That is way too reasonable. Extremists on both sides of this issue are too invested in their agendas to be reasonable.
oogabooga said:
Corrected to 12 to 13 weeks, I still have to ask, more dangerous than what? Pregnancy involves risks, and those risks escalate the closer to delivery. Pregnancy and delivery invoke a lot of physiological changes in the woman. While any operative procedure has risks, how do those risks compare to the risks of pregnancy itself? At what stage of abortion do the risks get more than the risks of carrying to term?
Wouldn’t the trauma aspect of the abortion be related to the stage of the pregnancy at abortion, the development of the fetus, and the involved parties’ beliefs about the meaning of the abortion? Again, a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant getting an abortion at 2 months is different than a woman who wants a family having health issues at 22 weeks that put her life at risk.
**nd_n8 **said:
Depending on the circumstances, sometimes it is called “self-defense”, sometimes “justifiable homicice”, sometimes “legally sanctioned execution”. Sometimes we call it “taking off life support”.
There’s also the incredibly significant fact that you have assumed an answer to the underlying question - when does the “life” in question become entitled to rights? When does it transition from a mass of undifferentiated cells to a full-status human individual? The transition process is a continuum from two unconnected cells (sperm and ovum) to a full grown adult (age 21, or whatever arbitrary age you want to define “adulthood”). Most of us would agree it’s a little late to abort a 2 year old. Some people think it’s too late after the egg and sperm join, even before the fertilized egg becomes implated in the uterus. Most of us have positions a little less than either of those extremes.
Stepping on a cockroach or swatting a mosquito are also the premeditated killing of an organism. So is pulling a carrot so you can eat it or sell it. “Killing an organism” is a broad term that covers a lot more ground than murdering a human being, so equating the terms morally is invalid.
Also, as has been mentioned by others, the situation of rape or incest does not change the condition of what abortion is. If abortion is premeditated killing of an organism, it matters not whether the fetus is from rape or consensual sex, it is still premeditated killing of an organism. One might be able to justify a moral case why killing an organism resulting from rape and incest is more acceptable than killing an organism resulting from consensual sex, but that moral case does not result from there being a difference in the fact of what the action does.
You seem to have a confused view of what premeditated means, and seem to be ascribing it some moral distinction. Premeditated just means “thought out before enacted”. Whether the case was “I had sex without protection and now I’m pregnant”, “I had sex but my birth control failed and now I’m pregnant”, or “I was raped and now I’m pregnant”, in all cases the situation is the same. The woman is pregnant and does not desire to be so. The choice to abort is premeditated in all cases. Again, you might be able to make a case that the rape provides grounds for different moral evaluation, but not based upon whether the act was “premeditated” or not.
At best, you seem to be saying that a woman who chooses to have sex without birth control should expect to get pregnant, and a woman who has sex with birth control should be aware that birth control should fail, and in either case using abortion as a backup birth control method is inappropriate/immoral. However, if a woman has her choice taken away from her and is impregnated, then she has moral grounds to do what would otherwise be immoral, i.e. get an abortion.
Seems wishy washy to me. Besides, I don’t accept the assumed moral status of abortion as immoral.
tim314 said:
Thank you so much for saying clearly what I’ve been trying to find a way to say.
Another point came to me.
**nd_n8 **said:
What about cases where the woman has elected to have a child that the man did not want - even going so far as to trick the man into thinking she was using birth control, or obtaining semen that was not provided vaginally and inserting it herself? Courts have ruled that the child’s right to parental support trumps the man’s desire over having the child, and required child support payments. Courts seem to be ruling that the child has rights even if the parents’ right of choice was removed. That is not consistent with your opinion.
Of course, the parallel rests on morally equating a fetus with a child, which you seem to do.
Why we ‘should hope for abortion to be rare’ is more to do with women’s rights than the rights of the foetus. If abortion is accepted as a form of birth-control there would be no protection for single-mothers or victims of rape or mothers of severely handicapped children that choose to go through with their pregnancies. There would be too much pressure on women to have abortions when they might not want to, impractical as this may seem to an outsider. Fathers could be easily absolved of responsibility for their children - “I told her to have an abortion”. You might say so what but abortion *can *be an invasive and emotionally difficult procedure for women. Personally I would hope to live in a society where everyone at least aims for it to be a rare, last resort. It shouldn’t be taken lightly because pregnancy is a very serious matter for women. All sorts of conflicting emotions and instincts come into play. Why would anyone not want the necessity for abortion to be rare?
Yep, that’s what I’m saying.
Every time, without fail, this should be the expectation.
Is it going to happen every time?
No, of course not.
Is it wishy-washy?
Probably. I used vague, non-descriptive language in my post intentionally. My personal stand on the issue is that abortion as birth control is dead wrong, abortion as an act of eugenics is wrong, abortion as a means of regaining personal power and control once it has been taken away is wrong but understandable.
However I do fully support the right to a legal, safe (safer than a back alley anyway), medical abortion performed at or before the legal definition of “human being with rights”.
Is that hypocritical? Probably, but oh well, such is the nature of opinions - mine may make perfect sense to me but someone else is free to call bullshit and share theirs at any time.
What I don’t support, and what I get from the OP, is the stance of “My demographic has been physically/mentally/morally/socially injured or suppressed in the past so I claim the right to selectively refuse ownership and responsibility for my present and future actions and nobody better tell me otherwise.”
It’s a mind numbingly broad brush I’m painting this opinion with though, and as I said earlier oh well, others may disagree, may discuss things that cause me to modify my opinion, may even be persuaded to take a second look at theirs. But I can’t expect everybody to agree with me (seriously I can’t expect anybody to agree with me) but my opinions and values are mine alone to deal with.
As are the drive-by opinions expressed by the OP.
