Prolifers, in what situation is it morally acceptable for a woman to abort pregnancy?

[scule]

I know I’m coming late to this thread but a few thoughts:

I think I must side with Diogenes on this one, in though perhaps not necessarily from the same perspective (although personally, I am in complete agreement with you). Quite honestly, abortions have been around for ages. Women have always throughout history sought out ways to end an unwanted pregnancy. They won’t go away if we make them illegal, but they will get more dangerous. That was the case before and will likely be the case in the future if the laws are changed. That doesn’t help anyone.

Beyond that, what possibly benefit could come from making them illegal? A bunch of unwanted children? Fine, they could be adopted, which would be nice, but what about the mothers? What about their suffering? What about their emotional pain from carrying a child and giving it up? And further, and to me almost more importantly, what sort of punishment is of any use to mete out against a woman who has an abortion? Jail time? What good would that do to anyone? That will not stop abortions, and the woman is no actual danger to society, like a murderer or pedophile. So how does making them illegal help anyone? It really doesn’t. So whether you are against abortions or not, you really have a choice as to whether you make them safe and legal, if not particularly a happy thing, or dangerous and illegal, and an even more miserable experience. Personally, I’d be happy if there were no abortions, and people only had sex with someone they were sure they wanted to be with for a long time, but that’s just not the real world, so you really have to ask yourself what eliminates the most suffering, and go from there.

Also, Dio, Shodan asked you for a cite, and while I’m in your camp, I think a factual claim like you made earlier should be backed up or withdrawn.

And then the last also, faithfool, I think you really are selling yourself short. It sounds to me like you have some serious psychological issues that give you reason to doubt your value as a human being. You may want to seek some help, but also cut yourself some slack. I am a much smarter person than I may read as on this board, and I know it (forgive the boast), but I’m not a very good writer and do better when I speak than post here. You come across clearly and effectively, so don’t think you aren’t being effective here. Keep posting and learn to love yourself, because I guarantee you that you’ve had a positive effect on someone in your life.

[joyfool]

Woohoo! YES!! But not just miserable, an obstacle that one is able to recover from to the point of a regular life. Completely unattainable by any standards and downright immobilizing (at least, in the case of say, insanity, mentally) to meet even one’s very basic needs. So, I would consider a termination before a destroyed-before-it-even-happens existence. That would be, IMHO, the ultimate act of love. Again, foregoing your own moral stance and where it might lead you (unabashed daily regret, hell), desire to have a baby, etc. Concern for them and their future is the most important, nay ONLY aspect that should be under consideration.

But I gotta say woohoo again! I finally did it with the explaining thing. I think I’ll go write this down in my journal now. God bless you treis for working so diligently with me. Your patience has paid off, at least to my flagging self-esteem. Gracious.

[joyfool]

@scule

And then the last also, faithfool, I think you really are selling yourself short. It sounds to me like you have some serious psychological issues that give you reason to doubt your value as a human being. You may want to seek some help, but also cut yourself some slack. I am a much smarter person than I may read as on this board, and I know it (forgive the boast), but I’m not a very good writer and do better when I speak than post here. You come across clearly and effectively, so don’t think you aren’t being effective here. Keep posting and learn to love yourself, because I guarantee you that you’ve had a positive effect on someone in your life.

Thank you scule, that was very kind. And I do have lots and lots of problems that I’ve been dealing with for what seems forever. However, I am in therapy and for the first time in my life, my medications seem to be working. Not that it’s necessarily evident here, but you did hit the nail on the head. I’m not very good with giving myself any slack nor is there any love directed to me by me. Ditto goes for the positive effect on anyone or short selling. That’s always been my profession. :smack: But that said, I’m dedicated to keep trying if for no other reason than I might help someone else (yes, yes, I know). So again, I appreciate the support. Especially for an agoraphobic to hear. We don’t run into much outside assistance in our living rooms.

