For brevity of reply I’ve taken the liberty of adding the (a) and (b) designations to your quote.
We’re obviously never going to agree on this and will keep going around in circles, but once more for the record, (a) is an arbitrary and extreme viewpoint about abortion that, as we’ve already seen here, many thoughtful people like Sagan strongly disagree with. However, conservatives promote it ostensibly to protect a “human child”, even when it clearly isn’t one through much of early gestation. Because of how terribly concerned they are about children.
Whereas (b) is the standard conservative code phrase for not wanting to pay taxes, even when those taxes would support the health, nutrition, well-being and education of an actual human child after it’s born. This isn’t just rhetorical – conservatives have specifically and deliberately voted down measures solely intended to benefit young children, knowing that this would deprive many poorer children of some of the essentials of life.
That’s how the two are related.
The fact that they don’t give a damn about the well-being of the mother – another actual living human – is another irrational twist.
Maybe you spent so much time laughing out loud that you missed the part about the existence of a rabid anti-abortion culture in many states that opposes Roe v. Wade with all possible force and every legal (and sometimes not so legal) trick in the book, and has succeeded in making abortion as difficult as it can possibly be. You should read that article – it really lays out what a joke the right-wingers have made of the spirit and intent of Roe. And that is really my point here.
And thank you for bolding my comment about on-demand abortion in most of Europe applying to the first trimester (or early in the second). You do realize that the overwhelming vast majority of abortionsare, in fact, first trimester abortions, right? The rest are early second trimester, and even many of those would be permitted on-demand in much of Europe. So the entire argument about abortion laws being more “liberal” in the US is moot anyway as it applies to abortions that actually happen, as opposed to theoretical ones that one might like to pontificate about.
And finally, let’s just take a quick look at your example states of Alabama and Texas.
Alabama requires a mandatory waiting period, mandatory ultrasound, mandatory “counseling”, parental consent for minors, and has a “trigger law” waiting on the books for the happy day when Roe is overturned. And best of all, 93% of counties offer no abortion facilities anyway. In many of these states, doctors who do perform abortions are sufficiently rare that they are singled out and shunned, in some cases getting their hospital privileges suspended. Alabama gets a NARAL rating of “F” on abortion accessibility.
Texas requires a mandatory waiting period, mandatory ultrasound where by law the image must be waved right in the woman’s face, mandatory “counseling”, parental consent for minors, and 93% of counties have no providers. And last year, chief wingnut Rick Perry signed a new law intended to pretty much shut down the abortion clinics that do exist. Texas gets a NARAL rating of “F” on abortion accessibility.
Well, that solves everything! Pro-choice people have no argument.
If you don’t know this, the “conservative position” is that you are responsible for your own actions, including bringing children into this world. It’s not “society’s” duty to raise them-- it’s yours. You probably find that disturbing because you’re not a conservative. Conservatives will say the same thing about your position-- that it’s “disturbing” to think that people can bring children into this world and expect other people to pay for raising them.
Now that we have that out of the way (each side thinks the other side’s position is wrong, which is why they take the side they do), I think there isn’t much more to say about the topic of the OP. Conservatives think abortion is murder. End of story. And since there is no objective, scientific way to determine when human life begins, this is one of those value judgement things that people are going to disagree on.
Not arguing with you, just commenting on that POV. I basically agree with it. But the inconsistencies still abound. One thing I hear a lot from conservatives is that the unborn fetus must be protected because it’s helpless and innocent. Is there something not innocent and helpless about a one-year old or a two-year old that doesn’t have adequate nutrition or health care, or a six-year old that doesn’t have warm clothes to wear or a good school to go to? Especially one that wasn’t wanted in the first place, or that the parent(s) couldn’t afford? Even if the parents are bums, how – in a civilized society – is that the child’s problem? That’s the disturbing part. Some might feel that it’s totally not society’s duty to allocate any resources to children’s well-being and education no matter how badly they’re needed, but they have no problem allocating resources later on to incarcerating them in penitentiaries.
Except that – given the legal ramifications of murder – do we not require a very high standard of stringent objective evidence to substantiate it? Something more than religious dogma? The objective reality is that a fertilized egg in the early stages of gestation is not qualitatively much different in its “human potential” than an unfertilized egg and the sperm that fertilized it. In both cases the genetic information that makes up a potential future human being is there. This is the line of reasoning that originally motivated the Vatican to ban contraception, and where that kind of reasoning can take us knows no bounds of absurdity!
