The Morality of Abortion
Posted by
tgirsch
Consider these two propositions:
- A woman who is unable and/or unwilling to properly care for a child should not have a child.
- A woman who is unable and/or unwilling to properly care for herself should not have a child
These propositions, it seems to me, are entirely uncontroversial. But here’s where the controversy comes in: I submit that becoming pregnant in no way changes those two propositions. And that therefore, in such circumstances, not only is abortion not an immoral choice; it’s the morally correct choice.
Discuss.
(And before anyone tries to go down the “why don’t we just kill unwanted children” road, children are fundamentally different, in that they are already independently alive, and may be cared for by literally anyone, not just the biological mother. Until we have {a} viable pregnancy transplants; and {b} enough willing transplant recipients, save it.)
Hmmm… I am not so sure your propositions are as clear-cut as you make them out to be.
I might re-write them like this:
1. A woman who is unable and/or unwilling to properly care for a child should not RAISE a child.
2. A woman who is unable and/or unwilling to properly care for herself should not RAISE a child
A woman who is unwilling to care for a child or herself should not be raising a child, which is different than having one.
Now I am not sure that this changes the discussion in significant ways, but it does open the doors for other possibilities besides abortion (mainly adoption).
Comment 7/13/2007
Hmmm… I am thinking a little more about this.
You can make the argument that if a mother was unable/unwilling to take care of herself while pregnant this can and does lead to harm to the child. Which makes the issue a little more complicated.
Maybe I shall think some more…
Comment 7/13/2007
You could tweak it again, to say that a woman who is not confident that the child she is scheduled to have is going to be cared for and raised well should not have a child.
That keeps adoption in play, but recognizes the fact that the process of getting a child adopted is arduous and draining on the child. And, there is no guarantee that child will be adopted, and no guarantee that if adopted, it will be by loving and capable surrogates (despite the best intent and efforts of the agency).
Adoption’s place in this discussion is tricky, because it is only a potential solution to these issues.
If, for instance, a pregnant woman does not want a child personally knows someone who wants to adopt and is capable of raising that child, it is a lot easier to argue that she should have the child than if the child is just going to be left on the doorstep of an adoption agency.
Comment 7/13/2007
Consider these two propositions:
–An unborn baby who is unable to defend himself or to care for himself should not be killed because the mother wants to have him destroyed because he may cause her problems
–A woman who is unable and/or unwilling to properly care for a baby should not have sex.
“not only is abortion not an immoral choice; it’s the morally correct choice.”
You are one sick person.
Comment 7/13/2007
Fred:
A woman who is unable and/or unwilling to properly care for a baby should not have sex
At least you’re honest about that. But why put it on all on the woman? Why not say that nobody should have sex unless they specifically intend to become a parent?
(This, by the way, is where I think KTK goes somewhat astray: a lot of abortion opponents aren’t anti-woman so much as they’re anti-sex — which isn’t to say that the anti-woman types don’t exist.)
Comment 7/13/2007
I certainly agree that people who do not want children should not behaving unprotected sex.
But, what happens when they do, and when they become pregnant? Isn’t it also immoral to have a child knowing you can’t guarantee it will be cared for?
Even if you feel that abortion itself is immoral, you have to agree that such a decision is immoral too. Further, we have to have a solution to these problems that benefit the children - writing the mother off as a sinner addresses absolutely nothing, practically speaking.
I ask all those who are, unilaterally, against abortion the same question - how many unwanted children have you adopted?
Comment 7/13/2007
You’re making a reverse naturalistic fallacy here.
Comment 7/13/2007
“But, what happens when they do, and when they become pregnant? Isn’t it also immoral to have a child knowing you can’t guarantee it will be cared for?”
No.
“Even if you feel that abortion itself is immoral, you have to agree that such a decision is immoral too.”
No. I don’t have to agree that any such thing.
Comment 7/13/2007
“I ask all those who are, unilaterally, against abortion the same question - how many unwanted children have you adopted?”
I ask you, “When did you become such a horrible monster as to advocate the death of unborn children because they may not be adopted?”
Comment 7/13/2007
So, Fred, you don’t think that, assuming abortion didn’t exist at all, it would be immoral, though unavoidable (once pregnant), to have a child you do not have the means or drive to support?
If not, is your objection to those women having sex purely a function of the immorality of not remaining chaste?
I really don’t see how a sane person can’t agree with this - on its own merits, independent of abortion. Sometimes, I think you are combative, solely for the sake of it.
As to your second point,I don’t advocate the death of unborn children.
Possessing life is a necessary precondition for dying.
