The argument of "pro-choice" is bullsh*t.

[Annie-Xmas]

The only way to justify being pro-life is to trivialize pregnancy, childbirth and adoption. Pregnancy is a “minor inconvenience,” childbirth is simply “termination of pregnancy” and adoption is “a way to continue your life without a child.” After all, these events only happen to women, so how could thy possibly be significant?

The pro-life camp refuses to recognize the immense physical, mental, and emotional factors of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption (and, in the last one, the extreme effects on the child). And that, my dear, is total bullshit.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Cisco

@Chronos

No, it’s when personhood begins. A fertilized egg (or, heck, even an unfertilized egg or a sperm cell) is unambiguously alive and unambiguously human, but then again, so is a cancerous tumor, and nobody argues that those have rights. Unfortunately, precisely what constitutes “personhood” is much harder to pin down.

Mm? I realize you’ve got a lot farther in the natural sciences than I have, but I was taught in biology that, to be considered alive, an organism had to be able to sustain that life itself. I believe this was tied in to homeostasis somehow. This is why viruses aren’t considered alive. Is this an outdated or oversimplified notion?

To throw my 2 cents in the ring (stipulating that I’m a male and my wife would probably scowl at me for even opening my mouth on the subject): I’ve gotten pretty uncomfortable with abortion since having a kid.

This is when my wife and I developed a more nuanced position on abortion as well. She used to be an abortion on demand (no restirctions at all) sort of gal and I was a “why the heck should I care what other people do” sort of guy. Then we had a miscarriage in the 16th week and we changed our tune. When we had our first child I think our entire perspective shifted.

I still remember when it struck me. Some state law was going to require a sonogram before an abortion after the first trimester. My wife (when I first met her) would have blown her top about the nerve of some state trying to pull something like that. It bowled me over when her response was “only if the doctor performs the sonogram immediately and doesn’t make her wait more than a couple of hours, otherwise they should give her that abortion.”

This may not sound like an unreasonable position to some of you but take my word for it, it was a sea cahnge for my wife.

[DianaG]

Never mind, and apologies. I forgot what forum I was in.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So, Damuri, how do you feel about a woman who doesn’t look in the direction of the sonogram monitor, who tears up any printouts the instant they are handed to her and repeats her request for the abortion?

[heatmiserfl]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@DianaG

I’ve never seen anyone state that there is. The difference is that the day before birth it’s inside a woman’s body (and as such under her jurisdiction) and the next day it’s not.

“Inside my body” vs. “outside my body” is a pretty bright line. To say otherwise is bullshit.

Is having a bright line the most important component of a rule on abortion?

Pre-conception v. post conception is a pretty bright line too. To say otherwise is bullshit but very few people on this board seems to think that that sort of argument is particularly convincing.

Being a bright is simply not enough to make it right.

Pre-conception and post-conception is a bright line of nothing other than conception. It’s an important step for what will become a human organism. I find that meaningless in a discussion for whether or not abortion should be outlawed. In contrast, some religious people (or people who put philosophical importance on human destiny) think that has some relevance. Looks pretty muddy to me.

OTOH, I see a bright line pre- and post-birth. Pre-birth, a mother’s own body is involved. Post-birth, the mother’s body is no longer involved. If the mother’s body was not involved, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we?

So, Monkey with a Gun, you seem to be confused on two major points in this discussion so maybe you can answer some questions for me. Otherwise, your OP and subsequent posts make no sense to me.

1. I assume you don’t think abortion should be outlawed. Why don’t you think abortion should be outlawed?

2. What is your definition of a life vs. definition of a person?

[Marley23]

I’m still waiting for an answer on why abortion is something to be avoided from a moral standpoint. From a health and cost standpoint it’s less convenient and more expensive than condoms or contraception methods and I’m sure there are greater health risks, at least for most people. But none of those are moral issues than justify a slant against abortion.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Marley23

I’m still waiting for an answer on why abortion is something to be avoided from a moral standpoint. From a health and cost standpoint it’s less convenient and more expensive than condoms or contraception methods and I’m sure there are greater health risks, at least for most people. But none of those are moral issues than justify a slant against abortion.

Less healthy and more costly than a condom but far less dangerous and cheaper than carrying a pregnancy to term.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Heart_of_Dorkness

…I had a philosophy professor once who put it this way: Imagine you wake up one day and find that doctors have attached a 60-year old man to your body. His kidneys aren’t functioning, you see, and so yours are being used to filter his blood along with your own. They had to do this because you are the only person in the world who matches his very rare genetic whatever, so otherwise, he’ll die. Do you have the right to say, “I don’t want my body used to support this guy’s life anymore?” That’s the choice.