{{{Hugs}}} to you for that random act. I’m sure somewhere, there’s an angel with new wings.

Now, enough about me. I apologize for the hijack. I definitely don’t want to derail the original discussion. Therefore, back to our hypothetical offspring, before and after.

[treis]

@scule

Beyond that, what possibly benefit could come from making them illegal? A bunch of unwanted children?

In my opinion a life as an unwanted child is better than no life at all.

@scule

Fine, they could be adopted, which would be nice, but what about the mothers? What about their suffering? What about their emotional pain from carrying a child and giving it up?

0 sympathy. They made the decision to have sex they live with the consequences.

@scule

And further, and to me almost more importantly, what sort of punishment is of any use to mete out against a woman who has an abortion? Jail time?

I am going to start playing Devil’s advocate as I think abortion should be legal.

I think it would depend wildly on the situation of the Mother and Father. If they can support a kid but don’t want one becuase it would be inconvient I would think that she would get some jail time. If she is something along the lines of a 17 year old who can’t possible support a child I think she would get off very lightly if not completely.

@scule

What good would that do to anyone? That will not stop abortions, and the woman is no actual danger to society, like a murderer or pedophile.

Set a punishment high enough that will stop women from having them.

@scule

So how does making them illegal help anyone? It really doesn’t. So whether you are against abortions or not, you really have a choice as to whether you make them safe and legal, if not particularly a happy thing, or dangerous and illegal, and an even more miserable experience.

How about not punishing doctors that give them? If we catch a mother getting an abortion then punish her.

@scule

Personally, I’d be happy if there were no abortions, and people only had sex with someone they were sure they wanted to be with for a long time, but that’s just not the real world, so you really have to ask yourself what eliminates the most suffering, and go from there.

I disagree. The best solution is to make the people who are responsible suffer and protect the rights of the innocent.

@scule

And then the last also, faithfool, I think you really are selling yourself short. It sounds to me like you have some serious psychological issues that give you reason to doubt your value as a human being. You may want to seek some help, but also cut yourself some slack. I am a much smarter person than I may read as on this board, and I know it (forgive the boast), but I’m not a very good writer and do better when I speak than post here. You come across clearly and effectively, so don’t think you aren’t being effective here. Keep posting and learn to love yourself, because I guarantee you that you’ve had a positive effect on someone in your life.

I agree.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@treis

a fetus is not human? is not alive?

Not a human.

[treis]

scratches head

What definition do you use for human?

[zev_steinhardt]

@Diogenes the Cynic

That’s a very crucial IF. If that tissue is NOT left alone, then it becomes nothing. I don’t believe you can ascribe hypothetical “potential” characterics to something that exists NOW. An acorn is potentially an oak tree but you can’t make a desk out of an acorn.

Agreed that it’s a cruicial IF. But considering the value we place on human life and the probability that this fetus will become a human, it deserves far more appreciation than an acorn.

Zev Steinhardt

[joyfool]

@treis

In my opinion a life as an unwanted child is better than no life at all.

0 sympathy. They made the decision to have sex they live with the consequences.

IMHO, I don’t think any child should be unwanted and definitely not viewed as a “consequence.” And although I realize that’s not exactly what you’re saying, I do believe that a portion of the world has felt that way once learning of the whys behind their mother’s decision.

[QUOTE]
I am going to start playing Devil’s advocate as I think abortion should be legal.

I think it would depend wildly on the situation of the Mother and Father. If they can support a kid but don’t want one becuase it would be inconvient I would think that she would get some jail time. If she is something along the lines of a 17 year old who can’t possible support a child I think she would get off very lightly if not completely.

Bolding mine.

[ol]
[li]Why do we, as a culture, have a need to seek retribution or punishment? If what I’ve read is true about repeat offenders, consequences don’t exactly prevent recidivism.[/li][li]People always proclaim there are some who choose this out of it being “inconvenient.” Therefore, I’ve never done this before, but… cite please. I think this is another area where supposition shouldn’t deter the options. I mean, it’s purely anecdotal, but the limited amount of women I’ve known personally, have never absconded with birth because of this.[/li][/ol]

Set a punishment high enough that will stop women from having them.

