You’re probably right. I may be a bit over-sensitive because I come from a place were not very many people oppose that abortions should be legal, and so am not used to this kind of discussions, and I find the amount of emotional and condemning arguments overwhelming, even if it may seem fairly normal to a lot of other people.
I also agree with you that it’s unlikely that anyone has changed their mind as a consequence of this discussion. What worried me at one point was that people would end up disagreeing more vehemently than they did to begin with, but I’m pleased to see that this doesn’t appear to be the case now.
Meh, I’m getting tired of trying to tease out all the things you say, then later say you never said. I’m making an honest effort to interpret your statements fairly and not make unwarranted assumptions. Maybe you just have to be clearer.
Yes, I figure that’s a decent possibility among the rather small group that was the subject of the original study. For various reasons, I have my doubts that this study’s findings can be usefully extrapolated out to the general population. Since you cited the study in the first place, I assume you disagree, but I’m prepared to be corrected.
Basically, I’m not going to use this Baltimore study as a springboard to any statement about the general population. It’s simply too small and its samples are drawn from a social cohort that does not represent the larger population, seeing as it is overwhelmingly afflicted by poverty, under-education and under-employment. All it would take is four or five outliers in this small sample to bias the result, and the result itself comes after trying to select out vaguely-defined control criteria to try to isolate what effect, if any, abortion has.
Yeah, even if you rewrite this to make grammatical sense, I’m still not delving into it, as it is foolish.
So don’t accept it. It is what it is - a plausible (at least to me) influencing factor that was not accounted for.
Well, I’ll dig up some post-traumatic stress-disorder studies that delve into the affect it has on domestic abuse and substance abuse (which can reasonably be considered an aggravating factor for domestic abuse) later on.
Because it suggests the U.S. regressed much further than I thought. Also, I’d think the more vocal anti-Roe political contenders like Rick Santorum would be doing better if what you say is true.
At the very least, teen pregnancy is linked to higher drop-out rates, leading to girls not finishing high school (the majority of women in the Baltimore study didn’t finish high school, and though it’s not stated that their pregnancies were the cause, it seems a fair guess) with the resultant loss of economic opportunity that implies. You’re making too many assumptions about my assumptions, and you’re wrong on multiple counts. I don’t know what you consider to be “usually liberal” notions, so I can’t say if I adhere to them or not, but it’s seems obvious enough that a woman who is poor does not get less poor by having another child. Quite the opposite, in fact.
And I’m sure some women indeed try to better themselves for their own sake and for the sake of their children. I just don’t see how more children helps.
Women are individuals, too.
My general policy is that the burden is on the state to justify its laws, not on the individual to justify his or her freedom. State intervention, especially on matters like this that directly affect an individual’s right to choose what happens to her own body, need an especially strong justification, and I’m not seeing it. Canada has no such law (and, incidentally, we have also have gay marriage), and there have been no ill-effects that I’m aware of.
Consistently, I also favour legalizing (at least some) drugs and prostitution.
Check out some of the things your fellow pro-lifers are saying in this thread.
No, I don’t feel that I have the moral obligation to take the child, though I might do it anyway after a hard calculation or two. It’s not that good a hypothetical, because if I’m walking through a desert with adequate supplies, either I’m already carrying 50+ lbs of food and water and gear, or the town is very close by. Do I even have food the baby could eat?
It’s not a hypothetical I feel inclined to take seriously, because the situation is highly unlikely while pregnancy is not. You can make up as many baby-killing scenarios as you want (“a toddler is taking baby steps toward a giant blender - do you bite through the power cord to save it, or let it get mulched?”), I still support a woman’s right to choose. If that offends somebody’s God, so be it.
It is a potential baby. It is not a baby. Shit happens and many do not come to term.
Take the logic of a baby back farther and you could outlaw masturbation. The waste of sperm, that could be a baby, is just so immoral. You are murdering a child. Stop it.
