The embryo is human. I won’t say “a human being” because I don’t know how to define that.
Abortion isn’t a tragedy unless the woman thinks it is.
Er, is that what you’re looking for?
El Zagna:
Me.
I said it could be a tragedy but its tragic elements depend on the context. It’s not intrinsically tragic for a human being to die. It’s not intrinsically tragic to kill a human being.
Oh, I could argue (with justification) that this whole business of “now it is a person” or “at this point it is human” is just semantics. (You could then go on to say “What do you mean when you say ‘person’, when you say ‘human’? You’re just using it as shorthand for ‘Citizen who is entitled to legal protections against being killed’, which means you’re begging the question, you’re embedding your answer in the way you’ve couched the question”, for instance). But why bother? My statement that it is not (intrinsically, inevitably) tragic is not based on the notion that it is non-tragic because it is not human or not a person, and I think that is what you’re asking. So let’s call it human, let’s say it’s a person. Pregnant women have the power, the authority, and the responsibility to decide whether or not to kill a human/person when that human/person is gestating within them. That they do so on occasion is not a tragedy (although some specific occasions may of course be quite tragic).
I saw a show once (I won’t tell you what show, because I don’t want to spoil it) in which a very wonderful, sympathetic character had as her life’s ambition to be an artist. She did beautiful work, and she hoped one day to leave her dead-end secretary job in order to fulfill this dream.
Later in the show, though, she’s given up her dream; we may assume that she’s even thrown away her art supplies. She’s been convinced by someone in her life that her dream is stupid.
When she threw away her pens and her brushes and her sketchpads, that was a tragedy. But the pens and the brushes and the sketchpads were not human.
In that sense, an abortion may also be a tragedy. It’s not a tragedy to the embryo–I’m one of those No True Scotsman that Jackknifed talked about who sincerely believe that an embryo is no more than a mass of cells. It’s a tragedy to the sentient, thinking, feeling human who makes the decision to end her pregnancy.
Of course, it may not be a tragedy to her; and if so, that’s perfectly fine. If I threw away my art supplies, that wouldn’t be a tragedy, since I’ve got no desire to be an artist.
Daniel
I think abortion is often tragic for the woman considering it.
Abortion in the abstract may not be tragic, but abortion in the specific generally is. (Although, tragic may be a little strong for some people).
And if the woman considering abortion has multiple abortions because she sees as little difference between abortion and disposing of a used condom as Revtim does- then the circumstances which lead her to that conclusion may themselves be tragic.
My actual beliefs come closer to #2, than #3 and it may show. I’m inclined to think that abortion should be safe, affordable, accessible and rare–not least because when asked to weigh the life of a potential person versus the life of a present person the needs of the present person strike me as more real. So we’re back to the whole thing about abortion being the least bad choice, even if life begins at conception.
And certainly for the woman dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, that situation may well be a tragedy regardless of whether abortion or another method of dealing with it is selected.
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m getting at.
I think we would all acknowledge that there can be tragic aspects to an abortion, and many of you have quite eloquently shown examples of that. But any major decision can have tragic components to it. Accepting a better job across the country may have tragic consequences for friends and lovers left behind. That does not mean that relocating is *inherently *tragic.
So what I’m trying to do is resolve what I see as a philosophical disconnect of someone who is pro-abortion/pro-choice yet sees abortion per se as inherently tragic.
This seems to be what Unregistered Bull’s position is:
Let’s flesh this out a little. I don’t mean top be putting words in your mouth, Mr. Bull, but I believe this is what you are saying: You believe that the fetus is in fact a human, so for you any abortion is tragic. On the other hand you recognize that the fetus=human position is only your opinion, that reasonable people could think otherwise, and you don’t feel that you should force your own point of view upon others. Thus pro-choice.
Is that fair?
I’ll answer for me. Yes, that’s fair. The issue of when those human cells become a human soul is one of religious belief. It therefore deserves wide berth.
Rats. First the “No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service” signs start going up, then this. Anyone know where a shirtless, shoeless deathmonger can hang out these days? 
As a pro-choice advocate, this is where I will tentatively put myself. As stated in my post above, I think that tragedy is a range, not a binary on/off emotion. I was saddened when a stray cat in the neighborhood was hit by a car, I was torn apart to hear the stories of genocide in Rwanda and Sudan.
Capital punishment is a tragedy (and way overused, IMHO), because it results from our society’s failure in our duty to teach the offender right from wrong. Nevertheless, I feel that if it is the last resort, it can be justified in some cases.
War is tragedy (don’t get me started :rolleyes: ) because it usually results from greed or intolerance or a failure of diplomacy. Nevertheless, I feel that if it is the last resort, it can be justified in some cases.
Abortion is a tragedy, because it usually results from a failure in judgement and common sense (again, obviously rape and incest not included). Nevertheless, as a last resort I feel that it can be justified, and the tragedy is not nearly equal (in my opinion) to that of capital punishment or war.
Agree with gfloyd, I appreciate the reasoned discourse on this thread, and the opportunity to solidify my thoughts.
Or, he could share my opinion that the embryo is human but that it is unjust ever to force someone to donate their body parts for the survival of someone else. Thus pro-choice.
Not that many people share my opinion on this, though, so the possibility is probably slim.
If I can skip back to the OP for a moment, you might want to reread HRC’s quote:
It sounds to me as if she wasn’t saying that abortion was inherently tragic; if she’d meant that, she probably would have said that it was a tragic choice for “all” women who choose an abortion.
