The abortion debate: can we comprimise?

Great Debates
21

:rolleyes: Cool. Here is my compromise vis a vis that pesky slavery issue of the 1800s. People who want to own slaves should be able to have them. People who don’t want them, don’t have to have them.

**

Just because you think that blacks are persons entitled to equal protection under the law doesn’t mean that you have to impose that view on slaveholders, does it?

This is such a tired cliche’ that is so ignorant of historical fact, that it’s laughable.

Society, through the force of representative law, has often imposed its moral viewpoint on its citizens. Issues like slavery, child labor, mandatory vaccinations etc are several examples.

22

beagledave, please don’t equate abortion with slavery.
you know it doesn’t match up.
not even close.

23

well, yeah, except that i can give a black guy a hug. and i can give a one month old baby a hug. but i can’t give a fetus a hug. i call it the hug-test. and it’s useful, if not somewhat facetious :slight_smile:

24

I’ve always liked Carl Sagan’s take on the abortion issue. To paraphrase:
First, pro-life is not pro-life; it’s pro human life. So-called pro-lifers don’t have any qualms about spraying a cockroach; they just don’t want to kill human life. The issue then becomes when does the fetus become human. If you look closely at the human brain, all of the things that make us human are formed in the final trimester – logic, reason, language, art, etc. It’s been proven time and again by brain injury studies. By this logic, human life starts when the outer layer of the brain, the ‘gray matter, is formed. Ipso-facto, you don’t take a human life by aborting in the first trimester.

25

I don’t know how they reationalize it, but I think I understand how it could happen. It’s very, very easy to talk about what other people should or should not do - but when push comes to shove, you don’t really know what you’ll do in a given situation until that situation arises. It’s the flip side of the woman who has always said she never wanted children, but finds herself deciding to keep the baby.

Myself, I hold the conviction that if I became pregnant, I would have and raise the child - even if said child were the result of rape. I can sit here and say that, and I can even believe it. But I haven’t actually been raped, and am not actually pregnant, and who knows how my feelings might change if that situation actually occurred? I can make a determination of my probable actions in a given circumstance, but it all breaks down once real feelings are involved.

Nonny

26

Really? The arguments are very similar. The discussion is about the value or worth of someone versus “property” rights of another. The discussion revolves around whether a government can impose a moral belief on to those who don’t share that same belief.

You made the suggestion that governments don’t have the right to impose a moral belief on others who don’t share that moral belief. (That’s the subtext of your “don’t have an abortion if you don’t like them” argument).

I offered up several examples (indeed there are plenty of others) where the government does just that…impose a moral viewpoint.

It certainly is legitimate to debate the relative “rights” of the involved parties. (Does the “right to life” trump “reproductive rights”, for example). I get real tired of the suggestion that government should not impose a moral philosophy or viewpoint on others. It’s a patently ridiculous argument that falls flat in the face of historical fact. And you know that.

27

ElJeffe:

Cite?

28

As a one-time party to an abortion decision, I can say that the decision was made with many regrets. It certainly wasn’t careless, we deliberated over it for far more that 24 hours (an above mentione dsuggested waiting period), we looked at the required pamphlets showing average growth pictures at such-and-such a time, and so on.

It cost $250. We had to save for that. That we had to save to gather $250 was part of the motivation for the abortion in the first place.

In my mind, I was ready to do whatever she wanted. I told her as much. Her first reaction was to keep it, we would find a way, general every-cloud-has-a-silver-lining talk that everyone hands out all the time. But the reality of it was we couldn’t support the child the way we wanted to. Of course I participated in the decision. It was our child, and we both had a say, but of course her say did trump mine. Even kings have an ear they will listen with, and so I said my piece, though I made it 100% clear I would do what I had to to support the child if that’s what she chose.

I have never cared much for the “it isn’t a person yet” arguments after an abortion debate here some time ago (where I was forced to conclude that it was the worst bald-man problem this side of bald men, and lost the argument) where I said such a thing and got nailed for it. Truth is, I don’t care whether it is a person or not. It is in the mother, and I think the mother should get priority choice on whether the child lives or dies. When birth is required (medically) or happens (naturally) then I feel the mother should be compelled to raise the child or give it up for adoption. At that point, she has has PLENTY of time to decide whether or not to give birth.

People just don’t want to have kids. We’re passed the point, WRT civilization, that we need to have as many kids as quick as possible. They’re all going to live now. They’re going to get a modest education. They’re going to grow to be relatively healthy. In general, life is guaranteed after birth.

Which makes the decision to have a child no longer a societal concern, IMO.