It is only after the children are born, corrupted, and made into despicable, shallow human beings do I advocate “post-birth abortions…”
Comment 7/13/2007
“If not, is your objection to those women having sex purely a function of the immorality of not remaining chaste?”
What are you babbling about? The discussion is about abortion. I don’t consider sex between husband and wife to be immoral. I have 4 children and I don’t think my wife was immoral for having sex. You liberals are very strange people.
Comment 7/13/2007
“Possessing life is a necessary precondition for dying.”
Wow! You mean that heartbeat my son heard last week in his soon-to-born child was not from something alive? From his discription of the sound, he sure thought he heard life.
Comment 7/13/2007
Fred:
So if your wife decided she didn’t want any more children, she should completely stop having sex with you?
Comment 7/13/2007
“So if your wife decided she didn’t want any more children, she should completely stop having sex with you?”
I’ll tell her what you said. She’ll get a kick out of that. LOL
Seriously, haven’t you heard about birth control? Maybe it is you who needs to take a sex ed course.
Comment 7/13/2007
What happens if birth control fails? What if she’s not willing to take that risk?
Comment 7/13/2007
If birth control fails, she should have the baby, not kill it.
Comment 7/13/2007
I ask again: What if she doesn’t want a baby, and doesn’t want to take even the small risk that birth control might fail?
Face it, your position boils down to this: If a woman absolutely, positively does NOT want to have a baby under any circumstances, then she absolutely, positively should NOT have sex. Ever. Period. Sex is strictly for those who are willing to have children.
Comment 7/13/2007
Tgirsch, I don’t think you’d be hard pressed to get a pro-life individual to agree that someone unwilling to have a child shouldn’t have (heterosexual genital-genital) sex. It might be very scary to you, but there are actually people who think actions should come with resulting consequences.
And before you drag out the sexist token, note that they feel the exact same way — if not more so — about the guys involved in the situation, including the extreme pain, drudgery, and carrying of weight, if not the epi part.
Also, as I understand the public education system is just about as good at explaining sex (”condoms are 99.9% effective!”) as it is at explaining the Constitution (”Right to citizenship, healthcare, college education, ‘living wage’, internet access… forgetting anything?”), it’s important to clarify that pregnancy requires certain things, specifically a sperm, an egg, and the proper implantation site. There are many situations during which both the male and female (or various combinations of either or both) can get off without said certain things cuming together.
Comment 7/13/2007
Oh, and as an aside, what if we end up with decanting tubes a la Brave New World?
Would you consider abortion immoral or less moral at that point?
I’d be hard-pressed to have an action suddenly become [b]wrong[/b] simply because of an unrelated invention.
Comment 7/13/2007
Gatt:
It might be very scary to you, but there are actually people who think actions should come with resulting consequences.
“Consequences” is exactly the right word.
I’m fully aware that many “pro-life” people actually view children not as a blessing, but as a “consequence” of “sinful” sex. That’s part of why so many of them oppose comprehensive sex education and birth control — if there’s no punishment, there’s no deterrence against the “crime” of having sex for reasons other than procreation.
Of course, some of us view abortion as a viable (and in many cases responsible and prudent) way of dealing with those consequences.
There are many situations during which both the male and female (or various combinations of either or both) can get off without said certain things cuming together.
I’m wholly familiar with the “Technical Virgin” phenomenon.
Would you consider abortion immoral or less moral at that point?
Not immoral or less moral, so much as less necessary. Of course, a lot of that would have to do with just exactly what’s involved in the hypothetical procedure, elements of risk, etc. Presently, abortion is actually safer for the woman than carrying the fetus to term, so any suggested replacement would need to meet that standard.
And to clarify again, it’s not that abortion suddenly becomes “wrong,” it’s that such an invention would introduce a viable alternative (to the current binary choice of carry-to-term or abort) where none currently exists.
Comment 7/13/2007
“Sex is strictly for those who are willing to have children.”
Hello! Ever heard of birth control?
I’ve never come close to saying that only those who want children can have sex.
Comment 7/13/2007
“I’m fully aware that many “pro-life” people actually view children not as a blessing, but as a “consequence” of “sinful” sex.”
You’re a real nutcase. How many pro-lifers think the way you attribute to them? Prove your idiotic statement.
Comment 7/13/2007
I don’t think that’s a very useful way of stating the argument, tgirsch. As a general rule, if you’re stuck assuming religious intent on the part of another poster, you might want to rethink the matter. For the record, I’m a soulless animal with no religious inclination and whom hasn’t entered a religious establishment on friendly terms in over a decade. I don’t and can’t think of any action as ’sinful’. I just recognize that action A tends to lead to result B — given that you previously linked the two inextractably, I would hope that there’s no argument on the matter.
