Well, apparently there is (not with ME, mind you). But some people are against it personally because it is an invasive procedure that they feel is drastic and unnecessary (as some people in this thread have alluded to) or that it is ending the chance for a viable life to eventually take hold, even though they don’t actually consider the act at the time to be “murder”, per se.
Because I recognize that the tissue being removed is not a tonsil. It does have the potential to become a human.
But, I see that just because it has potential to become a human, does not make it a human.
Thus, it is not just another surgery, but it is not murder either.
Middle ground.
That I do understand, but it is not really a moral issue.
This is the part that I don’t get, about viable life eventually happening, or as Fiveyearlurker put it:
I guess I don’t understand how much MORE feeling I’m supposed to have for it than, say, a sperm cell or an egg cell by itself, or conversely, how much LESS feeling I’m supposed to have for it because it is only potentially life.
Attempting now to tie this back in to the OP, because my intention is not to hijack the thread…
If you have any feeling at all that maybe you are ending a life, or a potential life, then yes, I think it is irresponsible to use abortion as birth control.
Well, all women give up that potential child every time we get our period. So it doesn’t fly with me. I don’t understand it, but I know people feel that way.
Most of us would think that killing a dog or cat for no reason was wrong, and would think it is generally a tragedy when someone has to kill a dog or cat for a reason. But nobody except maybe a few fringe PETA loons says it’s murder. Dogs and cats are not human, but we feel qualms about killing them.
I get that completely…you, and many others, feel it is not wrong…that is an opinion I can totally understand, if not necessarily agree with. In theory, I would think, then, that using abortion as birth control is not wrong (although certainly inconvenient, as you & others have pointed out).
As I said, though, there seem to be a lot of people who think there is more to it than just being an egg cell (which of course is what lost when we get our periods), but less to it than being a person. So…how MUCH more or less? And at what point does it stop being that thing, whatever it is, and start being a person?
In the first place, because banning it would interfere with people’s right to control their own bodies. We may (and do) have a compelling public interest in seeing obesity reduced, but that doesn’t mean it would be justifiable to ban french fries or ice cream.
In the second place, because the consequences of a ban would most likely be much worse for the public interest than the situation we have now, and not just in cases of rape or incest. Banning abortion would do nothing at all to reduce unwanted pregnancies. It would simply result in more dangerous illegal abortions and more unwanted children.
I think you’re forgetting that what the public really has a compelling interest in reducing is not so much abortion per se as unwanted pregnancies. That’s what’s “bad”. Unwanted pregnancy affects a woman’s physical health, exposes her to the non-negligible risks, pains, expenses, and inconveniences of abortion procedures, and if not terminated within the legal time limit may saddle her with the much more serious risks, pains, expenses, and inconveniences of bearing and supporting an unwanted child.
Some people also have moral objections to over-reliance on abortion, like the ones I outlined in my previous post. But we don’t need to appeal to any of them in order to make a case for the public having a compelling interest in reducing unwanted pregnancies, even if we accept abortion as legal.
All “points” of that sort are pretty much arbitrary, IMO. At the beginning of pregnancy it is not a person, and at the end it is. Gestation is a continuous developmental process of moving toward full human personhood, and I don’t think it makes sense to single out any one point in that process and say “Aha! There it is! This is the exact line between non-personhood and personhood!”
Sure, for legal purposes we have to assign such arbitrary distinctions in order to regulate abortion, but that doesn’t mean that we have to accept them as objectively or uniquely meaningful. I’ve never seen a really convincing way to quantify exactly how much “personhood” an embryo/fetus has at any particular stage of its development.
Really? Planned Parenthoods around here do all aspects of women’s health, as well as providing primary care to men, women and children. I’ve gotten physicals and assorted blood tests through the. They really can be a godsend.
Well to begin with, a lot of people havn’t really made up there minds- you may not be sure if “potential” carries much weight, or if there really is soul in fetuses, or whatever. And you may decide that at the time those esoteric concerns are something you can reckon with later, and go on through with it. Or you could consider it wrong because you feel like you have responsibility, or it makes you feel like less of a woman, or you may suspect you might miss having a kid. There is room for a whole spectrum of beliefs, and each belief offers a whole spectrum of actions that go with it.
Except, maybe, conception. 
