I’m not alone, either. Check out this site, too: Libertarians for Life
Hmm. I really thought when I made my last post that I was correct. I’m still not sure if it was my own misapprehension, or some distorting of what the debate was about…
BTW, since my ignorance on the mainstream arguments seems to be clear, has it been determined scientifically what exactly is going on in the brain, or proto-brain, of a fetus during the periods in question? And how much does the common religiously-based belief that human beings have souls come into play?
Well, since we can’t even determine exactly what’s happening in the brains of fully born humans, I’d say the question is moot. It’s a safe bet, however, that autonomic systems control is among the functions being performed.
In brief, (a) many pro-lifers are motivated by religious beliefs, and (b) contrary to frequent pro-choice claims, this is not the sole basis for opposing abortion. Many oppose abortion based on scientific evidence, rather than religious appeals. In fact, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL itself, became a pro-lifers based on medical and ultrasound evidence – and he was an outspoken atheist at the time.
It’s important to note that this should not imply that effective contraception would not be available, even if the methods mentioned were outlawed by virtue of being potential abortifacients. It would absolutely be possible to utilize contraceptives if a person so desired. And wouldn’t it be possible to manufacture birth control pills that prevent ovulation and have no other effect?
I am pro-life, but I’m also a pragmatist. My abhorance derives from the fact that I consider abortion to result in a death of someone who doesn’t deserve to die, usually the baby. Being at least slightly grounded in the real-world, I realize that making abortion illegal will not mean that no woman would attempt to get one. If we outlaw abortion, we turn the clock back to the times of back alley abortions. Back alley abortions resulted, quite frequently, in the woman’s death. So now the net is 2 deaths (mother and baby) instead of one (baby). Since this would only result in more deaths, I wouldn’t want Roe vs Wade to be overturned.
First, let me apologize for my tardy reply. But, hey, What the heck happened to the SDMB yesterday? I kept getting a database error
Anyway, to point. I am not Catholic; although I am a Christian, I do not argue from a religious stance as those who are most vehemently pro-abortion do not tend to recognize the validity of my belief. I prefer, instead, to argue from a reasoned, rational, and logical approach. Euphemisms just annoy me as a means of avoiding dealing with this issue, perhaps the most difficult ethical and moral dilemma today.
Okay, birth control. Perhaps I should clarify my position: as a pregnancy cannot commence successfully to delivery of a full-term baby without the fertilized egg having implanted in the uterus, and my understanding is that some 75-80% of all potential pregnancies fail at this point, I am all in favor of any means that prevent the implantation from occurring. Let me qualify this statement to this degree: AFAIK birth control pills work by inhibiting ovulation. Is this position contradictory? I’m sure some will think it so. It’s certainly a conundrum for me. I don’t arrive at this easily, or even necessarily comfortably. I seek the tolerable middle. Ideally, a perfect option would be the absolute ability to inhibit ovulation routinely with no resulting side effects, short-term or long-term. We don’t live in a perfect world. We do, however, live in a vastly different world than that of the 60’s and 70’s. The options for birth control are greater, the risks of pregnancy/delivery lower, and the societal ostracization of young, unmarried pregnant girls/women is, at least as I see it, essentially gone. In short, the reasons for abortion have largely disappeared. Reference to backroom ally abortions is an attempt at demagoguery. But this still evades the central issue.
As others have pointed out already, the fetus is alive, he is human, and he is a person. He is not part of the mother; a separate blood supply, a unique set of chromosomes, and in 50% of the pregnancies, a different gender from the mother as well. These are facts.
The question no one wants to answer is this: on what basis do we disregard the care and protection of the youngest among us? Should it be for mere whim? Convenience? Inconvenience? Poverty? Any of these?
Here is another Libertarian who thinks abortion is murder. There are quite a few of us.
No, you don’t have to be a woman to have a valid opinion about abortion. However, as a man, you aren’t faced with the physical and emotional stresses of pregnancy, and you aren’t faced with the risk of abandonment by your partner, or worse, possible abuse.
So, then, what you’re basically saying is that a couple should not engage in sexual relations, which are a part of a healthy relationship, merely because the woman can become pregnant?
In any case, there are a number of factors that are considered as part of the decision to abort. Among these are social considerations, because not all women are lucky enough to have a good support system in place during pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing; financial, because having children isn’t cheap, and not all women have access to adequate financial resources to care for a child, even with programs like WIC; emotional, because not all women are emotionally or mentally capable of bearing children; and the circumstances of the woman’s life as a whole.
At least allow her the dignity of making her own choices without fear of punishment.
Robin
**So what was your point in bringing this up, then?
**I thought the point was that a couple should not engage in sexual relations, which are a part of a healthy relationship, unless they are willing to accept the responsibilities associated with the very real possibility that their actions could result in pregnancy.