If we were to discuss skydivers, it wouldn’t be an effective argument to state that opposition to government paid treatment for resulting injuries would be ‘punishment’ for the ’sinful’ acts. It’s not punishment, it’s simply a known result with a certain possibility, and thus when unwanted, a risk.
You’re providing the alternative of “not having sex, or having the ‘punishment’ of a child-birth or the ‘punishment’ of abortion (if you prefer emotionalities, I’m sure we can fish up a blood libel-esque quote, but I think it’s rather worthless to degrade ourselves).
Which is a bunch of bullshit, but that doesn’t particularly matter on the topic of non-procreative sex.
There are still ways to orgasm with an effective zero risk of pregnancy, ranging from mutual, oral, or properly cleared vasectomy or tubal ligation.
Also, as another damned aside, I’m personally a fan of more complete sexual education than either the ‘abstinence only’ or the common ‘comprehensive’ sex ed we’ve got today. The former basically sits with its hands over its ears, and the later tends to spread patently false information (again, claiming spermicidal condoms are 99.9% effective per year rather than the 70%-80% reality shows is the most foremost example).
Comment 7/13/2007
Fred:
Hello! Ever heard of birth control?
I’ve never come close to saying that only those who want children can have sex.
As already established, birth control is not infallible. If abortion is disallowed as an option, then to have sex is to risk having children, period. So if you’re not willing to have children, from your perspective, you shouldn’t do it.
How many pro-lifers think the way you attribute to them?
How else do you explain referring to the “consequences” of sex? How else do you explain statements frequently made about “you play, you pay?” They may not hold that belief, but they sure talk that way…
gatt:
I was talking in a general sense, not attributing religious motivation to you in particular. Although I will say it’s quite uncommon to encounter someone who unconditionally opposes abortion for anything other than religious reasons.
If we were to discuss skydivers, it wouldn’t be an effective argument to state that opposition to government paid treatment for resulting injuries would be ‘punishment’ for the ’sinful’ acts.
You lost me on the parallel. Setting aside the fact that you’ve just compared pregnancy to a traumatic injury, what does “government-paid” have to do with anything? A better example would be a group that wanted to outlaw treatment for skydiving injuries under any and all circumstances on the premise that skydivers knew the risks when they jumped out of the plane.
You’re providing the alternative of “not having sex, or having the ‘punishment’ of a child-birth or the ‘punishment’ of abortion
I’m not the one that uses the language of punishment. That’s generally the M.O. of abortion opponents. I don’t view either pregnancy or abortion as a “punishment” for anything. But talking about a pregnancy as the “consequences” of sex does do that — like it or not, the word “consequences” carries that negative connotation.
There are still ways to orgasm with an effective zero risk of pregnancy, ranging from mutual, oral, or properly cleared vasectomy or tubal ligation.
Tell that to my friend’s father, whose vasectomy healed itself ten years after the fact, at which point he got his wife pregnant. It almost ended their marriage.
Comment 7/13/2007
“So if you’re not willing to have children, from your perspective, you shouldn’t do it.”
My life partner and I cannot have children, but we don’t believe that is the only reason to have sex. You really need to think before you post. You say some very silly things.
“How else do you explain referring to the “consequences” of sex? How else do you explain statements frequently made about “you play, you pay?” They may not hold that belief, but they sure talk that way…”
Good grief! I explain it by telling you to look at the context. There are consequences to having sex. Not all consequences are bad. My life partner and I have some great consequences of sex. On the other hand, there can be bad consequences of having sex.
Comment 7/14/2007
Just because we may site morality, doesn’t mean we’re religious or basing an opinion on religion. I’m sure there’s a correlation between religious inclination and finding the continued existence of a fetus/zygote as significant enough justification to violate the right to medical privacy of the female parent (and, yes, we’d probably like to violate the male parent, too, but that’s beside the point), but that doesn’t mean the two are inextractably connected.
When you get both sides to stop spewing about sin or taking away rights, it’s a fairly generic policy issue underneath.
Government-paid happens because those most likely to want an abortion (see the thread one more recent than this) are most likely to end up doing so without paying for it, and because I’d honestly be amazed if we don’t end up with a completely socialist health care system in a decade.
It’s also a fairly useful parallel because, unlike conventional treatments, both abortion and taxpayer-funded treatment involve taking something away.
I suppose referencing organ transplants, with the current shortage, might have been a more apt comparison at the cost of being overly artificial.
Me thinks you’re reading far too much into the text.