All abortions available, push contraception, and be done with it. I, for one, won’t be satisfied with anything else. But where we stand now, I am also not compelled to action. As much of a compromise as I can see.

29

—I have never cared much for the “it isn’t a person yet” arguments after an abortion debate here some time ago (where I was forced to conclude that it was the worst bald-man problem this side of bald men, and lost the argument) where I said such a thing and got nailed for it.—

Heh, only by someone lame enough to smuggle in the conotations of one sense of a word into another. In one sense, it’s a person. In another sense, it’s not even close. It’s both true and false.

But frankly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s “a person” yet. What matters are the actual moral arguements based on the actual being, not trying to bypass it with empty bickering about various shortcut essentialisms.

30

Interesting question. Yet isn’t something of greater importance missing?

Sex leads to pregnancy. There is no other way for pregnancy to happen and for those of you who want to cleverly spew out ‘insemination’ as a means of pregnancy … masturbation is sex too the last time I checked.

Anything to do with sperm is sex related so why not instead of addressing the consequence to thoughtless or careless sex in the form of abortion address the issues of sex instead?

If the issues of sex were fully addressed would men and women find themselves in compromising situations like abortion? I doubt it.

Abortion is cheesecloth on a gaping wound. So are contraceptives or other birth control measures. Abortion, contraceptives and other birth control measures refuse to allow for accountability and create devastating long-term effects.

God forbid any of us choose abstinence or celibacy as an alternative. Can you imagine the horrendous effects abstinence or celibacy would have to our delicate egos? NOT!

Food for thought.

31

So if it’s someone’s opinion that rape is okay, then they should be permitted to commit rape? If someone is of the opinion that slavery should be permissible, they should be allowed to have slaves?

For that matter, what about killing abortionists? If we apply your argument consistently, then you might be personally opposed to killing abortionists, but you could not claim to impose this judgment on anyone else.

That is why the whole proposal of letting each individual decide for himself or herself is foolish. Civilized societies do not do such things.

32

Yeah, they wrap them up in faceless beuaracracy! Woo-hoo! “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” Chant it, drone! It is for your own good!

More likely, they let people decide their own solution to things which don’t contradict other’s direct interests or society’s direct interests.

Which brings us back to: who represents the fetus’ interest? The mom, I say, who also happens to represent her own interest, and when the two clash the mother’s interest trumps. In this case, at this time in history.

33

I believe it’s possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice – in fact, that’s what I consider myself.

Only once in my life have I ever faced becoming a papa. My girlfriend was in her mid-30s, and had been a type-1 diabetic since she was 9. This would have made it a very risky pregnancy. (Admittedly, we both had good jobs and some money in the bank).

Never once did I even consider suggesting she get an abortion. I did, however, tell her I would support her decision, which included marrying her and raising the child, not marrying her and raising the child, or getting an abortion. It didn’t really matter though, because she spontaneously miscarried a few weeks later.

If you’re pro-life and have never faced an unwanted pregnancy, and reacted as I did, you aren’t pro-life, you’re just a busybody.

FU Shakespeare

34

I feel it my duty to point out that there are sex acts that don’t risk pregnancy. And, um, devices.

Nonny

35

I was not expecting pro-life people to agree with me. (I would not even expect the majority of other pro-choice people to agree with me). robertliguori was asking about compromise, and after having already stated that you probably won’t find it in the area of “when (if ever) is it morally permissible, and should it be legal, to have an abortion?”, not when I say “up until right after birth” and some folks say “not ever after conception” and Gjorp (to whom I was most immediately responding) says “only if the mother’s life is at stake” and so on and so on.

Why waste our breath? We don’t agree.

So (as I was originally saying) why not focus on things we can agree on? Even this:

Spiritual Advisor:

I don’t agree with Spiritual Advisor on the desirability of chastity or abstinence as a solution (sex is more fun; more to the point, people of the target population who are most likely to have unintended / unwanted / inconvenient pregnancy as an outcome are likely to hold the opinion that sex is more fun, also). But I think this is nevertheless the area to focus on and maybe despite our differences of opinion regarding sex (and how young and how often and with how many partners and how often and how married people should be when they have sex), maybe it would be more productive to discuss this. Maybe there are public education initiatives we’d agree on. (e.g., while I would not want my 13 year old niece exposed to unilateral teaching about premarital sex=bad, I would not object if she were exposed to that perspective along with other, contrasting perspectives).