Do you really believe that this would prevent abortions? I feel it is similar to the death penalty (which I’m not advocating we discuss here – just as an example) in that even though the responsibility for murder is steep, I doubt very seriously that in the heat of the moment (or under too much duress), that it actually stops anyone who is intent on following through from doing so. Just my thoughts.

How about not punishing doctors that give them? If we catch a mother getting an abortion then punish her.

If she’s not apt to ever repeat her “transgression,” would punishment on top of whatever else she’s going through (IE: what got her to this place to begin with that makes it feel like the only options, possible horrific remorse afterwards, some societal outcasting, personal stigmatization, the fear of eternal damnation) make it inevitable for her not to pick the same thing again, however unlikely, if the situations outlined above happen again? I can’t imagine that being the case.

I disagree. The best solution is to make the people who are responsible suffer and protect the rights of the innocent.

See, to my way of thinking, it IS the innocent who are being held responsible for the so-called sins of the parents. I wouldn’t have wanted to be seen as a “punishment” for my mother and father’s mistakes. I’d need to feel loved and wanted. Me being the payback, if you will, is a reprehensible idea. At least to me.

After much encouragement (thanks to you too treis!), I’ll be feeling a bit more confident with my hoping for the best in coherency here. I’ll start crossing my keyboard fingers now.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

88 percent of all legal abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and 56 percent take place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2002).

Third-trimester abortions are extremely uncommon; fewer than 600 are performed per year. This irrefutable fact is documented by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the institution acknowledged by the Centers for Disease Control as having the most complete information on abortion practice. When Richard Cohen wrote in a June 1995 op-ed column that “just four one-hundredths of one percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks,” and that “most, if not all, are performed because the fetus is found to be severely damanged or because the life of the mother is clearly in danger”

I know the second link is an opinion piece but the AGI numbers quoted are accurate, I just can’t find a direct link to the AGI results (they are frequently quoted in these debates).

[kanicbird]

@treis

scratches head

What definition do you use for human?

Yes, this is what I would like to know too, and when does it start?

[scule]

faithfool, you pretty much nailed what my point would have been. There really isn’t much truth to the deterrence of crime arising from punitive actions, at least in cases where emotions are involved. Really, murders still do happen and will continue, as will assaults, rapes, and domestic disputes. I am sure that some people are deterred from these actions by potential punishments, my point is rather that the punishments do not effectively deter the action overall. While we certainly can’t just let them happen, it seems to me that there needs to be a balance between protecting the public at large and helping the individual(s) involved. With a murder, someone has taken an existing person’s life, so that person must be punished, or we tacitly condone and/or accept their behaviour. Rape, assault, and so on are similar, in that someone’s rights are violated. The key difference with abortion is the issue of foetal rights. Unless you regard the foetus as a person, it really has none. This is also a unique situation in that the potential victim exists solely in a parasitic format. The mother can continue without the foetus, but for most of its development, the foetus needs the mother. This places this sort of issue outside the realm of murders and so on, because of the fundamental connection between the parties in question. The mother has complete and total control over the foetus only because it can’t exist without her, but she can exist without it. And as it stands, there really isn’t a solid case for calling a foetus a human being until it is at least viable outside the body.

That rambling aside, my point is thus that making punishments harsher will not deter the act. The emotion involved is what really determines the outcome, and no penalty will truly outweigh that consideration. Murders aren’t deterred by the death penalty; abortions won’t be deterred by punishment. And further, if you were to outlaw abortions and punish the woman for having one, you would have to punish the doctor or whoever performed it, as being accessory to the crime. You could not pick one side to punish over the other.

