There is no easy answer, but I think it’s helpful to have a position that avoids both extremes, i.e., disallow abortions after XX number of weeks. It is admittedly not a “pure” position, but as I’v said, I think this is a moral issue and good people can disagree on when “life” begins. So eliminate late term abortions and allow abortions in cases of rape or incest and I think you arrive at a position that satisfies the greatest number of people. And once those two extremes are off the table, then maybe everyone can spend their energies on things that would reduce the greatest number of abortions. Because even the Pro-Choice side is not ‘pro abortion’.
See, I can’t quite agree with that. How someone feels is not what decides what is right and wrong. And I do expect the government to prevent gross wrongs.
The issue is whether or not I consider late-term abortions to be a gross wrong. I’m not sure, so, for now, I go with the less restrictive option, where the line is drawn at birth. At that point, there is no longer any claim by the mother that her body is being controlled.
But I could be convinced that she should have to deliver the baby post viability–especially if we ever figure out a pain- and complication-free child birthing process.
That is not my understanding. First off, not all Christians believe in infant baptism at all, nor do they all believe that the physical baptism is required. But, limiting it to those who do, it is stated in the Bible that the baptism of the mother is enough for the child until the child is old enough to make their own decision. (I Corinthians 7:14)
Granted, they do baptize the infants anyways, but I take it to be done as an additional precaution. And also because there spiritual benefits to baptism besides being “made holy” (at least, in for Catholics–the most common infant baptizers).
I do note that nearly all the pro-lifers I know are Protestant, and most Protestants do not believe in infant baptism at all. I’ve been taught all my life that all children go to heaven.
This is demonstrably untrue. I just posted to this very thread confirming that my acceptance of rape/incest exceptions is a practical one: that rape and incest together amount to less than 1% of all abortions and if I can stop 99% by agreeing to the exception, or stop 0% by insisting on no exceptions, the path is obvious.
So you cannot say “everything” you have heard from pro-lifers suggests a desire to punish, with the evidence being the acceptance of rape/incest exceptions. You’ve clearly heard at least one alternate voice.
The problem with that type of argument is that, if it’s as immoral as you say, how can you compromise at all? Are not those 1% of babies being murdered worth as much as the 99% who would not be murdered?
The other issue is that, if practicality is the reason you mention it, then why isn’t that pushed in pro-life circles? Why do they let people believe that they are not compromising? When I was pro-life, I was never taught that rape and incest exceptions were wrong.
It also doesn’t seem like a compromise at all. It’s not as if any pro-choicers are willing to concede to that level. A compromise is something you think your opposition might be willing to do. A compromise would be like limiting abortions only after viability or only after brain wave activity.
Yes. But I don’t have an option that saves 100%.
In the movie, “Sophie’s Choice,” Meryl Streep plays a woman haunted by the choice forced on her by a Nazi officer: he told her to pick which child would be taken away to be killed. She protests that she cannot possibly choose one of her children over another, and he responds that if she fails to choose, both will be taken.
Do you understand?
I have no idea what you were taught and what the underlying moral framework was. Further, given the … insights you have shared on this board, I have no particular confidence you correctly recall or understood anything you were taught.
There is vastly more support among the public for abortion restrictions that include rape/incest exceptions.
My problem with this argument is that if I can’t even claim I’m certain about my position, how can I argue my position should be imposed on other people? You and I may think there’s some moral difference between an early-term abortion and a late-term abortion but somebody else may think they’re morally equivalent. Should we be allowed to impose out moral view on them? Should they be allowed to impose their moral view on us?
I think the only time society can impose a moral standard is when that moral standard represents a broad consensus. Only then can we argue that the people who don’t agree with the moral standard are wrong and should be compelled to follow it regardless of their opposition.
Do you think there is NOT a broad consensus to outlaw abortion after viability (except when there is threat to the life or health of the mother)?
There is, or was, a broad consensus that that’s a reasonable compromise.
It does not represent my opinion. I’d use birth as the dividing line. (If medical science can keep the aborted late-season baby alive, and society as a whole opts to invest the resources to do so, do so, but the woman should, in my opinion, have the right to cease being pregnant even after viability).
Um, I don’t think we disagree. I’m selecting the choice that I think has the largest moral consensus. Do you know that to not be the case?
If you allow abortion before XX number weeks (assume XX is at least a 2 digit number), why do you need exceptions for rape and incest? Those are needed when XX = 0.
You’ve expressed a desire to punish a woman who lets herself get raped by forcing her to carry the baby to term, reducing her to just a human incubator, and draining her finances to benefit the rapist. That’s some horror-movie level punishment right there, so your alternate voice is actually worse than typical, though it doesn’t fit the model I described.
It also doesn’t explain why ‘pro-life’ circles routinely speak of ‘except in the case of rape or incest’ with no reservations.
I hope we all agree that NOBODY should have the right to use anybody’s body without their permission. If we give that right to a fetus, who’s next. The rape who says “I thought she meant yes, even though she said no”? The stalker who says “I can make her love me if we have sex?” Who else?
Personally, I think all abortions should be done by inducing labor. If the fetus survives outside the woman’s body without any artificial means, so be it.
Correct, you don’t. Perhaps I was unclear in what I was trying to say. I was trying to eliminate what I consider to be ridiculously extreme positions from either side.
From the Pro-Choice crowd: allowance of abortion up to Birth minus one minute
From the Pro-Life crowd: a prohibition against abortion even in the cases of rape or incest.
Clearer?
spamforbrains…
We take a dim view of painting one’s debate opponents with such a broad brush here on the SDMB. It is not a good idea to get into argument with another then make some sweeping generalization that paints your opponent as some sort of monster.
I’m not warning you for it this time, you’re new here. But we have higher standards than that. Please don’t do so again.
Pantastic…
My post above to spamforbrains applies to your posts in this thread, too.
Again, I’m not warning you for it this time, you’re new here. But we have higher standards than that. Please don’t do so again.
That won’t work for very early term abortions. There isn’t enough material in the uterus to support labor. The patient might undergo labor-like symptoms, and still not eject the (very early) placenta.
It’s like using a sledgehammer to treat a migraine. It’s a crude and inappropriate tool.
I’m OK with Roe v Wade as a compromise, as long as every county in the country has available services: no 1st trimester restrictions, no 3rd trimester abortions except to save the mom’s life or prevent major physical damage to her health, split the difference for 2nd trimester.
Bad analogy, babies aren’t made like houses. The most common way to show that a person is alive is the heartbeat. Well the baby has a heartbeat before a woman even knows she’s pregnant. Let alone when she’s decided to abort it. Yes it’s growing but it’s certainly a fully separate living human regardless of the size it has grown to. What exactly is the difference between a baby at 4 weeks growing than a baby who’s already been born? Both are helpless and easy to kill, both have been started on a path destined for adulthood unless something stops them.
Trinopus: Can you clarify what you want to debate here? I just re-read the OP, and I can’t tell for certain. Surely you’re not proposing an open ended debate on whether abortion should be legal or not, right? Because I see a lot of people trying to take this thread in that direction.