Pro abortionists: Multiple abortions ok?

[Enola_Gay]

There is so much hypocrisy on both sides of the abortion debate. I am 100% pro-choice and though I have never had an abortion, it’s none of my business if another woman choses to have one… or fifty for that matter. Her body, her decision.

I think an embryo/ fetus is a *form *of life (once viable it is a life imo), but I agree that the mother’s life is without question a life and her rights trump that of the developing fetus.

The flip side of the lack of logic are those who claim to believe that a fetus IS a life…but they think it’s okay to kill that life if the innocent baby’s father was a rapist. How can one justify the murder of an innocent based solely on the misdeads of its father? That one makes no sense to me at all.

[Malacandra]

@DianaG

I told you! Thank you for correcting that.

That said, my point remains, that birth control, even used consistently and correctly, is not 100% effective.

And while I understand why birth control failure rates are measured per annum for the collective, I, like all individual women, became pregnant by acts of intercourse, as opposed the the passage of measured periods of time.

Fancy them healthcare professionals not knowing that when they quote per-annum rates for typical use. (Btw 80% reliability is way below par, even the low-dose Pill is into the 90s, the full-strength article is in the high 90s.

And yes, your point remains, though it’s a question of what spin you want to put on it. You could argue that, since all contraception bar abstinence has some failure chance associated with it, using contraception as though it were infallible will result in a greater need for abortions as surely as night follows day, and it might be better used as a tool for what they used to call “family planning”.

@Enola Gay

The flip side of the lack of logic are those who claim to believe that a fetus IS a life…but they think it’s okay to kill that life if the innocent baby’s father was a rapist. How can one justify the murder of an innocent based solely on the misdeads of its father? That one makes no sense to me at all.

I had a stab at that one, once upon a time. The rationalisation would be that, since the voluntary choice to conceive is of such moment, in those dreadful instances when conception has occurred with no choice given, the pregnant woman should have the stolen right of choice restored to her. No-one would grant this lightly, but we would recognise that our pleas for mercy on behalf of the innocent foetus ought not to be uttered, since it would be unjust to grant choice with one hand and seek to take it away with the other. It’s not “Okay” to kill, but it might be the least evil option in a situation where there may be no good ones.

You may disagree with my reasoning, but I don’t believe that it is self-evidently bad.

[DianaG]

@Malacandra

using contraception as though it were infallible will result in a greater need for abortions as surely as night follows day, and it might be better used as a tool for what they used to call “family planning”

How would one go about using contraception as though it were 90% infallible? Somehow I suspect that simply foregoing sex every tenth time I feel like it would be ineffective.

And what exactly is the difference between “contraception” and “tool for family planning”?

[Enderw24]

@Nzinga_Seated

Yeah, but infection is possible with every surgery, and many of those surgeries aren’t condemned. From cosmetic surgery to body piercing, people aren’t making moral judgements based on, “there may be complications”.

And if the woman doesn’t like the experience of laying there enduring an abortion, (although there are procedures that put the woman under) then that is her choice. She may decide ‘never again’ or she may decide, ‘I could do this once a year and not mind’. I am trying to figure out why some pro-choice women say, “I know a fetus is not a person, but she has had 5 abortions, and that is ridiculous!”

There’s nothing morally wrong with getting the flu. But if I know of a person who calls in sick twice a season with a 102 degree fever, vomiting and headaches yet refuses to do something as simple as getting a flu shot, I’m going to think he’s pretty damn ridiculous too.

[Nzinga_Seated]

@Enderw24

There’s nothing morally wrong with getting the flu. But if I know of a person who calls in sick twice a season with a 102 degree fever, vomiting and headaches yet refuses to do something as simple as getting a flu shot, I’m going to think he’s pretty damn ridiculous too.

Ok. I’m going to go ahead and admit that I don’t get flu shots. I hate the oogy feeling I get when I get the shot, I hate the actual shot, I hate the whole experience. I usually gamble that I won’t get sick, but I sometimes do.

