« Baseball is a corrupt sport | Main | Did countries hit by the Tsunami benefit economically? Maybe »

February 08, 2005

Comments

dadahead

Way to go LG!

I have always said that abortion should be viewed as a legitimate reproductive choice, and not some badge of shame that we reluctantly allow.

Being pro-choice should not only mean being against the criminalization of abortion; it should also mean being against those who would make a woman feel bad about what is, in the vast majority of cases, a wise decision that is much better for the common good than the alternative--i.e., creating yet another human being, and one who will not be raised in the best of circumstances at that.

Abortion on demand & without apology!

chad

I am not an active christian and I can't even really say that I am anti-abortion, but the pro-choice crowd just gets my dander up. Except in extreme cases such as incest, rape, or virgin birth, pregnancy is completely preventable. Don't have sex. If you do engage in sex use protection. If that fails or if you think it may have use the morning after protocol (High Dose BCPs not RU486). Its pretty simple. Once the fetus is implanted however in my opinion it becomes an entirely different matter, now you are dealing with a living entity and it deserves a little thought before you flush it down the toliet, and once it can sustain life outside the womb, well then it is a person and I say you missed your window. Basically like many things in life you pay your money and you take your chances. There are of course exceptions to every rule. Non viable outside the womb, Severely handicapped, although I personally have problems with that one, Life of the mother etc.

My perceptions may be a little warped on this issue however. I was born in the mid 60's long before Roe v. Wade. My mother who was single at the time is now rabidly pro-choice, so I always kind of wonder would I be here today if abortion had been legal. Of course maybe that is why she is pro-choice.

chad

Dadahead posted while I was writing my post. This line caught my attention - "Being pro-choice should not only mean being against the criminalization of abortion; it should also mean being against those who would make a woman feel bad about what is, in the vast majority of cases, a wise decision that is much better for the common good than the alternative -" What you are basically saying is that because I may disagree with you I should be denied my right to an opinion. Does that apply to everything or only the abortion debate?

David

Abortions for the "child's sake?" Give me a fricken break.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the vast majority of women getting abortions are thinking "oh, this wouldn't be good for the child if he or she were born now."

They are thinking "I can't be pregnant now I am just a teen, or I can't be pregnant now I am trying to establish/continue my career, or I can't be pregnant now I have too many children already, or I can't be pregnant at all because I was raped, or this pregnancy is going to harm me or the baby physically, or as in some cases we know, this was a one-night stand with a guy I didn't even like so I sure as hell ain't gonna have his baby."

While the "sake of the child" can figure into all of those, it is an afterthought at best for most women.

If you want to champion the cause of abortion, be intellectually honest enough to cite the most common reasons why.

Apesnake

I have always had a problem with the idea that a blob of tissue should be seen as a human being.

There has been at least one case recently discovered where a woman gave birth to a child that was later determined not to be genetically her own but her sister's. It turns out that an embryonic stem cell had survived in the woman's mother between her sister's birth and her own conception. The cell seemed to have merged with the second embryo so that as she developed and grew she was a composite of her own and her sister's cells. When she got pregnant it was an egg with her sister's genes that was released because her ovaries descended from the sisters cell but when she was tested her blood was her own. Hence the confusion. If life and a "soul" begin at conception, who's life is this woman living? If you divide an early embryo and implant it you get two identical twins but if you change your mind first and squish them back together and it is implanted in the womb it can develop into one individual. Two potential human souls are now one but you have not killed a single cell. How can a human being be dead?

If something has the brain of a tadpole it does not deserve the rights of anything else.

David

Oh yes, and another thing.

How can a woman entertaining the idea of an abortion be thinking it is for the "child's sake" when the main argument of the abortion rights folks is that the thing inside her body is NOT a child. It is not even life. So it is very strange logic indeed to justify an abortion because one is worried about the child while at the same time justifying the abortion because it's not a child at all.

Frankly, if the "child's sake" was the big worry, then having the child and insuring it was adopted out to a good, loving family would be the obvious choice. But since the sake of the child or fetus as the case may be is not the primary reason, aborting it serves the purpose of the woman.

Brandon Berg

My mother who was single at the time is now rabidly pro-choice, so I always kind of wonder would I be here today if abortion had been legal.

I hear that argument a lot, and I'm not very impressed by it. Most people know how many children they want to have, and contraceptives make it possible to control this even without abortion. If your mother had had an abortion when pregnant with you, then she probably would have had another child later.

Because she didn't, that child will never have a chance to live. For that matter, think of all the millions of potential lives that are annihilated every time a woman ovulates without becoming pregnant. The "I [or you] wouldn't be here if abortion were legal back then" argument is just silly.

There's only one valid way to argue against abortion on ethical grounds: You have to explain why we should recognize in a fetus the right to life. I've never heard a good argument for this.

While the "sake of the child" can figure into all of those, it is an afterthought at best for most women.

The point of the pragmatic argument is that the best interests of a free society, and of children, are not served by forcing women who have become pregnant out of wedlock to give birth to those children. Their personal motivations in that decision are irrelevant.

Brandon Berg

How can a woman entertaining the idea of an abortion be thinking it is for the "child's sake" when the main argument of the abortion rights folks is that the thing inside her body is NOT a child.

But that's precisely the point. If a fetus is not a child, then no child is harmed by abortion. The concern is not for the child that the fetus is, but for the child that the fetus might become. All else being equal, a child born to a married, adult couple is better off than a child born to an unwed girl.

So if a fetus is not a child, then abortion is good for some children and bad for none. On the other hand, if a fetus is a child, abortion is bad for some children and good for some

It is not even life.

A fetus is alive; it's just not human in any ethically meaningful sense.

Chad

Actually at the time I was born contraception was not generally available, so controlling child birth in that manner was not an option. Your other point about people knowing how many children they want is specious at best, at the age of 17 how many women have thought that far ahead? Even if the woman does know how many children she wants that doesnt mean she wants them at that moment. As for me denying another child life that doesnt fly either, because I was born does not mean that other child can not be born, conversely if I had not been born and my mother proceeded to have another child it would not be me, those unique circumstance are gone. Same with ovulation, the fact that a woman doesn't become pregnant with every egg is irrelevant, it is incomplete genetically. The unique combination does not exist. The rest of your argument buts up against some other dogmatic problems, specifically it is true that a child raised by an adult married couple is much better off than a child raised by a single parent. Studies also show that children raised by married heterosexual couples are better off than children raised by monogamous gay couples. Similarily children raised by non-divorced parents, even in non loving (non-abusive) marriages, are better off than children of divorce. Those directly correlate to your sake of the child it might become.

David

Brandon,

You should read some of the abortion rights literature. They do not consider a fetus HUMAN life - and while I may not have made that clear in my comment - if it is not human life then exactly what kind of life is it? Plant? Martian?

Ethically meaningful life? Whose ethics? Obviously the ethics of an pro-abortion advocate differ from a pro-life person.

And, did I not just say that if the woman was really interested in the sake of the child they would give the baby up for adoption to a loving family. So, you see, there IS a better choice than abortion. Some women just don't want to go through the trouble.

Oh, and while you may think the personal motivations of the woman are irrelevant to the subject of abortion, they ARE relevant to this thread because LG, in her great wisdom, tossed them in for discussion.

Finally, I must point out that it is still very much in debate as to what is more in the best interest of society - a woman's right to choose or stopping the abortion of millions of babies.

The comments to this entry are closed.