I tend to regard this issue in a similar manner to drug use. The reasons why one gets addicted to drugs are legion, and largely unimportant. The problem has also been around forever, and isn’t going to go away. What is important is whether or not that person needs help. We can, as a society, turn our backs on them and take the ignorant “They’re fault, they’re problem” attitude, or we can accept that people make mistakes, aren’t perfect, and be willing to forgive and help them. That’s what needle exchanges are all about. The idea is that even if someone is messed up, at least you can do something to help them. It may not be a cure to their addiction, but it can prevent them from dying and spreading diseases to others. Same with abortion, it may not be a great thing to have going on, but it can really help some people, and in the end the existing person is more important than the potential one.

[Lord_Ashtar]

Asking for a definition of life and when the fetus becomes “alive” is a waste of time, since nobody knows.

[redtail23]

@zev_steinhardt

The question that I asked was this: Why do we, as a society, seem to value puppies more than fetuses, to the extent that we get outraged at (and possibly, depending on the circumstances and local laws, start legal action against) those who kill puppies; but become blase about killing fetuses. Even if we grant your statement that a fetus is not human (a statement that, to some extent, I agree with - a fetus isn’t a fully-qualified human being until birth) should it not have some higher value than a puppy? But yet, that’s not how our society sees things, and that is what has me very troubled.

Sorry, but that’s just not true.

Yes, people often become outraged over a particular individual killing a puppy, but that’s generally when the killing is perceived as “cruelty” or “torture” (whether or not that perception is realistic or justifiable in any given situation is a different discussion). We certainly do NOT become outraged about the killing of innocent puppies as long as it’s done “professionally” and “humanely”. We kill millions of dogs and cats each year in this country. The numbers I found ranged from 3-12 million, with 4-6 million as the most common figure quoted, from a pet population of around 130 million. (Apparently there’s no concerted effort to track the totals so a solid number is unavailable.)

Similarly, people often become outraged at various instances of individuals harming/killing fetuses (whether the perpetrator is the mother or a different person), even though the same people may be perfectly willing to consider abortion acceptable when performed by a physician. By contrast, the numbers I’ve googled indicate approximately 1.4 million abortions per year from a population of around 282 million.

Evidently, our society is about 10 times more willing to kill pets than children. And willing to put much more effort into preventing pregnancy in themselves, even though it’s much easier to prevent pregnancy in pets.

As it should be, I’m sure you’ll agree.

[kanicbird]

@Lord Ashtar

Asking for a definition of life and when the fetus becomes “alive” is a waste of time, since nobody knows.

I disagree, it gives you insite into their way of thinking, and clarifies where they stand. Sometimes the logic as to how they arived at that conclusion (if they have a answer) is helpful in understanding where the other guy is comming from. Also as one pushes that line further out it gets fuzzier, which is harder to defend.

I would really like to hear the logic DtC used to come up with the “there is no baby” line he keeps using. And you can only hurt the mother.

Re: the puppy/fetus argument, if we are just talking about pain, then one can blow the brains out of the puppy w/ a high powered rifle, and not only will the puppy not feal it, it won’t even hear the shot.

So it’s not about pain.

[joyfool]

::: does Snoopy Happy Dance that I made sense and was understood :::

Yippee! (Is that ok in GD?) Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

@scule

< snippage >

That rambling aside, my point is thus that making punishments harsher will not deter the act. The emotion involved is what really determines the outcome, and no penalty will truly outweigh that consideration. Murders aren’t deterred by the death penalty; abortions won’t be deterred by punishment. And further, if you were to outlaw abortions and punish the woman for having one, you would have to punish the doctor or whoever performed it, as being accessory to the crime. You could not pick one side to punish over the other.

< snip again >

This makes an excellent point. It is too simplistic to lay the final call on who is disciplined by assuming the mother should bear the full brunt. Because there are plenty of instances where a physically abusive SO may demand it. Or parents who hold control of the very essence of said mothers life, do the same thing. Or whatever the specific, realistic circumstances may be.

