Abortion discussion

[Balefont]

Great post Ciaran :)

Aye.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

El-Ah -

I want to carry to term very, very badly. That being said, if, for instance, I had a life-threatening placenta previa, haemorrage, preeclampsia or other complication, I would not hesitate to save my own life (and my husband, who is empowered to make decisions for me if I could not, would make the same decision). Given that no matter what happens, I am a high-risk case, these are questions we have had to answer.

We can always adopt, and provide a wonderful, loving home for someone else's unwanted child. Just because an adopted child isn't of our blood doesn't mean that we wouldn't love and care for it as our own. To us, that is the greater good. Go ahead and judge me (no skin off my nose), but I do hope and pray that you are never in that position.

[Elrostar]

Okay, I started off this discussion with my comparison in the Politics thread, so I feel like I need to try to explain a little bit better why I made the comparisons that I did.

Essentially, my problem is with the identification of zygotes with full human life. Other people have said this before, but the idea that we're going to make abortion a question of "life begins at conception and thus abortion is a question of human rights and it's murder" is just a flawed argument. It's internally inconsistent, it's not viable, and it just doesn't make sense.

The argument of being in a burning building with a small child and a freezer full of fertilized eggs illustrates it well, certainly, but there are lots of other issues also.

I had previously mentioned the fact that roughly fifty percent of pregnancies are unsuccessful as a statistic to keep in mind if we were to think of these as humans. I should mention that this counts eggs failing to attach to the walls of the uterus as well as everything on down from there. Yes, this is often the case of a non-viable fetus, but that's not the point. If we're really considering these to be people we should be concerned about the fact that over four million of them are dying every year in the US. Saying that it's 'natural causes' is like saying that doctors shouldn't worry about treating illnesses because they're all natural causes as well.

If this were something that killed perhaps a hundred people a year or less, it might be acceptable to call it a minor matter, but this is huge. Are people really going to accept that more money isn't being spent on research to solve these problems? To prevent there being so many failed pregnancies and prevent there being so many miscarriages? We're talking about a massive epidemic here, if you are really going to stick to your belief that these are real human beings dying.

On an individual level, it brings up lots of issues as well.

If a pregnancy is going to terminate itself because the fetus isn't going to survive, there isn't any emphasis put on trying to make it survive for any length of time. Doctors don't try to keep the fetus alive for long periods of time if it's only going to live for a matter of months, say (i.e. not make it to term). But if we were to really regard such a fetus as being a full person, surely it should deserve such rights? We don't start to withhold care from someone just because we don't think they're going to stop living in six months. We don't say "sorry, you're time is up, so we think you might as well die now".

I'm not sure exactly at what point in development people do become full humans. It's an interesting question that raises a lot of dangerous philosophical and ethical issues. One might say that consciousness or self-awareness is a good measure of 'humanity', but in that case we shouldn't count people as fully human until they're 18 months old or so, as they don't typically pass the mirror test until that point. Which raises all sorts of weird questions... like, are adult elephants and most primates more worthy of consideration than babies, since they do pass the mirror test? Or do you argue that it has to do with the potential? In which case you end up back with the zygote issue, I suppose. (Not to mention the millions of sperm cells that are daily callously murdered by men masturbating)

Certainly there are developmental processes that go on prenatally, and picking any particular point in the process (such as the snipping of the umbilical cord) is somewhat arbitrary. But the idea that these things are completely clear and simple, have no complexity to them, and that the life of the fetus is not entwined with that of the mother seems absurdly simplistic.

To me it seems like anyone thinking this is a simple case of 'right and wrong' clearly hasn't actually thought about the issue enough.

[El-ahrairah]

And don't even begin to speak about choices you would make if the situation occurs to you. Fact is, you don't know how you will feel about it, you don't know what you will do, and you don't know how hard that choice will be to make. You have no right to say what a woman should or shouldn't do, no more than I did before it happened to someone whom I loved like a sister. (And how wrong I was, if you had asked me my opinion before that happened.) Even now, I feel I'm only somewhat allowed to give an opinion, and that's something I'm not to eager to answer simply because, I know I don't know the best answer. But I know enough to know that your answer isn't it.