YoudNeverGuess said:
Yeah - in crazy world. The whole point of “Pro-Choice” is the Choice. That includes the choice to carry to term, and either raise the kid or put up for adoption. Sure, there is already pressure against parents who choose to have handicapped children. Abortion being an acceptable “birth control” means wouldn’t make that worse. Arguably it would make it easier for some people to choose to abort rather than carry to term, but that is irrelevant to your point. No one is going to mandate abortions. No one is advocating mandatory abortions for any situation.
You think so? Funny, courts don’t seem to be accepting that argument. They already hold men accountable for child support even if the man gets little or no parental and visitation rights. They hold men accountable for child support even in cases where the woman claimed to be using birth control, or acquired the semen through non-vaginal intercourse and self-impregnated without his consent.
Part of that is about what stage of an abortion. Mostly I was reacting to the perceived attitude that any interference prior to birth is the same equivalent moral status.
Look at people who are against the morning-after pill (i.e. prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, causing a very early “miscarriage”) because they equate that to getting an abortion at 8 months.
I wouldn’t mind if abortions were rare, but legally and easily available without stigma, and where they were unnecessary because of adequate education, access to effective birth control, and elimination of violence against women.*
*I specified against women vs. including men because while violence against men is bad, it does not typically lead to an abortion. Ergo, irrelevant to the point.
nd_n8 said:
You highlighted the unimportant part of that paragraph. The important part was “and in either case using abortion as a backup birth control method is inappropriate/immoral.” That may be your opinion, but it is not shared by everyone.
It’s been ten years. Maybe it’s time to put the experience behind you and move on. And in that non-professional assessment I’m including the possibility that it ruined your life because the trauma and unresolved anger wrecked your relationship with your partner.
I see what you’re saying and actually I agree for the most part. Legally I think abortion should be available without stigma as you say, and if some people use it as a back-up ‘last resort’ form of birth control, well at the end of the day that’s their business. However, in my ideal world I just think that abortion should always be treated by society in general with gravity rather than flippancy (disclaimer: I’m not accusing you personally of flippancy) for the very reason that it’s such a difficult decision for so many women. I don’t think it’s right to assume that abortion at an early stage of pregnancy is as a rule less of a big deal to a woman than a later-stage abortion. For most women pregnancy is a big deal emotionally and the decision to have an abortion isn’t always clear-cut.
Understood and agreed with.
Perhaps I would have been better off to phrase it as “Using abortion as a backup birth control method is a poor substitute to accepting responsibility and owning one’s behaviors and choices.”
As to this I find myself agreeing with you. Perhaps the moral and cultural stigma some wish to be assigned to abortion as murder is childish and a way to guilt people into changing their opinions into something more reasonable.
I shall abstain from furthering this stigma in the future and stick with the “Rare and unnecessary because of adequate education and resourses (including elimination of violence against women)” schtick.
But I stand by my “My demographic has been physically/mentally/morally/socially injured or suppressed in the past so I claim the right to selectively refuse ownership and responsibility for my present and future actions and nobody better tell me otherwise.” stance as expressed in the language and tone of the OP.
YoudNeverGuess said:
Every case is unique, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. I was evaluating from the moral situation of defining the status of life, rights, etc, not the personal position of desire to have children, etc.
**nd_n8 ** said:
Perhaps for a few, but mostly I think it comes from beliefs about the moral status of rights, i.e. religious beliefs about the soul, evaluations of when consciousness begins, etc.
Re: these last lines: [[One accepts that abortion in such cases may be necessary when the mother’s life is in peril, but it doesn’t seem to me it can be justified (as some would have it) merely because the child is a product of rape or incest or is defective. These things weren’t the mom’s fault, and may impose some hardship on her, but they weren’t the kid’s fault either, and he’s one of us.]]
One might ask Cecil if there is a level of defectiveness in the fetus that would justify terminating the pregnancy and, if not, whether he is open to adopting this child if the mother is unable to care for him.
Cecil’s answer to the question “When does life begin,” is both wrong and ridiculous. He apparently believes that two dead cells join, and magically become alive.
Obviously, both the egg and the sperm are both just as alive before conception as they are afterwards. Life, as far as we know, has only begun once – about four billion years ago.
What is actually being asked in this question is ‘When does INDIVIDUALITY, with all the rights that go along with it, begin?’
My answer is, as soon as you’re aware of yourself as an individual, you gain the rights of an individual. Probably between one and two years of age.
So legalize abortion up to 78 - 104 weeks, somewhere between the fifth and sixth trimester.
Meh, works for me.
Kudos to your commentary on Cecil’s “When does life begin?”
So, then, by your view, killing an year-old human child would not be murder, but euthanizing an year-month-old cat, which is certainly aware of itself as an individual, would?
RR
While a few of the things you say are true, they aren’t responses to Cecil’s column. Are you sure you actually read it and didn’t just pick up random key words to use in a diatribe?
I think such a question is best answered this way: Is there a level of defectiveness in a newborn that would justify killing it? As Cecil points out in today’s column, the Spartans obviously thought the answer was yes. Similarly, in China some families think a newborn has a level of girlness that justifies its abandonment. So you tell me.
Far as I’m concerned, if someone wants to leave their baby in a dumpster, that’s their business. I’m not terribly exercised over the killing of babies. Last thing we need is one more white-trash asshole driving slow in the left lane.
I’m more interested in your apparent belief that cats are aware of themselves as individuals. If you really, really, REALLY believe that, can you explain to me exactly why killing a cat ISN’T murder?
On behalf of the SDMB Pro-Lifers, would you please stay and continue to share your thoughts in every abortion thread here?
Why, you think it would fire up the white-trash base? I thought that was Sarah Palin’s job.