Maybe we can compromise, and allow mothers who are willing to have babies, but don’t want them, auction them off on e-bay to the highest bidder. They’d get some money out of it, and the government could tax them so everybody wins. :rolleyes:
From a moral standpoint, I don’t think infanticide would be significantly different from killing a fetus, as their sentience level is about the same.
However, I recognize that from a legal standpoint, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and birth seems to be the most clear cut distinction that can be made.
As a practical matter, I don’t think an 18 year old on his birthday magically becomes able to make life decisions that they weren’t able to make the day before.
I don’t believe that the very second somebody turns 21 years of age they can magically be responsible with alcohol whereas at 11:59 PM when they were 20 years, 11 months and 29 days old they were foolish imcompetant minors that would be corrupted by having so much as a single beer.
I think the greater good is served by having a line drawn at somepoint, even if that line is arguably somewhat arbitrary.
You are not being honest when you say that. I’ve already indicated that I have sympathy for the plight of the mother, I wish there was a fix to the problem in which all parties could win, I lament the fact that there is not, I argue that we can only make the best of a bad situation by offereing help (not forcing such help upon people who don’t want it), and I lament the fact that such help cannot ever fully rectify the bad situation.
And yet, you insist on saying that I have ill will towards pregnant women. I have no ill will towards them. The ban on abortion will affect them, but not as a primary goal, merely as an unfortunate side effect of an effort to save lives. On the evil scale, discomfort << (much less than) death. That equation is the only reason there is a prolife movement, not because we despise women.
I do not adopt my pro-life position with glee so that I can inflict pain upon mothers. I adopt it because I feel compelled to adopt it by common decency. It is not a comfortable position to hold. I would much rather be a pro-choicer.
A reasonable discussion can only take place if we assume we are being honest with each other, after which we are free to tear apart each other’s spoken position, not the position we arbitrarily and incorrectly impose upon each other.
Actually, if it weren’t murder, I would like it very much. Pro-abortion is a very convenient and comfortable position to have. I would much prefer that decency to fellow man didn’t require me to hold a position which could potentially cause discomfort to the women in my life.
I will support them no matter what they decide. Either way, a little support would be helpful, and I would offer it freely.
In a broad sense of “coercion” (a sense which includes aggressive coercion as well as non-aggressive coercion), yes. Putting people in jail for murder is a type of coercion. Sometimes responsive coercion is dictated in response to the acts of people. Sometimes it is not. Either way, it is not an aggression to stop people from harming other people, it is defense. I know you don’t agree with me on the “defense of others part,” but at least recognize that I believe that, and that I’m not sitting here thinking about how to screw people and ruin their lives, but rather to save lives. According to your beliefs, I may be misguided, but that does not mean I am evil. You seem to equate misguided with evil intent. Why is that?
Wow.
Actually, I agree with the statement–I think both are equally wrong.
The “wow” comes from the fact that you see nothing wrong with infanticide.
Deciding that you will make it illegal for them to do anything other than have a baby they don’t want and turn a bad situation worse is a really screwed up way of showing your ‘sympathy’.
To you. And you are not the one who lives in my skin. To me, carrying a pregnancy to term would be worse than being dead.
This does seem contradictory to your earlier position that abortion should be illegal. Supporting ‘no matter what they decide’ means they might choose to abort.
It’s your personal belief that fetuses are people and should be saved. I have no problem with you holding that belief and not having abortions if you choose not to. What I have a problem with is you trying to enforce that belief on me. If you want me to respect your beliefs, you must do the same for me.
Thing is, I fully support your right not to have abortions because of your beliefs. You, however, seem to think your beliefs should have a deciding role in my life. They don’t, and never will.
I think that after you’re told that your goals, if enacted, would cause suffering and torment to women, would make some of our lives much much worse, and you’re told in very plain terms in what ways that would happen, if you still insist on saying ‘but that’s not as bad as ending a life that never started’, that’s the indication of a serious problem.
Let’s say I’m 22 years old (hypothetically) and in my fourth of five years in college. I’ve been with my boyfriend for 6 months, have a job, get good grades, always use birth control and get pregnant due to a birth control failure. Despite having a job, I have no health insurance because I work only part time, I make $5,000 per year, my boyfriend is also in college, and also works only part time. Let’s say that my parents are extremely old fashioned and will never allow their unmarried pregnant daughter in their house. I am a person who wants to finish college, have a career, eventually get married, but not necessarily to the current boyfriend but doesn’t see kids being in the picture ever.
I have the option of having and keeping the baby, but will have to quit school to take care of it. My boyfriend will also have to quit school to work full time so we can support a kid. I either get married, or lose my family.