I agree - I don't know what I would do. I'm not saying "As I am a paragon of virtue I would do this morally correct action". The choice would be hard, and, being imperfect, there's a good chance I would make the wrong choice. But I still have the "right" to say what I believe would be true in the situation, regardless of what I might end up doing if it happens.

[CiaranAnnrach]

I agree - I don't know what I would do. I'm not saying "As I am a paragon of virtue I would do this morally correct action". The choice would be hard, and, being imperfect, there's a good chance I would make the wrong choice. But I still have the "right" to say what I believe would be true in the situation, regardless of what I might end up doing if it happens.

No, you don't.

You are asserting that your belief is the correct one, when you yourself don't know what you would do in that situation. You say with one breath that it's absolutely wrong and never justifiable, and in another you say you don't know what you'd do and that there's a good chance you would make what you call the "wrong choice." This tells me that either you just don't really know what the "right" choice is, or you're a hypocrite. The former should know better than to speak from ignorance, the latter has no right.

So, just don't go off spouting your idealistic views. Especially when those very views are acidic towards the very poor and unfortunate women who have had to go through that very scenario. You're playing with their scars, reopening them and pouring salt on them, while sitting atop your high horse, completely unsullied by the harshness of reality.

ETA: All that being said, I sincerely hope you never have to make that decision, nor anyone else for that matter. For those who have, they have my heartfelt sympathies, because I've seen just how much of an effect it can have on a person's life. It's something that no one should ever have to go through.

[Humble Asskicker]

Ciaran,

Out of curiosity, would explaining things as you have to the you back in the time of deep-rooted faith have changed your perception, or did it require the actual experience to do the work?

Regardless, I think you guys are on a fool's quest if you think to change El-ahrairah's mind. I've seen many like him before. I've seen them pummeled by logic and hypotheticals and everything that could be fathomed, and what they do is ignore what you say and repeat the same tract.

When El said

absolutely no justification

he meant it. Certain death for the mother and a one in a billion chance the child will survive? The mother is obligated to take it.

It's not a concept intended to demean women, even though it happens to do so. To El, the gender is not the relevant issue (although this can't be proven, I suppose) - it's this abstract idea of what a child is, which El has developed however he has, and it's inflexible to the arguments made by science (as we've seen in this thread) or any other debating method.

Consider it absolute.

What I'm saying is, it's very simple to anticipate his responses, however persuasive a person you believe yourself to be. So I wish this debate, which, while repetitive, can be interesting, could head towards more complex arguments instead of being aborted [i think it's funny] by this insipid discussion (sorry, El, but I imagine you've been accused of worse, or at least you will, I'm sure, if this thread continues).

[Kouran]

I normally avoid posting in abortion threads, namely due to the sensitive nature and strongly held opinions of the other posters; however, I think that maybe I should post in this thread, if for no other reason than to present a different opinion.

In my opinion abortion is a morally repugnant event; however, I am not anyone’s judge nor am I capable of knowing what any person other than me is going through. If another person should chose to have an abortion that is their choice. All too often we stand in moral judgment of others saying you should believe this or that, or you should do this or that. I must question why we as people believe that our view should hold sway over what others believe? Perhaps I am simply too rigid and incapable of understanding other people and their thought processes, but I do not understand how anyone can believe their idea is more important than someone else’s idea or belief.

We each and every one of us are made up of the choices we make. The world around us is nothing more than a sea of choices we made, and to my mind the pain of that choice that one or both parents made to abort their child is a scar they must carry with them for the rest of their lives. I can think of no punishment or burden worse than this.

[Humble Asskicker]

Kouran,

I do not understand how anyone can believe their idea is more important than someone else’s idea or belief.

I agree this is a problem, and I think it's further compounded by the proclivity of people to change or reinterpret facts to suit their initial impression. Or they downplay a certain point that writes their perception as more grey than they are comfortable admitting.

Often enough though, even though these threads go on and on with many people unresolved, there are many who share your opinion, even if they disagree on the core issues, that you don't have to be a moron to arrive at a different opinion.

