue in the pro-life/pro-choice debate. One’s opinion on the relative value of 9 months out of an existing person’s life vs the rights of a potential human being, is going to be very much influenced by one’s philosophical viewpoint regarding what constitutes “life” and “humanness” and whether those attributes should be afforded sanctity.
I guess that what myself and a lot of other pro-choice people find frustrating is that our position in no way seeks to limit or control the choices made by individuals with pro-life beliefs. For instance, I would fully support your right to demand whatever medical treatment was available to prevent a threatened miscarriage, even though I don’t personally believe a first trimester foetus to be a “person”. What I am supporting is your right to make a choice in respect of your own life. Equally, I would support your right to continue a pregnancy in the face of medical or other external pressure to terminate it.
Do you see that fundamental difference; my pro-choice position allows me to respect and even actively support your right to make decisions affecting your own body and your own life. The pro-life position doesn’t allow you to respect and support decisions I may make about my body and my life in cases where those decisions conflict with your value system.
You can certainly decide - based on your own belief and values systems - whether 9 months is “a lot” in respect of your own life; what you don’t have the right to do however, is demand that others use your world view when making similar decisions for themselves.
Believe me, scooby, it’s not just being embarassed. I know normally rational parents who would throw their daughters out of home - or worse - if they became pregnant. To forfeit this security only to give the baby up for adoption at the end is something that many dependent people are not prepared to do.
Your point is moot if the woman doesn’t:
(a) Drink - or doesn’t drink often
(b) Do drugs
© Smoke
scooby, I think it’s admirable that you chose to bring up your child. However, for many women, adoption is not always the best option, or even a good one, due to social/medical/emotional/financial reasons that have already been outlined by other posters.
Some people are addicted, know that they are addicted, and are either unable or unwilling to abstain during pregnancy. Even if the woman was willing to abstain, by the time she knows she’s pregnant the baby could have already been exposed to enough alcohol to induce fetal alcohol syndrome (and believe me, that’s a tough kid to raise, and the kid will NEVER be right) or exposed to enough drugs to cause other problems.
Some women have to take drugs for medicinal purposes, and these drugs can have severe effects on the fetus. And someone (sorry, forgot who it was) just related about how his wife had been exposed to LOTS of Xrays and physical stress. In this case, a safe, legal abortion was the best outcome for the couple, even though they want children. My heart goes out to them.
Some women are diabetic, and it would endanger them to carry a pregnancy to term. Some women have other problems. While YOU might consider a pregnancy no big deal, let me assure you, it’s life-threatening to some women.
As for “its actually more good for you cause you r not supposed to drink,take drugs or smoke, which sounds like going through detox for me-which is good for the body” one can do that WITHOUT getting pregnant. In fact, one should not get pregnant while doing these things, one should have abstained from these activities for several months before attempting to get pregnant.
I have had one abortion, age 18, my tubes tied at 38.
I would never, ever, ever have borne a child. It was simply never an option for me. I cannot imagine the circumstance under which I would ever have gone through with the pregnancy.
There are three reasons:
I am terrified of the agony of pregnancy and childbirth. It is dangerous, painful, and nauseating. (I was in my 7th week when I had the abortion, and had already been nauseated for 2 weeks…it was horrible). Most of the mothers I’ve talked to about it say that the only reason they found it endurable was because they were happy about the ultimate result, a baby. Since I would never have felt that way, nothing would have mitigated my fear and pain.
As uninterested as I am in having a child, if I actually DID go all the way through the pregnancy and gave birth to my own child, I would find it nearly impossible to give that child up. And if I could, it would be absolutely devastating for me to do so. It would have wrecked me.
Given the above facts, which amount to me finding the whole process miserable and agonizing, physically and emotionally, I could not imagine a reason to do it. I do not view fetuses as persons. A first trimester fetus is potential only, and I have no problem with stopping a potential person from becoming an actual person. It doesn’t faze me in the slightest bit. So why go through it? No reason, so I didn’t.
