On further reflection, you are right and I was wrong. I withdraw that clause to my revisions. Churches have a rich history of righting wrongs such as fighting civil rights and ending wars. They also should have the freedom to be on the wrong side of history, such as being against abortion and gay marriage.
But it would be if you took it out right now. That’s the viability argument, and I think it’s a very valid point. If you have a baby inside you that has a very reasonable chance of surviving if you gave birth (either vaginally or via c-section), I find it hard to contemplate aborting said child as something that’s really OK, if it’s done for no other reason than ‘I don’t want the baby any more’. If you’ve waiting that long to decide to terminate the pregnancy, then that’s your problem. You can take responsibility for your lack of action on the abortion front, and for getting pregnant in the first place, and you can give the child up for adoption. Unless those ways of ‘getting the baby out’ will cause long term health problems or death for the mother, I do have a real problem with a voluntary abortion at that point.
There is a middle ground between “no abortions ever, for any reason after conception, even if the ‘kid’ is a 3 week old embryo and the mother could die” and “all abortions are OK, even if you’re essentially killing a child one day before you would naturally go into labor.” A lot of the abortion debate is about where that transition is. Viability is a pretty good metric to use, frankly. It gives the woman plenty of time to know she’s pregnant, plan what she wants to do and decide how she wants to proceed. But, I would view a voluntary late term abortion of a viable fetus as quite similar to infanticide. I do value the life and long term health of the mother as primary to the rights of an unborn child, even past viability. However, I don’t value any inconvenience to giving birth as outweighing the rights of a viable child.
There are no methods for ending a pregnancy that don’t affect the fetus/baby’s body.
We have to reconcile why a woman’s desire to end her pregnancy allows her to order the destruction of the viable fetus. Giving birth may not be her preferred method of ending the pregnancy, but rights aren’t always about getting what you prefer, particularly when the life of another being hangs in the balance.
Both authors involved note that, of course, no pro-lifers would ever touch it, but he was curious about the pro-choice side.
And I’m curious about the ones here, specifically. What say you?
[/QUOTE]
With an absolute guarantee that any municipality containing a public medical facility will provide those abortions on demand to any pregnant person of any age, with a public expense options for those lacking sufficient income or health insurance, then IF the right to life contingent were on board with this I’d consider it a tolerable compromise, yeah.
Correct. Therein lies the differences of opinion.
The reason her desire to end her pregnancy is sufficient to allow her to order the destruction of the viable fetus is that it’s a god-given natural right, the flip side of morning sickness and susceptibility to UTI’s and the wear and tear of pregnancy itself: women have the capacity to do this, to gestate life, and along with that comes the authority to exert control over the process. It is simultaneously her body AND also her body + a viable fetus.
It is an exception to the general rule that we don’t permit people to go around killing people, but not the only exception. (We do engage in wars and we do execute criminals and we do kill in self-defense). It happens to be the only exception where the killing is not being done almost exclusively by male people.
I have heard you right-to-life folks about your concern that it is killing and that you have moral qualms about that. I’m not ignoring you and the voice of your movement. But the greater moral good is definitely ensured by enshrining women’s possession of reproductive control. Truly horrible moral social outcomes result from preventing women from having abortions if and when they want them. It perverts sex and sexuality, polarizes men and women, and poisons natality and the family.
Yeah, the fetus is “human” (it isn’t a space alien or a fungus) and yeah it’s killing. Get over it. The people doing it are the ones closest to the situation who have the greatest personal reasons (situational hormonal and evolutionary) for wanting to continue and protect the pregnancy, but also the most at stake in terms of the involved negatives. No one is better positioned to make the decision and no one better deserves to do so.
This is a myth. It’s a canard that gets passed around on reactionary blogs, but it has no basis in reality. Your anecdote is not data, and if necessary I can counter it with the location of the PP where I live. You don’t know it for a fact.
Even if it did constitute eugenics, if people are participating voluntarily and nobody is being hurt, what’s the problem?