Modern vasectomy techniques practiced for well over a dozen years now have yet to have a recanalization more than 17 months after the procedure.
Comment 7/14/2007
“Government-paid happens because those most likely to want an abortion (see the thread one more recent than this) are most likely to end up doing so without paying for it, and because I’d honestly be amazed if we don’t end up with a completely socialist health care system in a decade.”
Well, what’s the difference if she has the kid? Does she all of a sudden become financially self-sufficient as the result of delivering a child? From a pure policy standpoint, the economics of it are elementary. It’s far cheaper for “us” to pay for the abortion, than to subsidize the raising of the child, through means related benefits, as well the per head cost of schools and so forth.
Comment 7/14/2007
“From a pure policy standpoint, the economics of it are elementary. It’s far cheaper for “us” to pay for the abortion, than to subsidize the raising of the child, through means related benefits, as well the per head cost of schools and so forth.”
There’s nothing “pure” about such a horrendous policy.
Comment 7/14/2007
Oh, so now you give a fuck about semantics?
I see it wasn’t any of your concern when the subject was to connotation of “consequences.”
Comment 7/14/2007
Gatt made a point about economics.
My point was only that if the pregnant woman can’t support the child, and society has to bear the financial burden of any choice she makes. The option that costs the least money (INDEPENDENT OF MORALITY) is the abortion. Are you going to argue with that?
I did not say that such a reason is a reason to support abortion.
In fact, nothing I said was even remotely addressed to anything you said. Why you even replied is beyond me. You made no point, just a childish insult that plays as transparently hypocritical for anybody whose read the whole thread.
How about this, I’ll take care of keeping my dick in my pants, and you concern yourself with keeping your foot out of your mouth. Deal?…
Comment 7/14/2007
“How about this, I’ll take care of keeping my dick in my pants,”
You’re a male? That surprises me.
Comment 7/14/2007
tgirsch:
I’m going SCUBA diving next weekend. Now there’s a small, but non-zero, possibility that this is going to get me killed. Does the fact SCUBA divers accept this risk mean that either 1.) SCUBA divers all want to drown themselves or 2.) SCUBA divers think drowning is a punishment for the sin of SCUBA diving?
Comment 7/14/2007
SD,
Not wishing to step into tgirsch’s place, but…
The point isn’t what SCUBA divers think, it’s what others think of them. To carry on your example, I would assume you’ve made arrangements with some third party to retrieve your body if you do die, rather than relying on the coast guard or other public entity. If you haven’t I would hope that your body is left to be consumed in the body of water of your choice. Those are the fair consequences of your actions.
The fair consequences of having sex are that you might have a baby, unless you’re very post-menopausal or lacking certain reproductive organs. Hence, if you *really* don’t want to have a baby your only choice is to not have sex. I don’t agree with that, but it’s an inevitable implication of a certain worldview.
Comment 7/14/2007
“Hence, if you *really* don’t want to have a baby your only choice is to not have sex.”
Talk about perverted reasoning! Who says that if you don’t want a baby the ONLY choice is not to have sex? Where do you libs come up with this nonsense?
Comment 7/14/2007
Fred - You’re absolutely right, I’m over-generalizing. Let me try again:
“If you *really* don’t want to have a baby you only have two choices - no sex at all, or sex with someone of the same gender as you”
How’s that? Every other method of contraception is less than 100% effective, except for the two exceptions I already mentioned (complete removal of testes/ovaries or hysterectomy, waiting for an extensive time past menopause). So what else do you suggest?
Comment 7/14/2007
Fred:
My life partner and I cannot have children, but we don’t believe that is the only reason to have sex.
Why are you changing the subject? Of course people have sex for reasons other than procreation. But for the vast majority of heterosexual couples who do it, even those who use birth control, pregnancy is a very real possibility. Since you oppose termination of pregnancy as an option, and since virtually no method of birth control is 100% effective, you’ve left no viable option for those who wish to be sexually active but do not wish to have children. Under those circumstances, to have intercourse — even with birth control — is to risk becoming pregnant when you don’t want to, period. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to grasp.
gatt:
I’m sure there’s a correlation between religious inclination and finding the continued existence of a fetus/zygote as significant enough justification to violate the right to medical privacy of the female parent … but that doesn’t mean the two are inextractably connected.
I know the courts have cited medical privacy in protecting the right to abortion, but if you think it’s anything like the most important reason why abortion rights activists support and defend abortion, you have a grossly skewed perspective on this issues at hand.
And I’m sorry, but you’ve still completely lost me on the whole government involvement thing. Something tells me that even if it were etched in stone that not so much as a penny of taxpayer money would ever be used to directly or indirectly pay for an abortion, it wouldn’t change your opinion on the issue at all. So why chase that red herring?