Before something is born, it has little value, positive or negative. By ending its life you’re truncating all possible branches early, good and evil, that it may take. Since it has taken no (significant) actions we can’t REALLY say whether killing it is a good or evil act. Therefore abortions is completely amoral, neither moral or immoral. Now, that’s the action itself, there are situations where it can tilt the CHOICE in a moral or immoral light (such as health concerns potentially making it more moral). This is (generally) my argument to people who say “do you think I should have been aborted? You monster.” My general line of reasoning is that if you kill them NOW they’ve had some effect on the world, so it’s not a value-neutral action, killing them before they’ve made any choices or affected anything significantly (intentionally) is much closer to a null-value.
Now, I’ll admit this is a bit of a slippery slope. Do newborn infants have any real value? Do small children? When can something be said to have “value”? What kind of choices need to be made? It’s probably somewhere before teenage years (plenty of times to have returned someone’s money and torture animals by then), but where exactly? I’d say for safety and mores’ sake you can cut it off at birth, but that perhaps infanticide isn’t necessarily evil. I’m not going to say we should legalize infanticide, just noting my argument gets a little hairy there.
I know it’s completely unlikely. And I’m not trying to set you up as some sort of terrible baby killer at all; in fact I didn’t mean for this hypothetical scenario to be some sort of harder-to-refute-allegory of pregnancy. Rather, I was trying to figure out if the “I have a right to kill it if it hijacks my body” could still be applied if the hijacker weren’t a foetus, and if it couldn’t, then, in my opinion, the argument is flawed. Personally, I think I’d have a moral obligation to bring the desert baby to safety (although I would properly understand and forgive anyone who chose not to do it, because, as you point out, they’d be having a hard enough time already), but I wouldn’t necesarily feel that I had to deliver my foetus into safe babyhood if I were pregnant. If you weren’t willing to leave the desert baby either, then it might be because bodily hijacking doesn’t condone killing, and the reason why you can still have an abortion with moral impunity is that the foetus is not the moral equivalent of a baby, or of you.
Yes, that really is a bit of a slippery slope, because what you’re basically saying is that anyone whose past actions haven’t been valuable to other people can be killed with moral impunity. Is that really what you think?
I can clarify my POV at least - is it more understandable if the word ‘using’ is substituted for ‘hijacking’. It is irrelevant to me if the person who wants the use of my body is unconscious, conscious, intentional, unintentional, purposefully or accidentally wanting to use my body. What is relevant to me is that it is my body and no other person can force me to let them use it. Whether they are -6 months old (i.e. unborn), 6 months old, 6 years old or 60 years old. It is always and always will be my choice whether or not someone else can use my body.
I don’t know how to answer your question, because I’m not sure if “moral obligation” means the same to you as it does to me. But I’m happy to answer questions if you have any if the following doesn’t clarify: I hope I would have it in me to save that life in the desert. But should I be forced to do so, if my evaluation of the situation made me think it best if I didn’t? Would it be a good thing to save a life? Yes, of course. Should anyone be forced to save another’s life? No, I don’t believe so.
I have an alternate hypothetical for you
Do you think a parent should be forced to donate body organs (say a piece of liver, or a kidney) to their sick child? I would think most parents would choose to, but if they decide not to - do you believe they should be forced to?
It doesn’t matter whether or not you consider it foolish as it’s not foolish. There are individuals whose mothers scheduled an abortion, went to the clinic and had the operation done, only to have the child which they were aborting survive, though usually with some physical or mental defect (i.e., cerebral palsy, severe retardation, missing limbs, etc.). Are you really going to say that said individuals weren’t aborted? That they’re making it up?
To my knowledge, none of those individuals have ever grown up to be pro-choice. In fact, they tend to end up being staunch pro-life advocates. But all things considered, that should surprise no one. It’s far easier to relegate someone to the status of choice when you’re already past the point in which you could just be considered a choice than it is to support an action whose sole purpose was to make you dead.
A country which allows a certain segment of the population to be killed willy-nilly is anything but progressive.
At the national level, a candidate is better off being pro-life, as pro-lifers tend to vote more fervently than pro-choicers (i.e., pro-choicers vote for pro-lifers more than pro-lifers vote for pro-choicers). Rick Santorum being pro-life doesn’t hurt him overall. It’s the other things.
And I’d guess that I’m an individual, as well. Does that mean I have the right to act against whomever I want? An individual’s right to act does not infringe upon an individuals right to be acted again.