However, I did find the process extremely unpleasant, and I was absolutely consistent and committed to birth control after that first time. As a result, I never became pregnant again. Now I’m sterile. Works for me!
stoid
Lynn Bodoni wrote:
You mean you’re on coronary bypass right now? :eek:
Scooby, I have a bit of a problem with the way you’re approaching this discussion. Although you assured us that you were motivated by honest curiosity, you have criticised all the reasons people have given you by saying that their reasons aren’t good enough for you. Moreover, you say things like this:
or
**
Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but it seems to me like you want to engage in a fantasy version of what pro-choicers are like, and you’re trying to steer the conversation in a direction that will let you vindicate that view. So, you create an elaborate scenario in which pregnant pro-choicers “drink n stuff” and imply that they have abortions because they are unwilling to give up their vices, or because they’re just too plain lazy to take responsibility for their actions. (Never mind that a woman who is raped might not have a lot of choice about “creating” a new life “in the first place.”)
Personally, I feel that people here have been very courageous, not to mention very generous, in sharing their painful experiences with you. Abortion is a very complex and difficult issue no matter what one’s final position is, and I hope you understand that people who have abortions can be just as morally upright as you are, if not more so. I also hope that you feel the same gratitude that I do towards those who were willing to share.
-Ben
**
On the contrary, many pro-lifers claim that they have indeed drawn a clear, concise dividing line, and I’m trying to figure out when that is. I am also trying to argue that any such dividing line has no scientific or medical merit.
**
As I have already pointed out, the “exact point” will become very important when the next generation of contraceptives hits the market in a few years.
So? When did I say that any of them did?
-Ben
Then they’re probably mistaken. The “clear, concise dividing line” they speak of is probably only clear and concise TO THEM. Or else they’re of the mindset that “Pregnant=God’s Will”, so any argument about “clear, concise dividing lines” will always devolve into a religious debate (IMOSHO).
Aha… I thought you were talking about abortion in general, where one couldn’t (technically) have an abortion until one has a fetus to abort… and then one wouldn’t know to abort the fetus until there was definitely something growing in the womb.
I take it you’re talking about things like RU-486, the “Morning After” pill, or other such things?
No need to be rude, sir. A mistake in communication, is all. Call off the hounds!! Call off the hounds!! 
Scooby – You’ve asked a fair question. One woman close to me chose an abortion rather than bear a 3rd child. She has told me that for her, having the baby and putting it out for adoption simply was not an option.
reprise:
Of course not, but in their opinion, you’re condoning murder.
I mean, the Southerners in the pre-Civil War era weren’t trying to limit or control the choices made by people who didn’t believe in owning slaves. But these days, we’ve come to see the Union cause as good and just…even though they were seeking to limit other people’s choices.
I thought this was gonn be something deep and profound, but since I’m here
Event though the religious are the loudest that does not mean that some/most athiest are not opposed to the practice as well. Some Christians have an explanation for this http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistandethics.htm t is false to assume that athiest are absent of morals and ethics.
Psst…iodine…
You see that ‘Header’ up there?
The one that says ‘Great Debates’? Top of the page?
Yeah, that one.
Now, you’ve presented your case, and it has been rebutted…
This is the part where you answer the first rebuttals, so as to defend your original position.
Otherwise, it’s not a debate.
That said, I must say I’m so excited for you–you’ve eschewed the pedantic regurgitation of high school and are playing with the bigwigs now!
I’m sure everyone here will reach out to you to welcome and bolster a younger soldier in the field, embracing your keen precepts and precocious aptitude for intellectual discourse–especially when you are so bold in presenting the facts, rather than wasting time by asking questions or relying on the stale texts of those who have gone before.
I eagerly look forward to your continued efforts and research–after all, you’ve got a lot of ground to cover in redressing these counterpoints to your original offering!
Welcome home!
**
This is, in a sense, my point. Some pro-lifers argue that conception is the only dividing line that can be drawn, and therefore abortion should be outlawed at any point after the “moment of conception” because it’s the only way we can be sure that we aren’t committing murder.
