I don’t fully understand what you’re saying. I always thought pro-lifers allowing a rape exception was a political rather than moral compromise. With most of the population ambivalent about abortion (or if they’re against, they’re not against it enough to actively seek to ban it), having a strict no-abortion policy alienates more people than it attracts. “No abortions for anyone” won’t get through. “No abortions, except for rape/incest” at least has a chance.
Personally, I just think it’ll increase false claims of rape, as in the roofie example I cited a few posts back. With a million elective abortions a year currently in the U.S. and ~90,000 reported rapes, post-ban I expect you’ll see the latter number climb dramatically, to the point where most of the effort involved in investigating rapes will be determining if they happened at all, which has the lovely side-effect of actual rape cases going unsolved. Such a ban gives women every incentive to lie and efforts to sort out the liars will inevitably snag a few women who really were raped and impregnated but can’t get an abortion because they can’t satisfy some bureaucrat that that assault was real. I can’t really blame the bureaucrat - he hears the same story ten times a day. How’s he to know who’s telling the truth?
I don’t get the implication that anyone is being forced into an abortion, though there are the social pressures that come from any preferable and available option. If having a baby at this time is going to screw up a woman’s life, she’d be a fool to not consider abortion as an option. Similarly, if someone has cancer, they’d be a fool not to consider chemotherapy, an option that has only become available in the last 30 years or so. It’s reasonable to claim the cancer patient is “expected” to get chemo, but neither chemo or an abortion is likely to ever be mandatory.
I don’t know offhand what pro-choice people you’re thinking of - there may be a few hardcore nutcases who think abortion is necessary and desirable to reduce the surplus population, or something, but insisting that someone have the information and the opportunity to make a choice is not the same as making the choice for them.
It’s an okay option, but if she still doesn’t want to suffer the physical discomfort of a pregnancy and the limitations it imposes, just to give the baby away at the end, I can’t blame her. We’re not talking about just a few days, after all.
Let’s apply this rationale to the situation of a woman, who, 1 day after giving birth, has a big change in her life that means that she will no longer be able to raise the child
"Adoptions are not always the best thing. Adopted babies are tortured, abused and killed. Adopted children have no sense of their biological family and grow up with a huge piece missing. A woman who practices infanticide has closure. A woman who gives up a child for adoption will wonder for the rest of her life how it turned out. "
See, it doesn’t work when the potential adoptee is a kid or a thing. And, again, we go back to the crux of the issue, which is whether the fetus is a human being.
Now, whether you think it becomes a human being the second he comes out of the vagina, or a few months before that, that is what is important here, not all the arguments about the problems with abortion, the problems with going through college pregnant, etc.
To see whether an argument is valid outside the “is the fetus human or not” issue, try it out on a mother with a 1-day-old baby. If the argument still holds, then fine. If it seems preposterous, then it clearly rests on the “is the fetus human or not” issue. And if it does, then you don’t need fancy arguments to prove abortion is fine, because if it isn’t human, then not much of an argument is needed.
No, we aren’t, and quite frankly, although I don’t necessarily agree with your argument, I believe it is a reasonable one. What I don’t think is reasonable is Annie-Xmas’s constant desire to demonize adoption as a reasonable alternative. I don’t expect anyone to consider it a preferable option (although I know many adopted people who would consider it to be so), but only to acknowledge that it is a reasonable one.
What I am demonizing is every anti-abortionist who claims adoption is an alternative with no negative side. That adopted children are always given to loving parents who want to give it a good life.I’ve yet to meet an anti-abortion person who believes anything negative could come of giving up a child for adoption. Or that any woman can have an abortion and not suffer any ill effects.
I don’t believe that morals are handed down from God. I believe that morality is the way we, as humans, decide to live our lives after examining what we think is right or wrong. Not arbitrary, not mindlessly memorized out of a book, but well-considered. I don’t think abortion is good, because it can have a negative emotional or physical impact on the woman who has the abortion. I think it’s a much more important decision than removing a wart. I don’t know exactly what “no moral issue” means to you, but I assure you that I don’t consider abortion equivalent to wart removal in any way. Are you questioning my word?
Well, let me ask you a question. Let’s say that I consider forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will to be the moral equivalent of raping her. Now, let’s say that you say you are in favor of making abortion illegal, and I respond to you by saying “So you think it’s o.k. to rape women, huh?” Do you consider that an “honest” argument? I wouldn’t make such an argument, because I find it dishonest, but by your criteria it would seem to be honest. That’s why I disagree with your definition of honesty.
No, you are not. You are making sweeping, declarative statements about adoption itself:
You have shown no evidence at all that these statements have any bearing on reality for adopted people or for birth mothers in general. Of course, some people have problems with adoption. Some people have problems even in biological families. Sometimes people abuse their children, even when those children were planned & wanted. Sometimes parents are killed and children are left as orphans! Should we just outlaw giving birth altogether, because something might go wrong in a child’s life?
Of couse, negative things could come from giving a child up for adoption. Negative things happen to everyone. You have shown only anecdotal evidence of bad outcomes for adopted people…and, indeed, have not even shown that the bad outcome was DUE TO the adoption.
I knew someone who, when he was a teenager, murdered his own father. His father was asleep at the time of the murder, and the kid never claimed he was abused or had any particular reason for the killing. But his parents were divorced. Should we assume that divorces cause children to murder parents, or decide that children would be better off not existing at all than to have divorced parents?