Obviously, neither you nor anyone else has the right to simply stab the guy in the heart, starve him to death, or harm him in some other way. And obviously, if you have no problem with your body being his life support, no one else has the right to remove him from that support. But many people, including me, would argue that you do have the right to say, at any time, “I don’t want my body used in this way,” even though that inevitably means he will die. It might be immoral, it might be unethical, it might be a sin, fine. But it’s your right to choose what happens to your body. And FWIW, I’m seven months pregnant.

You aren’t just disconnecting the tubes, you are killing him in order to disconnect the tubes. If a fetus is viable and we applied your analogy then you have the right to vacate your womb but why do you have a right to kill an otherwise viable fetus in order to do so?

At most your anology argues for choice before viability.

Your analogy fails for several other reasons. Presumably, your pregnancy is not the result of an immaculate conception and considering that most people who object to abortion object to later term abortions, they didn’t sneak the guy into your room in the middle of the night, you were wide awake as they were hooking him up to you.

I would also point out that he 60 year old man is a stranger to you, your fetus is not. I’m not saying that there is a duty of care but they are not moral equivalents.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Voyager

@Cisco

To throw my 2 cents in the ring (stipulating that I’m a male and my wife would probably scowl at me for even opening my mouth on the subject): I’ve gotten pretty uncomfortable with abortion since having a kid.

First couple weeks - meaning AS SOON AS you find out about the pregnancy? Ok. Not ideal, but ok.

But it wasn’t long after that that I started thinking of my son as very real.

So, because you are uncomfortable with the idea some totally unrelated woman shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion in the second trimester? How about if some other uncomfortable person thinks there shouldn’t be one halfway through the first trimester? I’ve got two kids, and I’d be perfectly comfortable if my kids needed one then - though we trained them well, and the need is extremely unlikely.

The point of the argument is that we should respect your feelings about you and yours, and you should respect ours for our families.

And what if your children wanted to get one in the third trimester? Despite all your training and good intentions, they get pregnant and think they want the baby and then just change their mind in the third trimester?

[Polerius]

@DianaG

@Damuri Ajashi

Wait, are you saying that if a woman aborts a third trimester baby its choice but if I hit her in the gut with a bat and kill the fetus it is murder?

Yes. Because it’s HER choice. Not yours. Get it?

Let’s say a woman has decided on abortion in her third trimester. She goes to the clinic, and just seconds before the doctor is about to abort the fetus, a madman barges in and hits her in the gut with a bat and kills the fetus.

Is it murder, or just assault against the woman?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DianaG

@Chronos

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to ask who, exactly, the fetus’s body belongs to? If the fetus is a person, then surely the fetus’s body would belong to the fetus, and it would be the fetus who has the right to choose.

The fetus’s body is its own, and it’s welcome to take itself elsewhere. It doesn’t get to choose to use *my *body, any more than I get to choose to do whatever I like with yours.

So what do you propose the rule should be after viability?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@spark240

Interesting to come at the question of killing the unborn from two directions today. Elsewhere, I said this,

@spark240

This was a double killing, no matter how he thought of it. A baby in the womb at eight months is much closer, in all senses except the event of birth itself, to a born baby than it is to an embryo.

As I said, there may be more than one “line” to be found, depending on context. I see no necessary conflict in acknowledging that a late-term unborn baby is almost the same as a born baby, and holding an assailant similarly responsible for its injury (including murder charges), while also acknowledging the critical difference, with respect to the prevailing rights of the woman.

@DianaG

The child is a human being either way. The person whose body it’s occupying gets to make decisions about whether it will be allowed to do so. No one else does. Not assailants, and not you.

This is probably the most succinct way to put it.

So does a woman have the right to evict a viable fetus by chopping it to bits before sucking it out througha vaccum hose?

I never heard Der Trihs actually say this before:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12748680&postcount=5

[DianaG]

@Polerius

Let’s say a woman has decided on abortion in her third trimester. She goes to the clinic, and just seconds before the doctor is about to abort the fetus, a madman barges in and hits her in the gut with a bat and kills the fetus.

Is it murder, or just assault against the woman?

It’s an assault against both of them, but the assault on the fetus is irrelevant, since she’d already chosen to have it removed.

[DianaG]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So does a woman have the right to evict a viable fetus by chopping it to bits before sucking it out througha vaccum hose?

Yes. I don’t believe that we’ve been remotely unclear about that.

[DianaG]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@DianaG

The fetus’s body is its own, and it’s welcome to take itself elsewhere. It doesn’t get to choose to use *my *body, any more than I get to choose to do whatever I like with yours.

So what do you propose the rule should be after viability?