That said, I have seen pro-choice arguments that abortion is inherently tragic. I read an essay way back in college from a nouveau feminist who declared that we mustn’t rob women of their chance to grieve over their abortions and to atone for the sin they’re committing through abortion.
And it pissed me off. Yes, many women do grieve, and it’d be the height of assholery to mock them for their grief or to tell them that their grief was phantasmal. Many women want to atone for what they see as the wrong they’ve done, and what sort of monumental prat would dismiss that spiritual need?
But the essay overstepped by suggesting that abortion was, objectively, a sin, and that women needed to recognize that, and that a woman who did not believe abortion was wrong was living in denial.
I agree with the OP to a certain degree. If abortion is objectively speaking a tragedy for the embryo, then it is prima facie immoral, and we’d need to weigh very carefully the good of the embryo against the good of the pregnant woman.
I simply don’t think that it’s coherent to speak of the “good of the embryo,” and so I do not believe that any such weighing needs to happen.
Daniel
I don’t follow.
If I attempt to kill you, and in self-defense you kill me, it is a tragedy for me (perhaps in more than one way). That doesn’t mean that it is immoral for you.
If I need a kidney and there are no willing donors, that’s a tragedy for me, but not immoral of the non-donors.
Thing is, my belief that abortion is uncomplicatedly moral (or, rather, not a moral issue) is predicated on my belief that the embryo has no significance in the moral question, not being a moral object.
If the embryo is a moral object–which is necessary before anything can be a tragedy for it–then the issue suddenly becomes very, very complicated.
Daniel
Is an elephant a moral object? Because I consider the death of an elephant through, say, poaching tragic.
My cat Ichabod was tortured by inhuman monsters. That was a tragedy for her, though she isn’t a moral object.
Very true. Rereading her comment makes it clear that she was very careful with her words: 'We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women." She’s not saying that abortion is inherently tragic, but that under certain circumstances it can reach the level of tragedy.
Yeah, in rtrospect, I think that’s what I was trying to get at in my reply. And also why none of the later proposed “rationales” for the judgment that it’s tragic fit for me.
I believe an elephant is a moral object, and that killing one is prima facie immoral. (There may be excellent reasons to kill an elephant, but lacking such reasons, you shouldn’t do it).
I disagree that your cat isn’t a moral object, and the law’s with me on this one. Felony animal cruelty laws treat hurting an animal as an evil in and of itself, not simply as a violation of property rights or some such.
It might be better to use some terms other than “tragic” for a bit. An act of destruction can be:
-Harmless (I send my car off to a junkyard where it will be destroyed);
-Indirectly harmful (I smash the windows of my neighbor’s car, and although the car has no rights, by smashing the car windows I harm the neighbor); or
-Directly harmful (I punch my neighbor in the nose, destroying his nose, and harming the neighbor).
In order for a harm to be direct, whatever you destroy has to be a moral object. If an embryo is a moral object (like my neighbor), then destroying it is a direct harm to the embryo. If it is not a moral object (like my neighbor’s car), then destroying it is, at most, an indirect harm, and at least, be harmless.
I believe that an embryo is not a moral object, so destroying it may result in indirect harm–e.g., it might cause great distress to the woman carrying the embryo, to the extent that it constitutes a tragedy for her. Were the embryo a moral object, then its destruction might constitute a tragedy for the embryo itself, and absent compelling reasons to destroy it, its destruction would be an immoral act.
Does that make sense?
Daniel
Yes. I was using the term “moral object” as equivalent to “moral actor” which would exclude animals (and embryos) as they are incapable of acting immorally. I see that you are not equating the terms.
Of course, I would say that the “compelling reason” for destroying an embryo is simply the desire of the woman not to host it, just as a compelling reason to kill someone is the desire not to be killed, or a compelling reason not to donate a kidney is the desire not to donate a kidney. So, for me, the status of the embryo does not and cannot matter because we do not give those sorts of rights (the right to someone else’s body) to anyone.
But we’re straying from, I think, the intent of the OP.
I just want to point something out. In how many abortion debates have you seen anyone pause long enough to ask another person if their points are actually making sense?
That’s all. Carry on.
Cute.
I agree that pro-life is a loaded term. But I don’t think the solution is to pick a term similarly loaded for your side of the debate. That hardly seems productive.
Either let both sides describe themselves, or use more neutral terms to describe them. Anti-choice doesn’t make this cut, sadly. Anti-abortion might be seen as more fair.
That is, assuming that you’re inclined to be fair.
Tragic?
Depends on the woman, the circumstances and HER values. Inherently tragic? No.
I have had an abortion. I grieved for a long time–but throughout my grief was the knowledge and relief that I would not be going thru another pregnancy. I still at times, grieve the child that would have been, but that doesn’t mean that I am living a tragedy. Overall, I know that it was the best decision for me and mine; I do not regret it, because circumstances dictated my choice. If they hadn’t, I would have had the child.
And it should stay MY choice, as well as every woman’s choice-be she 12 or 42. No person should be made to carry an embryo/fetus unless that is her desire.
You didn’t ask, but I thought I’d add that.
The above does not mean that I am pro-abortion. I would much rather stress sex education (that many pro-lifers are against, for some reason), ban abstinence only education (but provide abstinence info as an option), and increase the pulbic’s knowledge base re: STD’s and birth control. I would have much less ire towards the pro-birth community if they would also emphasize education, not ignorance and wishful thinking. Hoping I did not derail the discussion here.
So, bottom line for me: AB is not neccessarily a tragedy.
I like the terms “pro abortion rights” and “anti abortion rights.”
Because the argument is about the rights, not about being in favor of abortions themselves.