I have the option of having the baby and putting it up for adoption, but due to lack of health insurance will find that difficult if not impossible to pay for while attending school. I will lose my family, due to their religious beliefs regarding sex out of wedlock.
I have the option of aborting as soon as possible, can stay in school, can afford to abort, will not have to quit college and get married. I don’t have to tell my family and cause strife there. I can go on with my life and possibly have kids later on if I choose to.
Considering the first two options makes me depressed, I cry all the time and consider suicide.
Do you still think that the third option should be illegal?
What if that situation wasn’t hypothetical?
Getting back to the OP:
I see some big problems with outlawing abortion. First and foremost, if unborn have the same rights as the born, that would mean that each and every abortion would be a first degree murder case.
Are the pro-lifers really willing to put their money where their mouth is, and put every woman who commits an abortion in prison for the same length as any others who unlawfully kill other humans?
So, you make up an argument, insinuate that it’s mine by the way you phrase the sentance, and that’s your idea of “debate”?
No, that’s a straw man.
**
Yes, but you subsequent argument is so nonsensical it doesn’t even deserve quoting.
My whole point is that such a law would be difficult, or more likely impossible, to enforce; and that if you want social changes of the kind you seek, don’t start with the policeman’s nightstick. Start changing attitudes, non-judicial/penal/police institutions (child welfare, etc.), and above all, alter the economic situation .
There was a time in this country, 1970 to be exact, when one person, working full time as a janitor, with no food stamps or welfare, could support a family. They wouldn’t live in style, but they could live. They’d have an apartment, clothing, food, & simple health care. All of shabby quality, but it would be there.
Today, that same family would be living in a cardboard box in an alley. Minimum wage does mean a living wage, bub. Until one person can feed that baby, don’t come whining to me.
No, it doesn’t. As I pointed out earlier, the law already draws distinctions between first-degree murder, less severe murder cases, manslaughter and “wrongful death.” In other words, not every willful, criminal killing is considered to be first degree murder.
Actually, il Topo your cavity analogy isn’t so bad, except for one thing: getting the cavity drilled, with or without novocaine, resolves the issue. Forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy resolves nothing. A more accurate analogy follows.
You don’t want cavities. You brush and floss three times a day, visit your dentist every 2 months, and get fluoride treatments weekly. You still get a cavity. Instead of drilling the cavity and filling it and allowing you to get on with your life, we tell you “Too bad, so sad, sorry bout your luck.” You have to live with that cavity, hurting day in and day out, affecting every single aspect of your life, for the next 20 years. You do have the option of having it drilled after a year, but everyone’s gonna know that you did, and they’re gonna judge you for it. I mean, it was your cavity, how could you just get rid of it?
I’ll start a fund so you can have Ambesol, though, so that should make it better, right?
Aw, crap. One of these days I’ll learn that DrJ logs me out just about every time he sits down at the computer. That was me above.
I also wanted to add that personally, I’d rather remove my uterus at home with a dessert spoon and a spool of dental floss than have a kid. Telling me that you’ll help me out with the baby you’ve forced me to carry is kind of like smashing someone’s kneecaps and then saying you’ll subsidize crutches for them.
Nevertheless, if a woman got an abortion with premeditation, which I assume is the case much of the time, she’d be up for charges of murder one.
Seriously, let’s say anti-abortion laws were implemented, what kind of penalties are we talking about here? What kind of punishments would we typically see for women who abort, and for people who help women to abort?
Holy cow! You guys are hammering me here. You really do believe I have evil intentions! Not just that my beliefs will result in bad things for you, but you also seem to believe that I hope that my beliefs will result in bad things for you. Is that right? I assure you, it is not true, but I must ask, do you think I am lying when I say that???
The bottom line is this: If the fetus is an alive and rights-bearing human, aborting is killing. If the fetus is an not “alive” or “rights-bearing” or “human,” aborting is not killing (and therefore should not be prohibited). Can we all agree on that at least?
I know that bearing an unwanted child is very, very, very very bad. You’ve said it more than once; I agree with that wholeheartedly (and I admit that there is little, ok very little, ok for some people absolutely nothing, that I can do to make it better). The problem is that killing a child is at least one more “very” bad. Can we all agree on that? Set aside abortion for a second–Can we agree on just that: killing an innocent child is worse than having to bear an unwanted child? If that is not true, can one of you please explain why it is not true?
The cost-benefit analysis of abortion is a moot point.
The fundamental question re: abortion is: what gives you (fill in anti-choice person) the right to choose over and above the pregnant woman?
