Well, that makes a world of difference. You are saying that you hold a certain personal opionion, but would not turn that into political action. I don’t think your beliefs are quite what the OP is talking about. You sound more or less like most pro-choice candidate out there-- persoanlly opposed to abortion, but not wanting to impose your personal beliefs on others.
Here’s a similar thread I started about 18 months ago.
That’s a bit of a blunt (and unnecessarily inflammatory) way to put it, but yes, that’s pretty much it. If your actions cause you to become pregnant, it’s your irresponsibility. If someone got you pregnant against your will, it’s not.
And as far as the “in my opinion” thing goes, that’s all this topic is, opinion. Do I care what you do? Not enough to, say, bomb an abortion clinic or anything, or even demonstrate in support of my position (besides, those people are nuts), and I’m certainly not naive enough to think that my opinion will make even the smallest lick of difference, but once will come the day when my son will impregnate his girlfriend/wife, and then for the sake of my grandchildren I will have a vested interest in it. So let’s be reasonable here.
My position, laid out for all to see:
- Abortion to avoid the consequences of irresponsible behavior is wrong.
- Abortion in the case of rape/incest is acceptable.
- Abortion in favor of the health of the mother is acceptable.
- I consider the fetus to be a human being upon conception.
- Even if I could change things I would not.
- In spite of my own personal opinions it is not my place to judge.
It’s that simple. You want to make it more complicated than that, be my guest. It’s not complicated for me at all.
Why?
I think what we’re trying to understand, at this point in the coversation, is what, exactly, you deem “irresponsible behavior.” Is all premarital sex, extramarital sex or marital sex not intended to prodouce offspring, regardless of birth control methods used, irresponsible?
“Yes” is a valid, although archaic, answer. It’s also the only answer which would begin to make your position tenable.
That’s actually pretty complicated, on the face of it. If a fetus is a human being, what’s the difference between killing it in utero, vs killing it post birth? Or, perhaps you need to define what a “human” is and what rights a “human” has. Can yo do that? I suspect that when you think it out you won’t really continue to believe that the fetus is a human.
Well, if you’re having unprotected sex and somehow hoping not to get pregnant, that’s irresponsible.
If you use various contraceptive methods, you should know that they have a possibility of failure, especially if you forget to use them. Therefore, you should know that having sex carries some risk of getting pregnant (after all, that’s its original purpose). If you go ahead and get pregnant anyway, and want to get rid of the fetus thus removing your responsibility for your actions, that’s irresponsible.
Getting an abortion is not “removing” responsibility, it’s taking responisbility.
But even so, someone still has to explain why the life of the fetus is less valuable if its mother isn’t a slut.
Here’s my position. It may be similar to other pro life positions.
The “hard cases” of abortion account for generally less than 3% of all abortions AFAIK. (“Hard cases” is a political term, not an ethical term used to describe rape, incest and life of mother situations).
Generally/Morally (as Hamlet pointed out), I would oppose all abortions except for the rare situation that threatens the life of the mother.
In the highly unlikely event that legislation that would outlaw all abortions except for hard cases found itself with significant support, I could see myself with a choice: Support a bill that would outlaw about 97% of abortions…or accept the consequences of no such bill and the status quo. I could see myself therefore, supporting such a bill…since we live in a representative democracy and not a benevolent dictatorship 
Let me re-iterate how highly unlikely I would see this scenario AND that I forsee lots of problems for such a scenario (perhaps an increase in the number of “reported” abortions due to rape, for example)…so I offer my opinion as a pure hypothetical. Perhaps some folks who “support” the exceptions do so from a similar “hypothetical” framework…perhaps not.
Just trying to pinpoint level of irresponsibility.
Ms. Holmes has a difficult pregancy…this close to having an hysterectomy. Lots of scar tissue. Doctor says unlikely to be able to carry another baby. Ms. Holmes gets tubes cut and sealed, to be sure.
Mrs. Holmes is pregnant.
Is she irresponsible? Or should Mrs. Holmes had a hysterectomy, forcing her into early menopause and the risks therein, which outweighted the possibility of her getting pregnant?
Thank you for an honest answer.
My thoughts: Humans have the capacity for sharing sexual pleasure for reasons other than procreation, including building partner bonds, reducing depression and other health benefits. If this was not the case, every instance of sexual desire and intercourse would result in pregnancy - women would not be capable of intercourse on infertile days, and infertile people or those beyond the age of menopause would feel no sexual desire. That’s how it works in the rest of the animal kingdom, primates evolved to have sex for different reasons. While procreation is a possibility, and should be guarded against when not wanted, I don’t think people should be forced to abstain from sexual activity when they don’t want to procreate, nor do I think they should be forced to bear and raise unwanted children, although I do think they should use contraceptive mothods to reduce the chances of pregnancy.