But as far as us reaching a meeting of the minds on the old worn-out over-argued territory we’re hashing about in this thread so far? e.g., JThunder, just for example:

To which I’m gonna respond along these lines:

The right to reproductive control is an unalienable god-given right, and our legal system lacks the authority to make laws restricting women’s authority to abort if they want to abort, end of story. The pro-life contingent can contend what they want to contend, but the location of the undesired fetus is inside the body of the pregnant woman; she’s where it’s at and given a mind and a will, she’s gonna abort if she finds it necessary to do so, again end of story. All the pro-life sentiments in the world won’t change that unless you’re going to lock up women and control them in a very generic manner so as to keep them from having the opportunity, and people like me will be doing our best to keep that from happening, and we outnumber you, so give it a rest already!

…or something like that. This is dialog? C’mon, you’re read it before, I’ve read your crap before, and our minds are already made up and we’re all tired of redoing our spiels every time another stupid abortion thread comes up!

36

—God forbid any of us choose abstinence or celibacy as an alternative.—

Is it possible to practice both at once?

—That is why the whole proposal of letting each individual decide for himself or herself is foolish. Civilized societies do not do such things.—

Turkey inthe straw there fella… almost no one supports a “let each individual decide, end of story” stance. It’s almost always more like “Let each individual decide, EXCEPT when it harms others.” The abortion debate then becomes, as always, whether fetuses should be included in the “others” category.

37

Once again though, why does that follow? An abused wife is the person most involved in her crisis (apart from the abuser, of course). Does this mean that we should give her free reign to handle her situation in whatever manner she chooses – including lethal means?

38

Clearly, the “pro-life” issue is indeed focused solely on human life.

So, given Dragline’s comments, we are not talking about the absolute, presently-possessed ability to reason logically (which most believe is not possessed by a fetus), but rather, we are talking about the potential to reason logically.

Are you saying, Dragline, that a fetus with certain brain area development has that “potential,” but that a healthy fetus with a full set of human-DNA directed towards the development of those brain areas, does not have that “potential”?

On what basis do you or Mr. Sagan choose your starting point for human life–e.g., the starting point of such potential? How does one select the measurable mount of brain matter that yields such potential? Why aren’t other starting points just as valid? For example, under Sagan’s reasoning (as presented), why can’t the time of the last complete pairing of the last piece of DNA directed to make such brain matter, as part of a unique set of DNA, be just as valid of a time to define the beginning of such potential?

This may be the first time, at least for me, that Mr. Sagan has failed to simplify a complex issue.

39

Everyone is eligible to have a position on abortion, regardless of sex or past history.

  1. Is it so outrageous to suggest that morality does not change when individuals who purport to follow such morality actually choose to act against it when life pushes at them?

Just because a pro-lifer chooses to abort an unwanted pregnancy does not make the pro-life position wrong. Rather, the pro-lifer is wrong in view of the pro-life position. The moral position itself continues on, unharmed and undiminished in its strength (whatever that may be).

  1. Also, is it so outrageous to suggest that one can have a legitimate moral position on a hypothetical action prior to being faced with an actual decision regarding such an action?

Indeed, as a troop leader in-training in the army, I was taught that I had to decide, right then and there, in the sterile environment of the peacetime classroom, that killing enemy prisoners was wrong, wrong, wrong. Otherwise, in the heat of battle, after half my closest friends had their faces shot off in the foxhole next to me, I would “know” it was right to kill the captured enemy prisoner who had just done that to my friends.

Context often clouds moral judgment, it doesn’t necessarily clarify moral judgment. Certainly, context (e.g., personal experience with an issue) can provide us with sympathy for those who choose against the classroom judgment–and that sympathy can be a very helpful thing. However, context doesn’t change the morality of the situation.

40

il Topo: Obviously, I’ve left out a lot of what Sagan said - it’s about a 3 page, well reasoned (of course) argument that was proposed as a compromise between the two opposing groups. That was the premise of the OP, so that rang a bell with me.

Concerning the element of ‘potential’ human life, Sagan goes into that in depth. Potential human life is not human life either. Absolutely, the fetus is a potential human from day one, but so are all individual sperm and egg cells - no one is proposing saving them as “potential humans”. Likewise, if cloning (bad idea, IMO) were ever perfected, each blood cell from a shaving cut would also be a potential human.

As far as the specific question, (at what point is the fetus a human), it seems clear to me, and Sagan if I read him right, that you have a human when you physically have all the cellular components in the brain that make us human. They all form in the last trimester. So limit abortion the first 3 mos and we can all get along, I hope. (this from Pensacola FL, the abortion doctor murder and bombing capitol of the US)