I would say, absolutely nothing.
A little blob of protoplasm inside the woman (arguably what a fertilized ovum is) divides and divides and divides and at some point becomes something most people would say is a baby.
What is that point?
I think that’s ultimately for the woman and her doctor to decide between them.
No one else.
So, if abortion is outlawed, a lot of damn Nosy Nellies who have no business poking their noses into this issue get to make decisions instead of the people for whom those decisions are most important. The human race becomes a little less human.
An abortion at a doctor’s office is much safer and certain than that gotten by using plants.
Some of the plant remedies are “iffy.” There’s always a chance that the herbs don’t work, and in taking more of them to try to induce abortion, a woman can be poisoned. (One abortion-inducing herb, pennyroyal, can be deadly. Only four women are known in medical literature to have died from pennyroyal poisoning since 1905, though some have recovered from being poisoned by it. The essential oil, I’ve heard, can kill in small amounts.) Or, the herbs kill the fetus but don’t expell it. The consequences of that could be terrible. There’s also the possibility of hemorrhage.
Add this to the fact that most women don’t know about these hebs. I know I certainly didn’t until I found a book on the subject (which also discussed herbal birth control.) It’s not as if this is common knowledge, though, it was in the past when other methods of birth control and abortion were unavailable. I suppose that it would be common knowledge once more if abortioned were outlawed.
** Shodan, ** A search on Yahoo! for “herbal abortion” revealed 25,000 results. So the information IS out there, but most women don’t think about using this method today.
It WOULD be hard to enforce abortion laws if women went back to herbs. Not all women sicken from using plants: sometimes they’re very effective, with no serious side-effects. Women have used them for centuries-- if every woman sickened or died, the herb’s use would have been abandoned. So, if a woman used herbs effectively and quietly, how could she be caught? You couldn’t ban the publication on how-to literature about herbs. (Back when they could supress this knowledge under Comstock, companies got around this law by “warning” ladies: “Pregnant women should not take three of these pills or abortion will result.”) It’s legal to read plans on how to make a bomb, after all, and I think literature on herbs would be equally protected.
Interestingly enough, I was looking at an 1897 Sears & Roebuck catelog today at work, and ran across an ad for a pennyroyal abortificatient. The item was called “ladies pills” and the ad touted that one treatment would make “everything all right again.” It was worded very carefully, but it was obvious what the purpose of the drug was. It was eighy five cents per dose, or twelve doses for $8.50. The ad also mentioned that information on how to avoid this malady would be sent with the shipment.
I guess it is. Sorry. I really was trying to extrapolate from your post, but apparently I thought you were trying to say more than you were saying. You seemed to be inferring that a cost/benefit approach might be useful, but your post was terse, and since I thought it was a good idea for your side, I ran with it to see what we could learn from it. More of a thought experiemnt than a debate; I was sort of thinking out loud. I was counting on you to tell me if I was wrong regarding your intent, and you properly did. Needless to say, I won’t keep accusing you of a position you don’t hold, although I admit that is a common phenomenon in abortion debates.
My apologies; I wasn’t clear. I meant that a woman who chooses to abort would get my every sympathy and comfort I could offer afterwards, not that I would agree that what she chose was fine. Sure, I believe the action chosen was wrong, but I understand that great stress and suffering drove her to make that decision. That’s called “extenuating circumstances”. I still want to end the ongoing evil that is abortion, but I also have great sympathy for those who find themselves in such dire straits that they feel they must choose abortion over other options. That is a definite failure of society and the people around her that she could not be made to feel that all options were open.
I never said that, and I never would say that. The life did start. That’s why as bad as bearing an unwanted child is, it is not as bad as killing a child, a real live child who has been alive for some time.
Only if the fetus is human, and killing is not a legitimate way to escape all that bad stuff.
I would understand why you would hate me so much for wanting to foreclose the third option, and I would offer my sympathy for your situation. Nonetheless, even great sympathy for someone who has suffered a great harm does not make greater harms permissible by others in the future.
Indeed, that is the fundamental question. Only the prevention of killing would give the government that right. The prevention of killing is a primary domain of government, and the loss of total control over one’s own body is a common penalty for killing.
Why should human life have no objectively defined beginning? Why should “human life” begin at different times in different doctors offices? This is a variant of the core question, I guess. It seems like you are saying that the fetus is what we think it is, that it has no objective existence apart from the intent of the mother and the advising doctor. I gave up on philosophies that said objects have no existence outside of my mind’s perceptions almost the second I heard them. A tree does make noise when it falls in the woods, regardless of whether anyone is around to hear it. It is possible that a fetus could be alive, regardless of the mindset of the mother and her doctor.