But this isn’t just about you thinking I am ridiculous. This is about your willingness to make a moral judgement, as in, “I think it should be legal for her not to get the shot, but I am thinking less of her as a person for choosing not to.”

I am guessing that some that say, “Don’t make it a habit” are probably suggesting that multiples should not be allowed by law. I am not sure if that is their position, though.

[sqweels]

I’m a little suprised that women talk about their abortions often enough that so many of us here are aware of aquaintances who have had multiples.

[WhyNot]

I’m not sure I have anything new to add, but when has that ever stopped me from posting?

I don’t have a problem with multiple abortions - I have a problem with using abortion as birth control. Contraception is safer. Multiple abortions can be a signal that someone isn’t using contraception, or it can be a sign of a very fertile person with rotten luck. The later has my sympathy, the former my disdain.

Much like (but not identically to) appleciders, I feel like didn’t-use-contraception abortion (which can be single or multiple) indicates you’re being shortsighted and kinda mean. I don’t understand people who refuse to plug up holes in their campers and put away their food and would rather kill the mice that inevitably get in, either. Not because I think the mouse has a right to live, or is a person, or that killing a mouse is wrong, but just because I don’t see the sense in causing death instead of preventing invasion. It’s not immoral, it’s just…tacky.

Secondly, I disapprove of didn’t-use-contraception abortions the way I disapprove of any elective surgery to which a safer non-surgical method exists, like purely elective c-sections or weight loss surgery *without *trying diet and exercise first. We all know surgery carries health risks, and to choose surgery instead of something non invasive seems foolish to me. I guess it also connotes laziness, and I’m not sure I can respect a person who’d rather risk surgery than slip on a condom or take their morning temps or get a shot four times a year.

I agree that making abortion safe and rare is an admirable goal. Not out of moral or legal reasoning, but out of medical sense.

So I’m not a fan of multiple abortions, but that doesn’t mean I think people should be barred the ability to get them.

[Enderw24]

You can get the flu shot and still get the flu. It’s not 100% reliable. And if you get the flu after having a shot, I’m not going to consider you irresponsible. And if you forget one year to get your shot or get your shot too late in the season for it to be effective, well, that happens too. You deal with it however you can.

But would I have a problem with someone saying “my preferred method for dealing with the flu is to just ride out the waves of symptoms over the course of the week and let nature take its course” then yeah. I reserve the right to consider them an idiot. I can declare that they have the legal right to do so, will protect their legal right to do so, and still consider them an idiot. There’s no conflict there in my mind.

[DianaG]

@sqweels

I’m a little suprised that women talk about their abortions often enough that so many of us here are aware of aquaintances who have had multiples.

You’d be shocked how many people you know who’ve had abortions, if only women talked about it more.

[Ethilrist]

I’d rather see a woman get two hundred abortions than raise six children she didn’t want. Hell, one child she didn’t want.

However, I would be concerned about what the long-term health effects of that many abortions (and, by inference, that much unprotected sex) were.

[Sarahfeena]

@DianaG

Somehow I suspect that simply foregoing sex every tenth time I feel like it would be ineffective.

Well, sure, but foregoing sex on your fertile days in the month would probably work pretty well. WhyNot is much more of an expert on it than I am, but these days what they used to call the “rhythm method” can be amazingly effective…especially when combined with a barrier method.

[DianaG]

@Sarahfeena

Well, sure, but foregoing sex on your fertile days in the month would probably work pretty well.

Unless of course, you’re on the pill, in which case you’re not really supposed to have those.

[Blalron]

@appleciders

I’m pro-choice in a roundabout way- I do think that a fetus is alive in a separate fashion from the mother, but I believe that the mother’s right to control her own body probably trumps the fetus’s right to life because I don’t see a 1st trimester fetus as equivalent to a human being. So I feel like having an abortion once after a failure in contraceptives is excusable (barely), but having them repeatedly is a mark of poor judgment and cruelty to a being of intrinsically lesser value than a human.

Since a first trimester embryo (it’s only a fetus at the 9th week) is incapable of feeling pain nor has any awareness of its own existence, it seems impossible to be “cruel” to it.