I only suggest that the people who insist that a woman continue with an unwanted pregnancy, and strive to pass laws that make terminating that pregnancy a crime, offer to help the family they’ve created through coercion. If the woman was allowed to safely terminate the pregnancy, she wouldn’t need help raising that child. I don’t see this as a religious matter, and only tangentially a moral dilemma, since I’m of the opinion that the majority of republican women are frankly pro choice, but are willing to allow the tone of their party to verge on irrational male dominance as a means to an end.
By the way, it’s pretty obvious that your observation regarding “when Human life begins” is a political tool, not a sincere consideration. When Human cells start dividing normally, and barring outside interruption will lead to the development of a Human embryo, you have Human life. What else would it be? Liberals claim that, until an arbitrary stage, whatever the current talking point for the party is, the fetus is a mass of cells, much like a tumor. That’s inane. It’s a separate being, a Human being, with it’s own genetic identity. The argument that an embryo is not a person is one of the most embarrassing positions held by pro choice advocates. It’s a clearly disingenuous effort. How can Liberals sway voters and politicians by saying, “Kill babies”? So they say, “It’s not a baby!”. Really? What is it then?
Mace commented that the US has more liberal laws regarding abortion than most European nations, where it’s really difficult to get an abortion after the first trimester and you’ve decided to hand wave the situation.
Yes, the US has a strong pro-life movement. That doesn’t change the fact that for the most part the US has more liberal abortion laws than in Europe.
I’ll certainly concede that my choice of bringing up Alabama and Texas was short-sighted and foolish.
Nevertheless, if a US state tried to impose the kinds of abortion laws on its citizens that France imposes on it’s citizens they’d be branded anti-choice extremists.
That made no sense. The woman is having the fetus removed, not bombing the uterus.
Is backing out of an organ donation agreement also killing? Because that’s in essence what abortion is. The fetus has no chance at life unless the woman actively donates her body towards sustaining it, in a process that is detrimental to her health, livelihood, and possibly, life. In fact, the risk of death of living kidney donation is similar to that of carrying a pregnancy to term, but we don’t mandate kidney donation by law. Not even if you stab someone in the back thus necessitating their needing a new kidney. Not even if they’re your own kid.
Yeah, I don’t see a lot of conservatives arguing in favor of free neonatal care and extra-nutritious meals for pregnant mothers. And I suspect conservatives would generally be more willing than liberals are with taking kids away from abusive parents.
This argument gets trotted out in every abortion debate, and it never makes sense. Conservatives think abortion should be considered murder, and it should not be allowed. Full stop.
If you want to call them on an inconsistency, call them on the “except for rape and incest” exception. Anyone who agrees with that, can’t be said to hold consistent views on the matter.
The Bible is pretty clear that human life begins with the first breath. Prior to that point, all you have is the potential, with the fetus being treated as property, not independent life.
Is the death of the fetus the point of the procedure? That was the question I was addressing. It’s clearly not; however, since the inevitable result is the death of the fetus, and no efforts are made to sustain the fetus, the woman engaging in the procedure (and the abortionist) are responsible for the death. My analogy is that, if your target is a building full of munitions, and the dozen occupants of that building are collateral damage, while they weren’t the target of your attack, you are still responsible for their deaths, (unless you give them notice to vacate).
The point was made in a discussion where I was saying that it’s ridiculous to play word games with this subject (though I see why activists and politicians do it). Let’s just admit that embryos are developing Humans, and that, as a Society, we’re willing to allow certain killings. We’re willing to kill certain Humans, it’s that simple. Abortion is one case where it’s permissible. Euthanasia is another situation where it should be considered.
I’m not seeing what organ donation has to do with abortion. I understand the analogy (to me, it’s not a useful analogy).
All you have to do is … nothing? Whether out of ignorance or prejudice, invariably this utter disregard for the significant risk and burden to a woman carrying a pregnancy to term becomes apparent in a pro-lifer. Using 2012 US data, if pregnancy was a job, it would be the 6th most deadliest. Apart from death, there is a few percent chance each of hospitalization from hyperemesis gravidum and pre-eclampsia; 13% chance of hospitalization for non-delivery reason; up to 1/10 chance of gestational diabetes with increasing risk of diabetes post-delivery; almost-certain vaginal tearing and 1/3 chance of anal spinchter damage if birth is vaginal; 1/2 chance of urinary incontinence during and 1/9 chance a yaer after pregnancy; 1/4 chance of fecal incontinence 3 months after child birth; and so on. This is not including the loss of income and quality of life.