The unborn at all stages are human beings, and no human should arbitrarily be deprived of his or her life. That’s a pretty strong justification right there.
I consider this a false dichotomy argument, but since you consider a fetus to be equivalent to a bacterium, there is no point in arguing this with you further.
So tweak the hypothetical so you have a wagon to carry food and water in. You’re already pulling the wagon with you, and there’s enough food and water to share with the baby, although that will take away some food and water for you, so you’ll have to ration it, meaning you may feel more tired more easily and slightly nauseated much of the time. You’ll have to make lots of stops to tend to the baby, just as pregnant women often need to run to the bathroom every hour. You’re not going to be able to get a great night’s sleep. Every muscle is going to ache with new and interesting pains as you drag the wagon with one hand and hold the baby with the other.
I think *that *hypothetical is actually a pretty good one. You drove into the desert, sure, but you didn’t intend to find an infant there. The physical demands are much like pregnancy, as is the fact that it will end, eventually. The only thing we’re missing is the increased risk of death at the end when you deliver the infant to its adoptive family.
And…no, I’m still not morally obligated to take up the infant and care for it out of my stores of food and water. I probably would, just as I did chose to carry my unplanned son to term. But I don’t feel I’d be obligated to, and I wouldn’t take legal action to force everyone walking through the desert to rescue stray infants.
But, let’s be honest - a person who rescued an unrelated infant in the desert would be lauded as a hero when they reached their destination. They’d be all over the news, an angel in blue jeans, a living embodiment of compassion. That should tell you something about how difficult this as-close-to-unintended-pregnancy-as-we-can-make-it scenario would be perceived, and yet pro-life people expect actual unintended pregnant women to just suck it up and deal and dismiss their concerns over their health and bodily autonomy as selfish.
So, just to make sure this is on topic, because I’m no longer sure what’s allowed in this thread and what isn’t: here we’ve crafted a hypothetical where I do not believe that a person is obligated to care for an actual, born baby, in the same way I do not believe that a person is obligated to care for a fetus. A baby and a fetus are identical, morally, and we still have no obligation to care for either at expense to our own health.
Because I’m just that kind of person. I need to be needed. I find fulfillment in helping other people, including babies*. It’s why I became a nurse. (OMG, that’s the first time I can write that in past tense!)
Once more, with feeling - pro-choice is in favor of choices. One of those choices is carrying a fetus/baby to term, and that’s perfectly okay for those who choose it. Other choices are perfectly okay for those who choose them.
*ETA: But I also don’t expect everyone to feel the same way I do about that, any more than I expect you to expose yourself to HIV and hepatitis while giving a random stranger an injection, or care for a person with TB or radiation implants and risk your own health. I’m willing to do that; you don’t have to be.
Substituting ‘using’ for ‘hijacking’ makes me feel a bit better, I suppose. Given the choice, I think I should prefer ‘inhabit’, because in my opinion the foetus doesn’t ‘want’ anything. What is really bothering me, though, is the assumption that a person’s right to unlimited bodily autonomy is taken for granted. I’m not saying that I think people shouldn’t have that right, but I’d like to know where that right comes from, and what makes it so important that, in some circumstances at least, it should be given precedence over another human life?
I agree that you shouldn’t (and indeed couldn’t) be forced to save someone elses life. When I say that I think you would have a moral obligation, I don’t mean that I think you should be bound by law, but simply that bringing the baby along would (at least in my opinion) be morally “better” than leaving it behind. I base this on the assumption that the resulting positive consequences for the child would exceed the negative consequences for you. The problem, as you point out, is that assessing what the outcome of a given situation is often extremely difficult, and that even an apparently insignificant factor could in some circumstances end up tipping the scales. For this reason, I think it would be ridiculous, and not a little dangerous, to attempt to turn a moral obligation of this ethical-pickle-kind into codified legislation.