I think you actually hit on my fundamental problem with using abortion as birth control. I think all can agree that what exists AFTER conception is fundamentally different than what exists BEFORE conception, in the sense that an egg or sperm cell by itself will never turn into a person, but a zygote, as you point out, IS in the “continuous developmental process” of becoming a person. Other than this moment of conception, I completely agree with you that there is no single moment in time or development that we can point to and say that THIS is the moment a fetus becomes something fundamentally different than what it was a second before. Some might say viability outside the womb, but babies are born earlier & earlier and surviving, and who knows where medical science will take this in the next 10 or 20 years. Some might say the time of natural birth (that is, as long as it is in the womb, it is not a person), but late-term abortion seems to make pretty much everyone squeamish, even if they don’t think it necessarily should be outlawed. So, neither of these two will fly with me, and there is no other that I can think of. In light of all this, I guess my answer to the OP is no, I don’t think abortion can be responsible birth control.
If you seriously are interested in the answers to these questions, then PLEASE read the essay by Sagan and Druyan that I linked to earlier. It directly answers these questions more eloquently than I ever could hope to.
Of course, I am seriously interested in hearing another point of view…otherwise, why would I bother to take part in the discussion? I will read the essay you mention. If I know myself, though, it can do no good other than to lead to more questions.
Thank you for that link, by the way. I just read the article, and while I don’t agree with the conclusion (I still maintain that viability is an acceptable benchmark for legislating abortion, and I don’t agree with their statement that “A morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality…”) it was good reading nonetheless.
I had to look at your join date to see if you were new, not because I disagree with you, but because most debates on here about abortion are simply two sides screaming at each other. And no, I don’t consider myself exempt from that accusation!
I take that back. What I really think is that abortion law shouldn’t be based on morality, but on rights of personhood. I don’t think a fetus has or should have the right of personhood until viability. [/thinking out loud for clarification]
By “viability” you mean the ability to live outside the womb? The problem with that is that it will change over time. In fifty years, it may be possible for a zygote to be incubated without a womb at all. But, in fifty years, the moment that a zygote becomes a human being, put around the end of six months by Sagan based on brain activity, should still be the same.
Abortion law shouldn’t be based on scientific advancement. If it’s all right to abort a four month old fetus now, it should be all right regardless of scientific advancement over the next fifty years.
I just think that abortion is an issue that could be decided to most people’s satisfaction if:
a) we ignored the extremists (no abortions for rape/incest on one side or it’s a woman’s choice up until birth on the other) on both sides
b) ignored slippery slope arguments
c) compromised
Hell, I think most things could be decided if we did that.
Fiveyearlurker, I’m eager to have this discussion, but as I wrote out my reply to your post, I realized we’ve WAY hijacked this discussion. I’ve taken it over here and I hope you’ll join me.
No, I don’t think we can agree on that, because the idea of “conception” is also somewhat arbitrary. I don’t see why we should say that the precise moment when a sperm and ovum combine is the start of the developmental process, rather than the moment when the sperm reaches the ovum, or the moment when the sperm passes the cervix, or the moment when the fertilized ovum implants in the uterus.
After all, if the fertilized egg never manages to leave the fallopian tube (which is what happens in ectopic pregnancy), it will most definitely never become a person. I don’t see any really logical basis for arguing that, say, blocking sperm between the cervix and the ovum is not killing a potential person, while blocking a fertilized ovum between the fallopian tube and the uterus is.
I would definitely agree that when sperm and ova are completely segregated inside their respective sex organs, there is no potential person to consider. As soon as we start getting penises into (or even next to) vaginas, though, I think the whole question of what counts as the starting-point of “new life” gets much fuzzier.
I don’t really have much inclination to control how my neighbor manages her fertility. I know how I want to handly my fertility issues and that seems good enough for me. I approve af all the options to control and manage fertility and like the fact that there are many choices. I wish there were more options, too- easier ones, more effective ones, male ones, etc.
“Responsible” (as in “Can abortion be ‘responsible’ birth control”…) seems like one of those value-laden words/sentences that occur so frequently in high emotion topics. Perhaps it is the most responsible way for someone somewhere. I don’t know.
I jumped over to the new thread Whynot started on this topic…over there, I changed this assertion from the moment the sperm/egg combine to the moment of implantation. Now, I will change it to the moment the implantation happens in the proper place. It is not until that moment that abortion is a relevant issue, anyway.
Really? I remember in the city hearing from friends and others that they have to get the $300 together for an abortion.