Evil, schmevil. Personally, I think you have misguided and impractical intentions, which may seem to be morally superior but if implemented would create more far problems than they solve.
Heck, I don’t think you’re hoping for bad stuff to happen. At best, I think that bad stuff will happen and you seem indifferent to it.
Okay, I’ll concede it for the sake of this discussion. It’s killing. However, there are circumstances where a person can legally kill another person, as in the matter (for example) of self-defense. If a sentient adult comes at me with a weapon, I can legally end the life of that “alive and rights-bearing human” and not be punished for it. Now consider if an escapee from Buffy the Vampire Slayer came along, sank his fangs into my neck and muttered “This won’t hurt you, but if I don’t suck your blood for the next nine months, I’ll die, and after that nine months, I become your legal and financial responsibility for the next 18 years. I don’t mean you any harm, but I’m staying.”
Truth be told, I don’t care if the vampire will die. I don’t want to be forced to carry any creature for nine months. There might be circumstances in which I will choose to let the vampire stay, but I’ll want that choice to be mine, and only mine. Because I want that right for myself, I have to (in good conscience) let others have the same right, including women who find themselves to be pregnant. The vampire and the fetus may not mean any harm, but they are forcing another person into a form of slavery, and I find that to be legally untenable. The incentive to avoid such slavery is extreme. So extreme, in fact, that laws will either be ineffective (accomplishing nothing) or draconian (restricting other freedoms as well).
Nope. Fetus <> Child. Using the word “child” incorrectly does not help your argument. You can call a fetus a child if you wish, but I won’t, nor will I pretend there is no distinction.
I don’t agree with that, either, because I have to state again that Fetus <> Child. Killing a fetus seems pretty mild when compared to forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will. I wouldn’t force a woman to be a blood donor either, if that wasn’t her wish. Her body is hers.
il Topo and Autz both, a few thoughts I’d like to get your input on, and which I have yet to see covered.
First, not every abortion which is done is done simply because a woman does not wish to have a child. An abortion is also a medical procedure which can and is done because the woman carrying the child is at risk health wise.
In my own case, I am 36, and currently trying for my first child with my husband [who has two of his own, both of whom live with us]. I intend to do all I can to see that I carry the child to term. However, should a medical complication arise that forces a choice between my life and that of my child, I do not think it is fair to assume that I should be the one to die. I, too, have a life. I, too, am a living being. Moreover, I am a living being who has others depending upon me for financial, emotional, and family support. Is my life so much less than the fetus in my womb? I think not. I will guarantee my husband will agree, as would my stepchildren.
How, then, can abortion be outlawed without also paving the way for medically necessary treatment to be banned for other sex or race segments of our society?
[Incidentally, one reason I’ve shied away from pregnancy is that, here in Texas, although I have a living will, my living will is essentially null and void while I’m pregnant. No matter what, if I’m a vegetable, my family is forced to keep me alive on life support during the term of the pregnancy, no matter even if the child that results is dead, brain-dead, brain-damaged or crippled as a result of whatever treatment had to be done to me to keep me so. Not pretty, is it?]
While I agree the likelihood of that happening is small, the fact is, if we were talking about denying a heart transplant to someone because they were retarded, you’d see a whole different reaction. Yet the thrust of the argument is the same.
Secondly, why is the life of the mother considered to be less than that of the baby? Why is it considered to be perfectly all right if “a few women” die of septicemia, or “a few women” are irreversibly sterile from punctured uteruses, or “a few women” have their lives ruined? The general thrust I get is, “Oh, well, she got pregnant, so she needs to suffer the consequences.”
Well, I’m all for taking responsibility for one’s actions. However, I see not a ghost of a whisper of what sort of legal responsibility should be expected from the person who contributed the sperm. I do wonder, however – and seriously – that in the event that abortion was outlawed, what sort of punitive actions do you believe the government should take to enforce responsibility on the part of the fathers of the unborn? Fair is fair. If we’re shouldering responsibility, let it go also to the one who fertilized the egg.
Me, I’m pro-choice. Doesn’t mean I’m pro-abortion; they’re ugly things, although thank all that is sacred that I’ve been ultimately careful and never undergone such a thing. The main reason I am pro-choice is that in the end, it’s the only way to try to equalize what is, inherently, an unequal situation.
When the pro-lifers come up with a way to deal as draconically with the men in the situation as they do with the women, I’ll rethink my views.
But I would still like to know the answers to those questions – not as an attack, but because I just never, ever, see those addressed.