It’s the same rule. You’re the one who believes that viability is relevant, I don’t. I really don’t think I can be much clearer about this, but let me try one last time.

Outside my body = no longer under my jurisdiction
Inside my body = my choice, and I’m profoundly uninterested in your opinion

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Lobohan

The “Pro-Choice” argument is fine. A woman has a *choice *to terminate her pregnancy before an agreed upon time.

As for person-hood, anyone who thinks that a fetus that doesn’t possess brain function is a person is most likely basing that on a religious myth.

You mean higher brain function don’t you? Because a fetus moves, repsonds to pain and apparently even dreams.

So if you are saying brain function is what makes them people then are you in Der trihs camps that a newborn baby that basically can’t see (or at least can’t understand what it is seeing as “the world”) can’t think, and acts entirely on isntinct is not really a person either? Can we abort a baby until it can start interacting with the world around it in some meaningful way? No iots not the brain function that the pro-choice side is focusing on, its the “I get to do what i want with my body (and anything or anyone inside my body) no matter what” argument that the pro-choice side is focusing on.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Voyager

@Huerta88

It became established pretty early on that the pro-Roe people were not going to describe themselves, or accept the label of, “pro-abortion,” any more than the antis were going to call themselves anti-choice.

The OP would probably be okay with “pro allowing abortion if the woman wants it, during certain phases of the pregnancy.” But that’s never going to be the shorthand reference.

But pro-abortion in no way describes the pro-choice position, even with your qualification. Thinking it does is why Sarah Palin gave the impression that deciding to keep her last baby was in someway a blow against pro-choice. It isn’t.
Doing everything one can do to reduce the number of abortions to a bare minimum through education and availability of birth control is also perfectly compatible with a pro-choice position. A woman who is personally deadset against abortion for herself can also be pro-choice.

It describes the most pivotal point of their position. The choice to have an abortion. All other issues pale in comaprison.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@begbert2

@A Monkey With a Gun

As people who support the medical procedure, we need to be sure that we can back the medical procedure both morally an ethically.

Then you’re screwed, because it’s not ethical to force a woman to carry a child to term, either. You’re subjecting her to a long period of phyisical discomfort and potentially extreme medical risks. Personally I see forcing that on a person against their will to be about as morally equivalent as stealing their kidney and leaving them in a bathtub full of ice.

Though on the other side of things, if one decides that there’s no person/child to be found in an early-term fetus, then there’s nothing immoral or unethical about killing it at all - unless you have similar problems with killing tapeworms, anyway.

Ethics allows you to choose the lesser of two evils doesn’t it? Perhaps the ethical choice is in fact forcing a woman to either have a ceasarean or carry a viable fetus to term over killing a viable fetus.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Great. Not only are the labels “person”, “human” and “child” matters of contention, now the pro-choicers can’t even get the courtesy of having that label applied to them.

Just let the sides be “pro-choice” and “pro-life”, if that’s what they want to call themselves. There are already too many pointless label arguments in play.

Or just say fuck it, and treat it as a women’s rights issue rather than a label-fight.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hilarity_N.Suze

The whole thing is that it’s a woman’s decision whether to be pregnant or not.

Now I have a problem with third-trimester abortions. But I worked in a hospital for five years and have a friend who’s an OB-GYN, and neither I nor she ever heard of anyone having a third-trimester abortion for a nonmedical reason. Maybe it happens, but it sure doesn’t happen a lot. Anybody who doesn’t want to be pregnant has had, at that point, a lot of time to figure out how to not be. (Yes, there are those clueless people who don’t know they’re pregnant until they go into labor, and there are a surprisingly large number of them–but that’s a different case entirely.)

So to argue this “one day before birth the child is the same” is kind of unreasonable.

Anyway, a third-trimester abortion is, essentially, a birth. If you decide, a week before your due date, that you don’t want to be pregnant, tough–it’s really the same effect on you as if you wanted to have a baby. There is no easy one-step procedure to get a third-trimester fetus out. This is true even if you’re doing it because something is wrong with the baby.

Second trimester abortions are no picnic, either. At some point in the second trimester it’s no longer an easy procedure–it’s labor and delivery. Which is why most people who make the choice make it before that point, when it IS an easy procedure, and why the “one day before birth” thing is a bad argument. They’re having an abortion when it’s not a “baby” to them, or to anybody else.

As a person who is pro-choice, I believe in the woman’s right to make the decision. I would prefer that she made it earlier than later, but the choice is hers. As are the consequences.

There were over 1000 third trimester abortions last year. A survey of 420 women who had abortions after the 16th week gave the following reasons for their abortion:

71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

Over 5% of abortions occur after the 16th week.