Organ donation is relevant because it’s using one’s body to essentially give life to another, and in the process suffering some damage. This is exactly what carrying a pregnancy to term is. Allowing the fetus to live necessitate the use of her body to her detriment. There is no option in which the woman is neither giving of her body nor harming the fetus, as in the case of bombing a building.
Besides, there exist a hierarchy of ownership that goes roughly as body>labor>residence>other properties>money. The conservative position appears particularly misogynistic because while everyone else is not even obligated to give up money (lowest on the hierarchy) for the benefit of current and future children, women are somehow required to give up body (highest on the hierarchy) towards this end. We have such respect for people’s bodies that we do not harvest organs and tissues from dead people without their consent. The burden on women if abortion is forbidden is exceptionally onerous.
An instructive question to ask when considering whether the goal of abortion is the killing of the fetus is this: if it was possible to transfer the developing fetus to an artificial womb, wherein the transfer procedure is as safe as an abortion to the woman and the artificial womb is as good as a human one for fetal development, what should the law be? I would posit that the woman should be compelled to transfer the fetus and both genetic parents should be liable for half the cost unless/until custody is transferred to a third party/the state.
It is possible to arrive at the pro-choice position without deciding when the fetus becomes human. No born children or grown person has the right to the use of my body to sustain their life. My obligation to my born children concerns my labor and money, not my body (I’m not compelled by law to donate even blood to them). To require bodily obligation of pregnant women alone is unjust because it places an extraordinary burden on them.
A pregnant woman shouldn’t be compelled to do anything against her will. If she wants to avail herself of a futuristic artificial womb, bully for her. She shouldn’t be forced to do any such thing. I’m not seeing why you’re introducing this technology into the debate unless it is currently available and in use. If it is, please provide a cite. I didn’t know about " …an artificial womb, wherein the transfer procedure is as safe as an abortion to the woman and the artificial womb is as good as a human one for fetal development." If there’s no such thing yet, how is this thought experiment instructive? Hey, if Star Trek transporters were available, why couldn’t we transport the fetus to a Conservative woman’s womb? I like *Star Trek *more than The Matrix.
I’m obviously not going to speak for BrightSunshine who I’m sure can speak for him/herself, but I just want to note that the rationale s/he offered for supporting pro-choice is remarkably similar to the “right to life, liberty, and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof” rationale by which the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated all abortion laws, and to a lesser extent similar to the rationale whereby the SCOTUS invoked the 14th Amendment in Roe v. Wade to partially overturn many abortion laws. It makes a great deal of sense.
In my view the question you raise is best answered by not trying to force an arbitrary answer on everyone, and by leaving it up to the woman and her doctor and their personal and professional ethics, respectively; realistically, few abortions are performed after the first trimester and virtually none after the second, and there’s nothing wrong or immoral about relegating it this way. Indeed the immorality is in passing prohibitionary legislation on such a personal and philosophical matter and forcing everyone to comply. When something is illegal, it’s illegal for everyone; when the law is silent on a matter like this, personal choices, rights, and liberties prevail.
I note that after four pages of sometime acrimonious debate, we are no closer to answering the OP question about why conservatives feel the way they do about this issue. Indeed this is another of those issues where conservatives and liberals have lined up in ways that aren’t intrinsically predictable and are somewhat anomalous. It’s conservatives who object to government overreach who you’d think would champion personal liberties, and it’s liberals who tend to oppose the death penalty as part of a general pro-life stance. So how did things happen to line up where conservatives and liberals have such drastically different interpretations of when embryonic human life begins? I note that a similar disconnect tends to exist with issues like euthanasia and pulling the plug on brain-dead patients. Conservatives were all up in arms over the Terry Schiavo case, and in that one, at least, objective science was able to prove them wrong when the autopsy was done. My suspicion is that evangelicals and the religious base have a lot do with these conservative positions in the US.
That’s the rub, isn’t it? Abortion is murder, period … except in cases of rape and incest. Why is that? I’ll tell you why: because it is politically expedient. It’s harder to push an agenda for government control over a woman’s body if you don’t offer those exceptions.
You’d think, to be consistent, the exception would be limited to “cases where the pregnancy or birth are deadly or dangerous to the mother”, but that doesn’t appear to be sufficient to the purposes of the pro life activists and politicians.