My argument is actually manyfold:
I was genuinely interested in seeing whether any pro-lifers were aware of the problems with the idea of a “moment of conception,” and was gratified with some intelligent answers.
I was making a more general point that the “moment of conception” is no more privileged than any other point in pregnancy, since it, too, is somewhat nebulous. Admittedly, no one had explicitly raised the point I was addressing, but I thought it bore some discussion.
I was arguing that that nebulosity of the “moment of conception” was problematic in that new contraceptives are being designed to interfere with the conception process.
The nebulous nature of the “moment of conception” points indirectly to problems with claims that the zygote is a “genetically unique human,” and that therefore abortion is murder. The existence of identical twins seriously messes with a lot of pro-life arguments. If we can’t kill a zygote because it is genetically unique, does that mean you can kill one of a set of identical twins? If a mother of twins only wants to have one child, can she force the two embryos together, so that they will develop into one individual? Can you split off a single cell from an embryo and use it for experiments, even though left to develop normally that cell would become a complete human? Since every cell of an embryo is a “potential human,” are we obligated to split every embryo as many times as it will bear, in order to save as many lives as possible?
**
No, those take effect after the conception process is complete. I heard from a coworker that work is underway to create a contraceptive which would prevent sperm from releasing their chromosomes inside the egg. More broadly, there are so many points where one could interfere with the conception process that it’s scarcely hypothetical to ask which avenues of research are forbidden to pro-lifers.
**
My apologies- I did not mean to be rude.
[Jerry Clower]
SHOOT that dawg!
[/Jerry Clower]
-Ben
Just now found this thread, and I’m glad to see Beagle Dave and others have already dispelled the myth all pro-lifers are Christian. I have been collecting “non-traditional” pro-life links for years, so I have plenty of other sites to share (sorry if this looks like an excessive list, but I think the wide array shows just how very diverse the movement is).
More pro-life atheists:
http://www.l4l.org/library (see the articles by Doris Gordon, atheist/libertarian/feminist)
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~j-roth/leftout/ (liberal atheist pro-lifer)
http://trageser.tripod.com/essay-index.html (another liberal pro-life atheist; see The Left’s Surrender on Human Value in particular)
http://www.linklore.com/chri/phi.html
http://www.gurlpages.com/lifegurl/atheism.html
http://www.isomorphisms.org
http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/fall98.html (see Kathryn Reed’s article)
http://rightgrrl.com/2001/2choices.shtml (another atheist, though she doesn’t mention it specifically in this article)
How about the non-Christian religious types?
http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/1995/summer/hebrew.htm (Jewish)
http://www.freespeech.org/illustrious/beliefs.html (pagan vegetarian)
http://prolife.speakingrealwords.com (self-described “witch”)
http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/fall98.html (various religions represented)
And of course, if there are pro-life atheists, it’s not surprising that there are Christians out there who have secular reasons for their pro-life views:
http://www.plagal.org/op-ed/1-20-97a.html
http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/sena.html
http://www.sehlat.com/lifelink.html
http://www.frederica.com (see her pro-life essays)
Personally, I think pro-life feminism gives plenty of food for thought without needing to get into the religion and personhood arguments:
http://www.frederica.com/pro-life/pbeyond.html
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/derr.html
http://www.feministsforlife.org
http://www.frederica.com/pro-life/pbitter_mrb.htm
http://www.frederica.com/pro-life/pflesh.html
http://www.nurturingnetwork.org
Although, for those who really want to get into the fetal development aspect, here’s the fetal development info Kansas requires women to receive:
http://www.drtiller.com/bk1.html
I don’t beleive that the government has any right to interfere with women having an abortion. If the person is desperate enough to get rid of there baby than they could just as easily hit themselves in the stomach. Plus, if a women wants an abortion let her have an abortion. It’s probably the hardest decision a woman can ever make. If you hate abortions so much than DON’T HAVE ONE!
If you think owning slaves is a bad thing…then DON’T OWN ANY?