But, as DtC asks, what does this have to do with the internal logic of anti-choice-rape-caveat? “Responsibility of the mother” has squat to do with the child. If abortion is murder, then it’s murder, whether the mother was irresponsible or raped.
Not just logically inconsistent, but morally and intellectually inconsistent. And ultimately legally inconsistent if such a set of laws were to pass.
There is an irony in all of this. It would appear that the pro-life movement embraces (in large part, although not universally) the rape/incest exception for fear of being seen as too radical. The logic, I think, is that some laws protecting the unborn are better than none. Take the victory you can reasonably get, not perhaps what you wish. I don’t know.
But paradoxically I think that that argument makes the pro-life position weaker, not stronger. The contradiction is huge. As Diogenes points out, it is the equivalent of saying that my reason for an abortion is better than yours. That’s indefensible.
Ultimately this will always lead back to the question:
When does life begin?
All other questions and solutions will flow from that. I would submit that it is a complex isue and the solution is not a simple one. But if the product of rape/incest is an unborn human life, it is inconsistent to extinguish it’s life simply to ease the suffering of the victim. (It should be noted that if a fetus is a person, it too is a victim whether it is aborted or not)
You can say that if you like, but I don’t consider that to be correct. I’ve taken what I consider to be a well thought out position.
But here’s the deal. Under what circumstances would we purposely kill one human, for no other reason than to avoid personal trauma in another human being? Don’t all humans have a right to life? If so, then the fetus cannot be said to be human if it doesn’t have a right to life.
Simply logic. If a human has the right to life, and a fetus does not have the right to life, then a fetus is not human.
All you are doing is creating two types of humans: the feuts type and the non-fetus type. Logically, that is no different than saying the fetus is not human.
Is there any other instance when we would condone the killing of a human (who had committed no crime) unless it were to save a larger number of humans? IE, we might shoot down an aircraft with innocent civilians if it was headed towards the WTC, but we wouldn’t shoot it down if it was headed to crash into the desert.
so how is getting an abortion not taking responsibility for your actions? the goal of birth control during sex is to prevent a woman from having to give birth. what difference does it make if the birth control (in the form of an abortion) is used after sex?
note that if the situation is different before pregnancy from after pregnancy (i.e. a fertilized egg has all the rights of a human, or at least the right to be born eventually), that is a completely seperate argument. “responsibility” plays no role in that argument.
as of now, i can see no reason to consider abortion irresponsible. it’s either the same as all other birth control in that regard, or your reason for being against abortion has nothing to do with responsibility. except, of course, unless you want to punish a woman for having sex.
can anyone think of any other reason to consider abortion irresponsible?
Actually EC, I was referring to individuals who are would disallow abortions except for the victims of rape or incest.
Fair enough.
But because she did not have an abortion, the particular daughter you might have had a few months down the road from your son’s conception, when you were more prepared for children, will now never exist.
Let me get this straight: if someone walked over to me and started strangling me, would you just shrug and say it’s not your place to judge?
Wait…have we seen the line of demarkation between responsibility and irresposibility?
If my girlfriend willingly has sex with me (ie. not rape) and I use a condom, but as a sick bastard I deliberately poke holes in the condom she should be punished?
She’s not being irresponsible in that case.
Ah…forget it. It’s a logically indefensible position, and we all know it.
-Jo
I just spent untold dollars, a lot of hard work, and four years of my life in college persuing a dream- but not a dream that is likely to support me in a stable way. I’ve dreamed since I was a kid of all the exotic places I would travel and all the great cities I would live in, not what my wedding dress would look like and what I’d name my kids. I’ve imagined living in artist’s garrots in Paris and tiny apartments in Tokyo, not a three bedroom ranch home.
Having a kid would be punishment for me. I never wanted a house and husband and kids and having that would ruin my dreams and all the hard work I’ve put in to them. I’m sure I’d love my child, but my whole life would be tinged with “could have beens” and “could have beens” are a lot more sad when they are the things you actually wanted and could have had so easily.
But, thanks to the miracle of modern medical technology, it’s not! Abortion is an option, and it cuts the whole equal sign out of the equation. What you are trying to do is take away and option to force sex to equal children once again.
It’s not a matter of humaness, it’s a matter of consciousness. A fetus’s brain functions is a lot less than a kitten. It does not pocess a sence of self. It cannot process most of the input it recieves from it’s sense. It has no concept of time or the world or of other people. I can drop my kitten off at the SPCA and have it killed. I don’t see why something with the same consciousness as a kitten should be treated differently because of what kind of DNA it has. An exception should be made, I think for the disabled/elderly/comatose/asleep. Things that are already alive should be treated differently out of general respect for life, and the fact that they are not biologically tied to another person who may have compelling reasons to kill it.