I wish I could find a quote from Obama that I rather liked. It's not new but it was very eloquent.

My google-fu is wanting.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Ciaran,

Out of curiosity, would explaining things as you have to the you back in the time of deep-rooted faith have changed your perception, or did it require the actual experience to do the work?

I'm not sure, to be honest. I look back on things I had written from that era in my life and my first response is usually always "holy shit, I was jaded. And really stupid." But it'd have shaken my beliefs up, and at least shut me up. And I say that with....about 85% certainty.

That, and honestly, back when I was in a really serious relationship and thinking about the future, my "wife" dieing during childbirth one of the scenarios that scared the utter hell out of me. I generally avoided thinking about, and especially the possibility that I'd have to choose between her and our child, and just hoped I never had to deal with the possibility. Back then I was a real coward, philosophically speaking. It was easy to stand on my soap box and say I knew what was right, because it didn't affect me in any way - but I also ignored the question of, "well, if it did happen to me, what would I do?"

That, and the relationship ended before any of that could become an issue. (No, no kids, either.) And then it happened to my friend, and I had my answer without having to think about it. It felt right, and more than that, I knew I couldn't abandon her - too many people already had.

[El-ahrairah]

No, you don't.

You are asserting that your belief is the correct one, when you yourself don't know what you would do in that situation. You say with one breath that it's absolutely wrong and never justifiable, and in another you say you don't know what you'd do and that there's a good chance you would make what you call the "wrong choice." This tells me that either you just don't really know what the "right" choice is, or you're a hypocrite. The former should know better than to speak from ignorance, the latter has no right.

Apparently you really didn't get my post, or else I'm a really bad writer.

I have certain moral values. Among them is one that says I will never be able to follow them properly. At the moment, I'm not being pressured or tempted to forsake them. If I am, depending on the strength of my will to resist, I may cave in to some degree. I might justify the action at the time, but when the compulsion is removed I would see what I would have done as wrong. How is it hypocritical to say I might do wrong things? No one in the world can say truthfully he would always do right.

So, just don't go off spouting your idealistic views. Especially when those very views are acidic towards the very poor and unfortunate women who have had to go through that very scenario. You're playing with their scars, reopening them and pouring salt on them, while sitting atop your high horse, completely unsullied by the harshness of reality.

ETA: All that being said, I sincerely hope you never have to make that decision, nor anyone else for that matter. For those who have, they have my heartfelt sympathies, because I've seen just how much of an effect it can have on a person's life. It's something that no one should ever have to go through.

Hm... Well it from the second paragraph it seems you want me to stay "atop my high horse, completely unsullied by the harshness of reality". Anyway, if we assume hypothetically that abortion is wrong, would not "reopening their scars" so they realize they that did wrong be the right thing to do? Is it not better to feel guilty for a wrong than to blissfully ignore or justify it?

I agree no one should have to go through it, but the world being as it is, the next best thing is for those that do to make the right choice, however hard it might be.

Often enough though, even though these threads go on and on with many people unresolved, there are many who share your opinion, even if they disagree on the core issues, that you don't have to be a moron to arrive at a different opinion.

Oh, yes, certainly. Intelligence has nothing to do with good or evil, just with how fine your brain is. In fact, I would venture to say that the average pro-choicer is more intelligent than the average pro-lifer (though I immodestly think myself an exception).

[mouse]

You know, I was reading an interesting editorial on this just yesterday, I'll have to find the link. At any rate, it was various anecdotes from doctors all around the world who would perform abortions on anti-abortionists, in some cases the same women who were picketing their clinics. And even though they would arrive for abortions, sometimes more than one, they would denounce the people in the office as murderers and refuse to acknowledge that the fight for the choice to have an abortion was for the exact purpose of the office visit - to have a clean and sterile environment with a board certified doctor, and to have the choice to come in. I'm going to have to find the link now, but that was just a fascinating case of not-me-itis. "Abortion is murder and it's evil, but not mine, I'm a special case."

I think this is the article you are thinking of:

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.o...nti-tales.shtml

Zabzy, my condolences on your miscarriages.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Apparently you really didn't get my post, or else I'm a really bad writer.