You are absolutely correct. The last paragraph of my post which you did not quote responds to this. The difficulty of the challenge to remedy these valid problems does not mean we should not attempt to address them.
One’s right to make choices ends where one’s choices effect coercion/aggression upon others. In other words, do what you want to yourself, but don’t hurt or kill other people with your choices.
It should be a felony to perform an abortion at any point during the pregnancy, and felonies by definition are crimes which carry at least a one-year jail term. The only defense should be when a pregnancy was endangering the life of the mother. Since my objection to abortion is based on the fact that I think it’s a killing, it doesn’t matter whether rape or incest was involved. It’s the balancing of a life against another life in the “health of the mother” case, and I could accept abortions in those cases. In rape/incest cases, there is no life hanging in the balance other than that of the fetus, and thus no justification for terminating the pregnancy.
The goal is to prevent abortions from being performed, and this is best accomplished by punishing the doctors. I see no need to punish the woman. The guilt one should feel over killing their baby seems punishment enough, IMHO. Also, the desperation someone would have to be feeling to consider killing their baby probably clouds judgment and is emotionally tumultuous, ergo I don’t hold the woman really at fault. The fault is with the doctors…and with those militant pro-abortion activists at places like Planned Parenthood, but I don’t really want to punish them either. Unlike the so-called “right to privacy”, the right of free speech actually is in the Constitution.
BTW, my opinion is based on the theory that the date of viability, in which the baby could potentially survive outside the womb, is in theory well-within that period of the first 12 weeks. Technology could theoretically be used to duplicate the effects of the womb, and a baby in such a device could not legally be killed (though I presume you could allow it to die if medical complications occured.) Certainly it would be considered morally repugnant to take that artificially gestating baby and toss it into a blender to get chopped into tiny bits. Ergo, the only difference between that baby and the baby being gestated naturally is that one of them can be legally killed, and the other cannot. Always seems a little silly to me to draw such a stark distinction between two babies which are essentially identical.
One could just as easily argue that this means we can expect men to be more objective than women, when it comes to gauging the morality of abortion. After all, they have less of a vested stake in the matter, and as such, are less likely to be swayed by personal desires.
Mind you, I’m not arguing that men SHOULD be the ones to decide these things. I’m merely pointing out that we shouldn’t dismiss men’s opinions as less valid, merely because they’re not the ones carrying the unborn.
I think this is an excellent point. Abortion has some assuredly positive consequences for women, it’s socially beneficial in some ways. This creates an interest for women who enjoy the beneficial consequences of abortion in finding a way to conclude that it’s moral.
However, the flaw would be to assume that men have no such interest. A man, because he has no decision-making power over the choice to abort, may often have his desires frustrated by abortion. However, there are many men for whom abortion has been greatly beneficial, men who would have been stuck as support-slaves for the next 18 years, could have had their lives and careers ruined by an unwanted pregnancy. So some men also have an interest in demonstrating abortion as moral behaviour, and so are not necessarily any more impartial. Bias on the issue based on personal benefit probably exists in both genders, though perhaps a little more so in women.
J Thunder
- Prohibition only addressed one aspect of organized crime, so I
- think you’re extrapolating far beyond the evidence at hand.
I’m afraid you’ve missed the point. Prohibition was creative of organized crime rather than a matter of ‘addressing it’. It is particularly apposite because the US was not a ‘closed system’ and could have no control over the availability of alcohol outside its borders - and little, effectively, on the permeability of those borders. This is also the case with abortion.
- Moreover, nobody is claiming that the law will always be
- successful in educating the people. Sometimes, human greed and
- depravity will still win out. The point is that we should not assume
- that a law is utterly useless, simply because it is “unenforceable.”
Oh, I think that laws that are held in general contempt, or contempt by a significant proportion of the population, tend to be creative of contempt of law itself.
il Topo
- But we are talking here about human life (assuming for this
- thread) and not consumption of recreational substances.
I think we’re talking about a range of things, actually.
Let me say, first of all, that I have no interest whatsoever in discussing the ‘morality’ of abortion; I’m interested in the motivations of various people involved and the consequences - both intended and unintended - of a change in the status quo. Any such changes, by the way, would have no effect whatsoever either on a decision I might personally face or my ability to acquire an abortion, should I desire to have one.
I think consideration of just what kind of situation would appertain, should the law be changed, is rather important - American society is very, very different from 30 years’ ago.