In reply to your hypothetical: No, i definitely don’t think a parent (or anyone else, for that matter) should be forced to donate body organs, or blood, or skin, or anything at all, to a sick child, nor do I think that anyone should be subjected to any sort of sanctions for refusing to donate. But I still think the parent ought to do it, assuming that: 1. donating whatever was required didn’t put his/her own welfare at any considerable risk, and 2. the condition of the sick child would improve noticeably as a consequence. If the parent refused under these circumstances, and the child died as a result, I should think that would justify a certain amount of feeling guilty on the parent’s part. However, in most cases organ donations do pose a considerable risk to the donater, and in many cases this risk is impossible to assess. So, for that matter, is the potential benefit to the recipient. As such, I can easily imagine a whole heap of scenarios in which I would find it morally sound for the parent to refuse to donate; but not primarily on the basis of his/her right to bodily autonomy.
In short, I think that denying the sick child treatment, if the sacrifice on the parent’s part were less than the benefit to the child, would be immoral, but that it should never be considered a criminal offence.
Yeah, I’m afraid it is. But I see you expanded on it:
Are there statistics on this? It sounds like something extremely rare (though I’m prepared to be enlightened) and in any case not something that moves me to change my stance and start denying the woman the right to make that choice in the first place.
Yeah, fine, whatever, let them vote accordingly like anyone else. I don’t see how their experience gives them any special knowledge or insight into the issue, though it does remind me of a Stephen Wright joke:
Well, I wasn’t playing the label game with “fetus = human/person/baby” so I see no reason to play it with “progressive/regressive” except to say if the U.S. really is returning to a pre-1973 attitude (on pretty much anything, though I can think of a few minor exceptions), that strikes me as regressive by definition.
Hence the value of pandering and lip-service in American politics. Or any country’s politics, really. Personally, I think it’s a discredit to your country that this issue is still significant to a large segment of your population. Anyway, I’m sure we’ll get to see it shake out over the next 18 (!) months. Possibly some state races will hinge on the abortion issue. I don’t expect any national ones to.
If that “whomever” is inside your body at the time, absolutely. I don’t know why this “inside your body” aspect seems difficult for you to grasp - it’s pretty much the entire basis of the pro-choice stance. For some reason, it sounds like you’re assuming “pro-choice” includes the right to choose to gun people down in the street, though I may have misinterpreted you.
Well, actually, it can, and in situations that don’t even involve pregnancy. Assume you own a house. Assume somebody walks into your house and refuses to leave (or possibly was even invited in, and now refuses to leave). Are you helpless? Do you have to tolerate this person in your house until they decide to leave? I assumed you have the right to expel them, even against their will. You could even call in professionals (i.e. cops) to assist in the process. Are the police going to show up and tell you “Tough luck, we can’t act against his individual rights so you’re stuck with him” or are they going to encourage and if need be force the person from your house? Suppose the police taser him and he dies as a result. Are you now guilty of murder?
If you honestly don’t feel you have the right to act against a trespasser in your house, then give me your address and I’ll move in. I’ll even bring my drum set and my pet skunks.
Sure. Personally, I don’t feel it’s strong enough, considering the consequences of an abortion ban, and I don’t get the impression you’ve given these consequences adequate consideration.
Well, good for you. Now that we’ve established that not all pro-lifers think alike, perhaps in future you’ll hesitate to use phrases like “(usually liberal) notions”, as though “liberal” was some kind of tidy and damning category.
However, I think you would find it somewhat difficult to defend (in a logically consistant manner) killing off a sapient human being who had no relation to your uterus and no impact on your reproductive status whatsoever, in order to avoid pregnancy.
But this is where we keep going off the rails. It isn’t whether it’s morally right to kill this defenseless unborn baby. It’s what we as a society are prepared to do to stop someone who has decided to kill the defenseless unborn baby, and how we are prepared to punish someone after they killed the defenseless unborn baby.
So stop arguing morality. The analogies with babies and violinists in the desert miss the point in my view. What we should be arguing about is what the rest of us should do to someone who comes across that violinist in the desert and just keeps on going without helping them.
If all we are allowed to do is tell that person when they get back to town that they made the wrong choice and they’re a horrible person, well, then we’re free to do that to people who choose to have abortions today. But do we have the guts to charge them with murder? Imprison them? What do we hope to accomplish with the trial and punishment? Will holding a trial and punishing the abandoner result in a better society? Especially since it would be pretty easy for the abandoner to escape punishment if they just keep their mouth shut when they get back to town.