We already know how to drastically reduce the practice, and I have empirical evidence to support it. Providing contraception, particularly long-acting reversible contraception, crashes the abortion rate and ends up saving a lot of money.** As disappointing as the Affordable Care Act is, this has extraordinary potential. Besides its immediate effects, this could split the anti-abortion side between those who are actually anti-abortion, and those who are just prudes.
I’m not sure you understand what irony is, but ok.
A woman’s control over her fertility is one of the most important advances in the history of humanity. Look at what happened for women after Roe v. Wade and the invention of the birth control pill. It’s a HUGE advancement; women are no longer help hostage by their bodies. They can work and plan their childbearing.
What happens in India and China happens because woman there have no freedom or control over their own lives.
For a fact? Let’s see a cite then, from an un-biased source.
Abortion is not eugenics. That is a lie.
Abortion = family planning strategy. And they say only conservatives get to frame the discussion!
What is it, if not family planning?
ETA: and who said only conservatives can frame the discussion? Liberals use framing all the time, they just tend to be less successful (in my opinion)
A fetus is generally considered viable at 23 weeks, and a few have survived at 22 weeks. I think it’s pretty reasonable to use “viability of surviving out of the womb” as the standard for denying abortions, since at that point it’s medically possible for the fetus not to “parasitize” the mother without being aborted.
I’m not a pro-lifer, but I’d accept the OP compromise, as long as women still had the right to remove the fetus after 23 weeks. I’d expect doctors to attempt to save the life of the fetus in those cases.
Agreed on all points. It’s just funny to hear one side call it family planning, while the other side calls it murdering babies.
It would be like hearing the nazis call the death camps “social engineering,” and when someone else points out how silly it is say that, the nazis respond “What is it, if not social engineering?”
I’m not calling abortion murder, btw. I just think it’s a trickier subject than most people will admit. We all know that there’s nothing magical about the birthing process, which causes a fetus to become a human. We all know killing humans is wrong, but we also know that this is the first time ever in history that women have been about as socially and politically free as men, and a huge part of that is due to reproductive rights.
I think taking away reproductive rights and outlawing abortion would be a giant step backward, but that doesn’t make me love abortion. Der Trihs isn’t 100% wrong about the motivations of anti-abortionists. Quite a few of them just want to put women in their place. Most of them aren’t like that though. They just think a fetus is a baby, and they’re opposed to killing babies. It’s not a particularly evil point of view to have, in my opinion.
The rights under which we acknowledge that women should have access to abortions has nothing to do with family planning. It has to do with women having control over their bodies.
Deciding you don’t want to be pregnant anymore is different than deciding you don’t want to be a parent. Pre-viability, the choices are intertwined, there is no separating them. Post-viability, I think her right to decide she doesn’t want to be a parent takes a back seat to the right of the baby to live.
Given that “viability” is a technological definition, that’s just a stealth way of slowly denying women abortions as medical technology advances. Eventually, “viability” will be at 0 weeks.
And again; you couldn’t put her through that for an adult, why should you be allowed to do so for a fetus?
I see where you’re coming from, but I can’t really agree with you. I think we’re close on this issue though, and I also don’t think this is the thread to go into it. 
Couldn’t put who, through what?
Couldn’t put (force) an adult citizen through any medical procedures to prolong the life of another person.
This. As I said:
Not a good analogy, since if it were an adult every effort would be made to keep the parasitic twin alive while removing it from the host.
True.
But if the parasitic twin could not be saved, then it could be removed and allowed to die.
Other than a criminal like Gosnell, is there ANY evidence that people are aborting healthy, viable babies and not attempting to save them?
Late term abortion is such a strawman. They happen extraordinarily rarely, and pretty much always for a good reason. Reading about them, I feel like are often the most moral, justified abortions, and also the most tragic. Ignoring the suffering of these real women, and creating foolish analogies that brush aside the reality of late term abortions is pretty disturbing to me, actually.
No deal.