Yes, I didn’t catch your meaning the first time around, and for that I apologize. The point remains, however. Just because the law failed in this particular instance does NOT mean that it has no impact on people’s moral opinions. Again, I point you to the case of civil rights, which I cited earlier. I shall also remind you that many pro-choicers themselves defend abortion on the grounds that “It’s legal! It’s legal!”, which demonstrates that people often do base their moral judgments on what the law says.
The bottom line: We should not conclude that a law is useless, merely because it is (supposedly) “unenforceable.”
So if people are contemptuous of one law, they will condemn law in general? Give me a break.
Moreover, you are conflating two separate issues. A law which is unenforceable is not necessarily one which the public shall hold in contempt. Consider laws against suicide, for example. In addition, given the widespread support for the pro-life cause, it is hardly a foregone conclusion that the public will react with the widespread contempt that you predict.
But morality is at the heart of this debate. Those who don’t believe that the unborn is a person, have no problem defending abortion. But for those who acknowledge that the unborn is a person, I don’t see how they can defend it.
Saying that a baby would create a hardship on the mother, therefor it’s ok to abort it, is like someone who’s taking care of an elderly parent, then decide that it’s too expensive and decide to have them euthanized.
J Thunder
- The point remains, however. Just because the law failed in this
- particular instance does NOT mean that it has no impact on
- people’s moral opinions.
You seem always to presume that the impact will be a change in moral opinions in favor of your position, meanwhile neglecting the, potentially much larger, question of the unintended consequences of one’s actions. Taking the Prohibition example, again, it may be possible that a number of Americans became converted because of the moral case behind it - most Americans, however, quite evidently didn’t. Meanwhile, the unintended consequence - the spectacular growth of Organized Crime, has continued to be a major factor in American life.
- Again, I point you to the case of civil rights, which I cited earlier. I
- shall also remind you that many pro-choicers themselves defend
- abortion on the grounds that “It’s legal! It’s legal!”, which
- demonstrates that people often do base their moral judgments on
- what the law says.
I may be being slightly dense here but you’ll have to explain the sequence of logic that you perceive in their supposed logic.
- The bottom line: We should not conclude that a law is useless,
- merely because it is (supposedly) “unenforceable.”
We may, however, anticipate that it will be the case. Previous attempts to embody a particular view of morality seem either to have been counter-productive or spectacularly repressive.
- So if people are contemptuous of one law, they will condemn law in
- general? Give me a break.
You may well be in need of such a break, I cannot tell. In the Prohibition example, it is quite evident that a large number of Americans were not only contemptuous of one law, they were prepared to break, or be complicit in the breaking of, many others.
- Moreover, you are conflating two separate issues. A law which is
- unenforceable is not necessarily one which the public shall hold in
- contempt. Consider laws against suicide, for example. In addition,
- given the widespread support for the pro-life cause, it is hardly a
- foregone conclusion that the public will react with the widespread
- contempt that you predict.
Actually, such law would be enforceable - qv my sarcastic comment earlier about pregnancy tests as one left the country and pregnancy tests on return - the question is whether the apparatus necessary to enforce it would be found tolerable by the population, particularly female population, at large.
In other words, what I’m saying is that, either such laws would be unenforceable, or that enforcement would be awesome in its social effects - generally.
Meanwhile, of course, that might be quite the opposite of an ‘unintended’ effect.
Joel
- But morality is at the heart of this debate.
One reason I am ‘uninterested’ is that I’ve watched this debate and its conflicting moral posturings go around, and around, and around, all my adult life while the actual questions of ‘outcomes’ tend to be sidetracked.
Of course, talking about what such law would look like and just how it would be applied isn’t as satisfying, I’m sure, as berating people and feeling good about oneself while doing so.
You are changing the topic. Remember, so far, I have only arguing against the claim that an unenforceable law is useless. The question of other possible effects is another matter altogether, and one which must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Moreover, unlike you, I am not talking about “THE” impact. At no point, anywhere, did I remotely suggest that this was the only effect that a law would have. Quite the opposite in fact, since I emphasized that we should not be quick to conclude that a law is unenforceable.
Good grief. Do you really need this spelled out for you?
Such as civil rights legislation, eh? Counter-productive and spectacularly repressive? Good grief.
Which does not demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship by any means. You are obviously oversimplifying the facts at hand.
In which case, your earlier objections about unenforceability are irrelevant.
As for the claim that “enforcement would be awesome in its social effects,” the same can be said of legislation in general. The fact that enforcing a law would have widespread effects is not sufficient reason to reject it – ESPECIALLY since, as was pointed out repeatedly, the failure to properly enforce that law does not necessarily make it useless.
Thanks for the accusation, but I don’t go around berating people and feeling good about it. I’m just stating my position. Saying I don’t understand how there are people who belive both that the unborn is a person, and yet defend abortion, isn’t berating them.