No, I understood your post. I just think it's hypocritical to condemn others for a choice that you yourself may one day make. And that hypocrites have no business condemning others. Perhaps that's what you missed.

Hm... Well it from the second paragraph it seems you want me to stay "atop my high horse, completely unsullied by the harshness of reality". Anyway, if we assume hypothetically that abortion is wrong, would not "reopening their scars" so they realize they that did wrong be the right thing to do? Is it not better to feel guilty for a wrong than to blissfully ignore or justify it?

There's a thing called having tact, and there's a thing called being a [censored]. You figure out which one applies and which one doesn't in what you just said.

Also, wishing that such a horrible fate never befall you is not the same as "wishing you would stay atop your high horse." There's a big difference than learning from others experiences, and learning first hand. I shared my story about my friend so that you could do the former, and get off your horse. I didn't share it so you could continue to sit atop it and be proud about how you are so much better than everyone else. Because, you really aren't, no more than I was back when I thought the same way. I also realize now how idiotic and jaded I was back then.

I agree no one should have to go through it, but the world being as it is, the next best thing is for those that do to make the right choice, however hard it might be.

And that "right choice" is completely relative to the person. To say that your moral code is the best and strongest and only moral code that's valid is...egotistical at best, and misguided on many levels.

Edit: Censored the really bad part.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] We're skirting dangerously close to name-calling again. Please don't. Thank you. [/mod]

[CiaranAnnrach]

[mod] We're skirting dangerously close to name-calling again. Please don't. Thank you. [/mod]

I apologize, Xray.

And with that, I think it'll be best if I step away from this thread for awhile.

[Mme Erzulie]

Zahir's post was very eloquent and well argued. I don't know enough about pregnancy or fetal development to say whether I fully agree or not, but his seems a discerning and judicious view.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

El - How do you feel about adoption?

[El-ahrairah]

El - How do you feel about adoption?

That's a rather broad question... In the context of abortion, it is surely something to be encouraged for those who cannot care for their children themselves. Choosing to birth the baby does not mean you necessarily must be thereafter burdened with it.

[Angalin]

Choosing to birth the baby does not mean you necessarily must be thereafter burdened with it.

Rousseau would agree with you; he had all his children handed over to foundling homes as infants. :P

[Eponine]

Choosing to birth the baby does not mean you necessarily must be thereafter burdened with it.

So what you're saying is that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy, even at the risk of their own health and life, and are selfish murderers if they don't, but as soon as that baby pops out, they can get rid of the burden of having an unwanted child?

[the silent speaker]

Is it not better to feel guilty for a wrong than to blissfully ignore or justify it?

It is not.

More precisely, it is sometimes but not always better to show someone the error of their past ways, depending on what will be achieved by their new insight. If they wil change and steer themselves onto a new path once they have seen the light, then yes, fine. If they are still under the sway of the impulses that prompted their prior wrong behavior, this may not be the time. Mere guilt will not do; if the only result of their guilt will be guilty feelings, why torment them? Let them err rather than sin. In this case, having gone through the emotional and physical wringer of having to choose between saving their unborn baby's life or their own (which we are assuming to be the wrong choice for the sake of the argument), is it really so likely that they will find contemplation of having it happen again less fraught? That they will respond with anything other than pain? And if they can't overcome their selves, and contemplate their choice coolly afresh in the cold light of perspective, why force them to relive it at all?

And that "right choice" is completely relative to the person. To say that your moral code is the best and strongest and only moral code that's valid is...egotistical at best, and misguided on many levels.

I don't think I agree with this. There is a right thing and a wrong thing, and that will be independent of the person doing it. Circumstances alter cases, of course, including the circumstance of the condition of the person making the choice, and what the right thing is will depend on the circumstances, but if the only change is swapping out my moral sense for yours I disagree that the right choice is shifted thereby. A choice is not automatically made right because it was made by the person making it. And of course I believe my moral code is the best; if I didn't, it wouldn't be my moral code -- I would have changed my moral code to suit.

(For the record, I believe that as a circumstance-free matter abortion is wrong, but where the mother's life is at risk she should choose hers over the fetus's.)