But let’s say that you are right, and being adopted directly affects your chances of, say, becoming a serial killer. Let’s say it doubles your chances. Considering the miniscule probability of anyone becoming a serial killer, doubling it increases the chance to slightly less than miniscule. Maybe from .000001% to .000002. Not exactly the kind of statistics that should change behavior. Children’s lives are at much greater risk every single day driving in a car than ever becoming a serial killer because they were adopted.
I could show evidence that some women DO suffer psychologically for years after having an abortion. I’m not sure how credible it is, because it’s all anecdotal evidence, very similar to the links you provide about how horrible people suffer in adoption. Not the kind of thing I would want to produce as a credible cite. I’m sure some people suffer from abortion, and I’m sure some people suffer from adoption. Most of life does not guarantee positive outcomes. But it doesn’t make adoption any less of a viable alternative for an unwanted pregnancy.
No, not at all. In fact, given what you say here, I am going to assume that I either misconstrued your opinion somehow, or I am attributing someone else’s opinion to you accidentally. If either one is the case, I apologize.
I don’t get how that is analagous. You said that no one believes that an early-term fetus is a “kid,” so therefore, by calling it one, they are being dishonest. I said, I do believe it is a kid. So, if that’s what I honestly believe, then how can saying it mean that I’m dishonest?
I am assuming that by quoting these stats, you are making a different argument against adoption being a viable alternative to abortion. This, IMO, is a much much stronger argument. There definitely IS a problem with the foster care system, and there is a huge problem with placing kids who are older or of minority ethnicity, without a doubt. For some reason, people seem to be under the impression that adopting internationally is preferable, even though in those cases you don’t always get healthy infants.
On the other hand, I think that, given the ability to care for a child, many women would want to keep their babies instead of giving them up or aborting them. Focusing our aid to women on 1) helping them get into better situations so they can keep their babies if they would like to, and 2) helping them to find appropriate adoptive parents if need be, would at least help to reach the “rare” goal in “safe, legal, rare.”
Did you perhaps forget the context of the discussion? Go back and read ManiacMan’s original response to me that sparked the current back-and-forth we are having. I think my example is pretty analagous to what he did.
Well in my example, I believe that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is a rape. If I honestly believe that, how can you say I’m being dishonest?
IIRC, he just referred to the fetus as a “kid,” and you said that that was what the anti-abortion’s side’s problem is…that we argue dishonestly, calling it a “kid.” Is that an incorrect recollection of the exchange?
I get what you’re saying, but I still think the analogy is off. You may believe that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy is rape, but even if I understand and believe that this is your opinion, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with that definition. It’s projecting your opinion onto my argument that is what would be dishonest about it. If I’m using the term “kid” in the context of MY argument, then it’s not dishonest.
I don’t believe it’s being done anywhere close to an adequate degree. I volunteer for an organization which helps women in this situation, and there is a never-ending supply of people who need and want this type of help.
Yes, I think it is incorrect. It pretty much transpired exactly as my analogy suggests.
Which is exactly what he did to me.
Please explain the exact difference between what he did and what I did in my analogy. I can use EXACTLY the same argument, i.e.: You may believe that a fetus is a “kid”, but even if I understand and believe that this is your opinion, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with that definition. Why does my analogy constitute “projecting”, while the original comment does not? You have not explained the difference.
If it’s not being done to an adequate degree, you can’t blame the pro-choice side for that. Pro-choicers tend to be politically liberal, and liberals tend to be much more in favor of social programs. You have your own religious-right to blame if there’s a problem with women not getting access to family-planning help.
Is it perhaps,The people who call them selves “pro-Life” that cause a woman who had an abortion a part of her being called a murderer, a cause of her psychological distress ?
Maybe…who knows? People can also have a very negative view of women who “give their babies away,” so maybe that’s part of the cause of the psychological stress birth mothers go through, as well.
OK, fine…there is no difference. This just isn’t worth arguing about.
Well, that’s a matter of political and economic philosophy. The help my organization gives women is a combination of privately donated funds, time, and goods, and helping them find access to the right state programs. I personally don’t believe that the most efficient and effective way to help people is through government programs, and my experience volunteering with such groups is one of the reasons I have come to that conclusion. (Oh, and P.S…I’m not a member of the “religious right.” If there are people on the left that YOU don’t want to be lumped in with, please remember that the same is true for people on the right.)
What are you objecting to? You seem to believe that abortion is murder, which is a decidedly right-wing position. You admit you are not in favor of government social programs - also right wing. Are you not religious? What is it that you claim I am “lumping you in” with that you are not a part of? This isn’t the same thing at all as what you were doing to me. You tried to attribute a specific statement, made by another person, to me, simply because he happens to be broadly on the same side of the argument as me. If I have done that to you, please demonstrate how.
You said “religious right,” which is different from “right wing.” I do believe that abortion is murder, but I do not and have never stated on this board that I believe all abortion should be outlawed. That is not a typical stance of the “religious right.”
I believe that privately-run charities are more efficient and do more to help people than government social programs. True, this is a conservative philosophy, but has more to do with what I believe is a smarter way to handle funds…it has nothing to do with religion.
Somewhat, but my religion has nothing to do with my politics.
The religious right.
I said there’s no difference, didn’t I? You win. Let it go.