In these cases, under the scenarios presented, all those folks would shoulder equal responsibility and thus should be punished just as accordingly. Now, who has the possibility of more recidivism with this “crime”? Women who’d have to go through the supposed anguish and possible moral dilemma of abortion? Or men that could simply be a sperm donor, then vanish and move on to their next conquest? It could be that those males would suffer infinitely more (and, again, with these rules applied, should justifiably so) in quantity than any females ever could. Is that what would be warranted? Or not part of the equation because… it might be too hard to prove, they truly may not be around to except their fate or refuse to be held responsible in the situation regarding those that are custodial of say, a minor? I just see this as a slippery slope that wouldn’t support the side of Pro-Lifers, IMHO. Too much fallout might result in a huge amount of one side of the population becoming incarcerated.

Oh, and what about retroactively? Do we owe anything to the innocent fetuses (sp?) then? They were equally not to blame. Just curious.

And upon preview, I see that redtail23 brings up an interesting observation. I’m not sure if it’s really a corollary to this, but it does give more food for thought.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@kanicbird

I disagree, it gives you insite into their way of thinking, and clarifies where they stand. Sometimes the logic as to how they arived at that conclusion (if they have a answer) is helpful in understanding where the other guy is comming from. Also as one pushes that line further out it gets fuzzier, which is harder to defend.

I would really like to hear the logic DtC used to come up with the “there is no baby” line he keeps using. And you can only hurt the mother.

Re: the puppy/fetus argument, if we are just talking about pain, then one can blow the brains out of the puppy w/ a high powered rifle, and not only will the puppy not feal it, it won’t even hear the shot.

So it’s not about pain.

A blob of unsentient tissue is not a person. I also think the definition of a “person” necessarily (but not exclusively) has to include a condition of not living in somebody’s stomach.

It’s spelled insight, by the way.

[redtail23]

@kanicbird

The womb is a nessesary enviroment for he survival of the fetus, and like laws that alow me to tresspass on your private property for emergency survival situations, a fetus has that moral right to the womb it has implanted itself into.

@Iskatel

Your argument is similar to saying that if someone sets up a tent on your lawn because they’re homeless, they have the right because they’ve implanted themselves into it.

@continuity eror

So we shouldn’t prosecute people who rob pharmacies to obtain life-sustaining medicines?
So we should fund more public hospitals and public health programs, so that people who need surgeries for survival but can’t afford them can get them?
So if a starving homeless person showed up on your doorstep, you would take them in and feed them?

@kanicbird

For these 2 [pharmacy robbing, public hospitals] we do already, no hospital can deny emergency medical care in the US, no need to rob anyone.
Using the above they [starving homeless person] have the ability to go to the nearest hospital to get live saving, well in this case food.

@Essured

Does this mean you’re in favour of forceable organ donation and blood donation? I have two kidneys. I am a match for Joe Blow down the road. He will die without my kidney.
Can he legally force me to take it?
Does he have a moral right to take my kidney?

@kanicbird

I am not going into the debate that laws=morals (or should), I’m just pointing out an example where it is already. What I am refering to is a law that I know from my nautical days. If your vessel is in distress and you must leave it you are legally allowed to ‘tresspass’ for this situation but can’t cause anymore damage then needed (I could break down a gate to gain access to the property if needed, but couldn’t then continue to break down the fence). I feel a fetus has a legal right to use the womb which they have implanted themselves in. That’s all I’m saying.
Also for your kidney argument, it is not natural for your kidney to be removed, which childbirth is, and not only natural but needed for humans to continue on this planet, but you knew that already.

kanicbird, you’re being very inconsistent here. You keep claiming that a fetus has a moral and legal right to lifesupport inside a woman’s body, just because it’s there and must have such to survive. However, in every other instance mentioned, you say that either “someone else” is responsible, or the person has no such right.