Yes, multiple abortions are ok. I wouldn’t recommend it, but I don’t see anything morally wrong with it.

[Sarahfeena]

@DianaG

Unless of course, you’re on the pill, in which case you’re not really supposed to have those.

Sorry, I was editing mine for a little more clarity at the same time that you were posting your reply.

The pill does throw a monkey wrench in that plan, no doubt.

[WhyNot]

@Sarahfeena

Well, sure, but foregoing sex on your fertile days in the month would probably work pretty well. WhyNot is much more of an expert on it than I am, but these days what they used to call the “rhythm method” can be amazingly effective…especially when combined with a barrier method.

It’s called Fertility Awareness Method (if you’re a heathen who uses barrier methods when you’re fertile) or Natural Family Planning (if you’re a Catholic who abstains from sex while you’re fertile). It’s unofficial motto is, “No, it’s NOT the rhythm method,” and the subscript is, “Yes, I’ve heard the one about what you call rhythm method users.”

Quickly: Rhythm Method relied on the calender and the now-discredited theory that women ovulate 14 days after their period starts to identify her fertile period (poorly). FAM/NFP uses specific bodily signs and symptoms like basal (just waking) temperature, cervical fluid and the position of the cervix to detect ovulation, and predicts based on a woman’s own history when she is likely to be fertile (if she wants to get pregnant) or indicates for this specific cycle when she’s not fertile (if she doesn’t want to get pregnant.) Really, it has nothing at all in common with Rhythm except that it doesn’t involve drugs or barriers.

And it won’t really work when you’re on the Pill, as the hormones screw up your basal temps and your ovulation (if it happens, which it shouldn’t, but tell that to the little blue line on the pregnancy test stick) will be, by definition, unpredictable. Of course, the pill should have a success rate equal to or slightly better than FAM. If a woman is having multiple failures on the Pill, she really should seek a different form of contraception, IMHO. No form of contraception is right for everyone.

[Enola_Gay]

@Sarahfeena

Well, sure, but foregoing sex on your fertile days in the month would probably work pretty well.

The Rythym method was what Catholic families used to rely on exclusively for birth control—that’s why they had so many kids…

[Sarahfeena]

Thanks, WhyNot. I sort of use “rhythm method” as a catchall phrase, because people don’t know what I’m talking about when I say NFP. But your point was basically the same as mine…it’s not the same thing, and it’s much more effective/not guesswork like it was in the past.

[Sarahfeena]

@Enola_Gay

The Rythym method was what Catholic families used to rely on exclusively for birth control—that’s why they had so many kids…

Right. But per WhyNot’s excellent post, it’s not the rhythm method anymore, and it’s much, much more effective. If used with a barrier method, it’s probably one of the most effective methods there is.

[wonky]

Multiple abortions are not ideal because of the risks. But they are “okay” with me, as in “best avoided (before pregnancy) but not discouraged (after pregnancy).”

[Enola_Gay]

@Malacandra

I had a stab at that one, once upon a time. The rationalisation would be that, since the voluntary choice to conceive is of such moment, in those dreadful instances when conception has occurred with no choice given, the pregnant woman should have the stolen right of choice restored to her. No-one would grant this lightly, but we would recognise that our pleas for mercy on behalf of the innocent foetus ought not to be uttered, since it would be unjust to grant choice with one hand and seek to take it away with the other. It’s not “Okay” to kill, but it might be the least evil option in a situation where there may be no good ones.

You may disagree with my reasoning, but I don’t believe that it is self-evidently bad.

I’m not following your logic. IF (if if if) a fetus IS an innocent human life, then killing it constitutes murder…regardless of how that life came to be.

Killing is justified in some situations (self defence etc) but how can you justify taking an innocent human LIFE (if you truly believe that it IS a life) just because the mother was denied choice?

Many of these pro-lifers equate a fetus with a baby and they think killing babies is a sin. Period. But somehow they are okay with the murder of an innocent baby if that baby’s father was a rapist. Makes no sense to me.