You ignore the responsibilty part. We all know what the law says, thank you. And we all know that no contraceptive is 100% effective. But they are in the high 90’s in percentage. That is a well known fact, so putting the responsibilty on the condom, or whatever is disengenuous. If you really don’t want to get pregnant and chose to have sex, and you rely on a contraceptive that isn’t 100% effective, then the responsibilty is still on you if it fails. You chose to have sex.
Of course, with RoeVWade, the supreme court says otherwise, so that responsibility is moot. This is just the arguement of the pro-lifers who I have talked to. i agree with them on the arguement, but it is not the reason I am against abortion.
Under what circumstances are many pro-lifers willing to tolerate abortion?
Now this has always puzzled me. The argument seems to be that killing an innocent fetus is murder. But a fetus that is the product of a rape, or of incest, is somehow “guilty” of something, and therefore sentencing it to death is OK? A severely deformed fetus, though capable of living beyond birth, is not worthy of protection?
I simply don’t understand how anyone can maintain that abortion is murder, but that it’s OK in cases of rape, incest, or deformity. Are you saying that it’s OK because of the interests of the mother? In other words, you’re unwilling to force the mother to carry, and deliver, the product of a rape? If that’s the case, then the argument that your opposition to abortion derives from your belief that the fetus is a fully-fledged human being, with all the rights that entails, collapses pretty quickly, doesn’t it?
I wish others would read the entire debate isntead of jumping on issues they find appropriate.
And to answer your question, yes that arguement would collapse pretty quickly…if I made it. And I havn’t written here my beleif on the status of a fetus one way or the other. So I do not know where u got the “fully-fledged human being” part. I was asked a question about what i knew about others and I answered it. the answers I have gotten from that same question was that they belive the fetus deserves protection, just not at the expense of what they deem an undue burden upon a woman.
What gets me the most about such “logic”, is that it is never black and white like you make it out. Before Roe V Wade all states had different laws about abortion. All of these issues where taken into cinsideration and legislation was passed on how the people saw appropriate. Some allowed abortion for many reasons. Others did not. The SC took it out of the peoples hands because they thaught it was a Constitutional matter. Not something to be dicided by the people. When life begins does not even concern the court on this issue. Just because pro-life people disagree does not cancel their opinions on abortion out. I think that that arguemnet is legitimate, even though I do not agree with it 100%.
As Saen implied the pro-life movement is not a monolithic entity. Many on the pro-life side of the fence try to consider all of the various aspects of this issue prior to coming to their beliefs. For instance I am by no means certain what set of criteria is the best way to determine the rights of the unborn. Since I’m not sure I can’t be comfortable with outlawing abortion in the first or even the second trimester. However, by the third trimester, it is my opinion that the fetus has developed sufficiently that it would be best to err on the side of caution with regard to it’s rights. This stance does take into account the possibility that some pregnancies have their origin in a rape or incest as well as concerns about the condition of the fetus. At this point I would be satisfied by allowing all first and second trimester abortions provided all third trimester abortions were performed for life threatening reasons only. How is my stance illogical?
So something to consider at the state level. Another issue is that the law would only affect those without the resources to travel to a legal abortion state. But I suppose that can be rationalized with the argument that it’s better to save some lives than none. That is, as long as they don’t resort to the black market or the dumpster.
Or, in reverse, surely you can see the difference between killing a functioning adult and the clump of tissue that early term abortions involve. Neither of them is contradictory (and this is important) within the set of beliefs of the person holding them. They both sound terribly hypocritical to someone whose beliefs are contradicted.
Of course, this doesn’t dissuade many pro-choicers from claiming that it is. After all, it’s much more convenient to dismiss the unborn as being just a lump of cells, if we are to argue for its termination.
So do you see forcing someone to go through a pregnancy they do not want, and deliver a baby they won’t want as a punishment for the irresponsibility of having sex when procreation isn’t the objective?
Is this based on an assumption that only people who have pre-marital sex would be concerned about this?
Do you view married people who use contraception and want to abort if it fails as ‘irresponsible’ also?
Your stance is not illogical - it seems quite reasonable. My comment was aimed (and not really at Saen - sorry if it came off that way) at those who are opposed to abortion because they believe that, from the moment of conception, the fetus is a living human being, and therefore regard abortion as murder, plain and simple. When one starts with that premise, making exceptions for rape, incest, etc., is indefensible. Yet I hear that kind of argument from many abortion foes.
No, it does not suppose that. If you are “pro-gambling” in your state, you are not advocating that everybody most go out and gamble. You believe that gambling should be legal.
This shifts the debate from one on the morality of the issue itself, to an ad hominem argument about certain people who hold an opinion. A specious debate tactic. E.g., “Hitler was mostly a vegetarian, so that shows you the hypocrisy of vegetarianism!”
Those are still biased terms in American political debate. Any time the word “rights” is included in an argument, the argument is tilted in favor of that direction, because of our American civics-class belief that anything that is a “right” (“The Bill of Rights”) is untouchable. In the American political dictionary, a “right” is always right.
Responsibility is not punishment. But a duty and obligation to the unborn child that was created by your actions.
Marriage does not change the status of the pregnancy at all, in my book.
If I know a condom is 90% effective, I know there is a chance we would still get pregnant. I know that a diaprhagm is less and the pill, implants, injections are all about 99%. If I did not want to get pregnant, and used all of these methods at the same time, it would still be my responsibility on the off-chance that they all failed.
Surgery is a pretty safe bet on a fail-safe method. As is abstinence. If responsibility was the key issue, prudence would not justify taking away that responsibility just because you tried.
I’m sure there are missinformed people out there who think a condom is 100%. That is a failure on society to educate. But then again, when abortion is used as a contraceptive, wich is pretty fail-safe, why would the society deem it necessary?
Forcing someone to endure a pregnancy they don’t want and deliver a baby they don’t want is punishment for someone who doesn’t want kids.
I guess you and I have different ideas of responsibility, because I think it would be reprehensible for me to be pregnant knowing I would resent it and refuse to alter my life in any way, continuing to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes whenever I damn well please. I would never raise a kid, ever, and I sure don’t want to give one up for adoption to have it come find me in 20 years.
The responsible thing for me to do is recognize the detriment to me and to the fetus if I were pregnant, and end the pregnancy before a kid with a whole pile of medical problems would be born and dumped with the state.
And forcing someone to abstain from alcohol before driving is “punishment” for someone who doesn’t want to stop guzzling beers.
In other words, the question of what that person “wants” is irrelevant to the issue of whether something is responsibility or punishment. A responsibility is, by definition, something which we are RESPONSIBLE for doing, regardless of what we actually desire.
If you don’t ever ever want to get pregnant or have a kid you have it easier than those who want to but not just right now. No one made you have sex* or not take every precaution you could. You act like someone demands you get pregnant against your will or something.
And how can you justify being responsible to a fetus by killing it? Please explain that one to me 'cus im confused. And like JT pointed out, there are many things you can’t do “whenever you damn well please”. Especially when it has ill effect to others.
*Unless you where raped, but that’s another debate.