The U.S. does not supply medication nor medical services to all who need them - that’s exactly what the entire health care debate is about. Yes, if you have an immediate, life-threatening emergency, theoretically you can’t be denied care (although it does happen, more frequently than you’d probably like to know about). However, people here can and do die of chronic, treatable conditions because they can’t afford medical care. And hospitals generally don’t feed homeless people just because they’re starving.

But that’s beside the point–you’re really just trying to sidestep the whole exchange. A pregnant woman can’t pawn off a pregnancy onto someone else (at least not with today’s technology). So the question is, does a homeless person have the right to YOUR lawn, simply because they need a place to live? Does a starving person have the right to break into YOUR home and take food? Does a sick person have a right to steal YOUR medication, if they need it to live? Can YOU morally be forced to save another’s life, even though it will require invasion and use of YOUR body? If your answer to these questions is “no”, but you maintain your position regarding the rights of a fetus, then you’re saying that a fetus should have “special rights” not available to any other person. Please explain why you feel that such a double-standard should be used.

P.S. Your “natural” argument is asinine - almost all medical treatment in use today would not qualify as “natural”, but that doesn’t stop anyone. Abortion can be perfectly “natural” - there are numerous natural (although less effective) abortifacients that have been used for thousands of years. Does that mean you think it’s OK for a woman to abort, as long as she only uses “natural” methods?

[Lord_Ashtar]

@kanicbird

I disagree, it gives you insite into their way of thinking, and clarifies where they stand. Sometimes the logic as to how they arived at that conclusion (if they have a answer) is helpful in understanding where the other guy is comming from. Also as one pushes that line further out it gets fuzzier, which is harder to defend.

But since science has yet to come up with a definition of life that everyone can agree upon, all we have to work with is opinion. Are you going to prove someone’s opinion wrong?

[redtail23]

@zev_steinhardt

We’re not talking about a tumor or a cyst, or even a pimple, which, if left alone, will never develop into a fully functioning, sentient human being. We’re talking about a “lump of tissue” that, if left alone, very probably will become a fully functioning sentient human being. If you think, however, that the two are equivilant; that a five-week fetus is no different than a cyst or a wart, then we simply have to sadly disagree on that point.

Well, technically, it depends on your definition of “very probably”, now doesn’t it? It seems that, if left alone, a fertilized egg has about as much chance of naturally aborting as it does surviving. cite

the fact that even among women trying to become pregnant […] fertilized eggs fail to implant 40 to 60 percent of the time. They’re eliminated when a woman menstruates.

That doesn’t even count the 10-15% chance of miscarriage after the pregnancy is confirmed. cite

I can’t find the total numbers, but IIRC, any given fertilization has about a 25% chance of becoming a “fully functioning sentient human being”, ignoring babies actually born with physical or mental problems that preclude that status. Not exactly what I’d call “very probably”, which is one reason that I don’t entirely understand the “must preserve all conceptions at all costs” perspective.

All conceptions will never survive, not even most conceptions will survive. So whence the moral imperative that claims a horrific wrong when occasionally a woman may choose not to carry a conception to term? (Excepting those who want to claim “god’s will” vs. human will - I can’t argue with that, I can only sadly disagree.)

[Essured]

@kanicbird

I feel a fetus has a legal right to use the womb which they have implanted themselves in.

Then I think we have come to the point of difference between us. I am convinced that the fetus must have permission from its owner to stay in the womb. If the person does not wish to ‘rent out’ body parts, unfortunately, the other person (fetus) will be evicted. If it cannot survive without someone else’s body parts, then it will die, if no technology or willing donor is available. That living human being is at the mercy of others for survival, but that doesn’t force anyone to take mercy. Some may choose to take mercy, others not.

Also for your kidney argument, it is not natural for your kidney to be removed, which childbirth is, and not only natural but needed for humans to continue on this planet, but you knew that already.

Can you please elaborate on this comment? I’m not sure what you are trying to say, and I’d like to understand your point of view on this issue. What does ‘natural’ have to do with two people, one needing the other’s body for survival?