Me thinks you’re reading far too much into the text.
Maybe so, but in my experience, when people start talking about the “consequences” of actions, there’s almost always a negative connotation (e.g., “face the consequences,” or “if you don’t do this, there will be consequences”). If you were truly using it as a judgment-neutral term, you’re decidedly in the minority.
Finally, even conceding the vasectomy point, that really only works from the male side of the equation. You’re not seriously suggesting that women who don’t ever want children should all go out and get a tubal ligation, now, are you?
Stormy:
Your question has already been answered pretty effectively by Paul. If people were arguing that you forfeit certain personal autonomy rights by the act of SCUBA diving, you might have a point.
In fact, your example actually underscores my point. The act of you SCUBA diving doesn’t imply that you WANT to get the bends, but it’s a possibility, even when you take all the appropriate precautions. A woman having sex doesn’t mean that she WANTS to get pregnant, but it’s a possibility, even if she takes all the appropriate precautions.
So at issue here, then, is what happens if you DO get the bends, and what happens if she DOES get pregnant? Presumably nobody would vilify you for getting treatment to get rid of the bends, but women are vilified every day for getting treatment to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
And contrary to popular belief, many of the women who do get pregnant unintentionally AREN’T irresponsible or promiscuous. I have a sister-in-law who got pregnant because a prescription antibiotic unexpectedly interfered with her birth control. In Fred’s world, the fact that she had no intention of becoming pregnant and didn’t WANT to become pregnant is of absolutely no importance. It doesn’t matter how she got pregnant: her next nine months now belong to the embryo/fetus, not to her. She’s just a slave to her uterus at that point.
Comment 7/15/2007
Honestly, dave, if a woman can’t take care of herself properly, what makes you think she’ll have a healthy baby? If you think the baby deserves a chance at life, don’t you think it deserves a chance at a healthy life?
Comment 7/15/2007
Eh, it was an attempt to draw a parallel, but I forgot my audience — you all don’t seem to see taking money at gunpoint as being a negative when the government does it.
I guess it would have been more apt to avoid the money and thus the economic debate by going with organ transplants (Should alcoholics, who were aware of the risk and could have reduced or removed it, be allowed on the organ transplant list even if doing so end up destroying valuable tissue or resulting in the death of someone else). It’s not a perfect comparison, since even unwanted pregnancy isn’t that similar to liver failure… but I assume it’s slightly better
If they’re going to continually have heterosexual genital-genital sex, with individuals she can’t trust to have their balls detached?
I’d consider it a damn good choice, given the relatively limited negative side effects from tubal ligation compared to several dozen years of combined hormonal birth controls and medical abortion procedures (which, while probably less dangerous than childbirth, still have problems). I don’t think it’s the only choice, since combined barrier methods and secondary birth controls, or non-genital-genital sex are very close to perfect when used properly…
The Essure procedure, if it continues to be as effective as current clinical trials show, would be another option without health risks from general sedatives or invasive surgery.
Comment 7/15/2007
:is to risk becoming pregnant when you don’t want to, period. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to grasp.”
That’s not hard for me to grasp. I think I was the first one to make that point. Of course, there is a risk of pregnancy for someone who is able to become pregnant following sex. Duh! What does that have to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing the unborn child?
Comment 7/15/2007
“If you think the baby deserves a chance at life, don’t you think it deserves a chance at a healthy life?”
So your solution is to kill any unborn baby who may have an unhealthy life? I’m sure glad my mother didn’t believe that.
Comment 7/15/2007
Given that risk, Fred, the question is what a woman who absolutely positively adamantly doesn’t want to have a child should do. For those who are anti-choice, and for those who believe that bringing a pregnancy to term is the proper “consequence” of the failure of birth control, the answer would seem to be that she should — indeed must — forego sex until menopause.
To a pro-lifer, to someone who believes in fetal personhood, that’s a reasonable position to take. If you’re adamant that you don’t want to get pregnant, you must not have sex. To those of us who don’t consider fetuses to be people, and who believe that there are many good and important reasons why a woman who didn’t want to be pregnant might choose to have sex, such a statement seems both preposterous and unimaginably cruel.
And this is where we come back to the question of consequences. Having sex that leads to an unplanned pregnancy by whatever means does have consequences — it has the effect of forcing the woman who has become pregnant to decide whether to continue the pregnancy, and whether to keep the the baby if she does. Those are the consequences, that series of decisions and the obligations that flow from them.
What people who oppose abortion on the grounds that “decisions have consequences” are saying is that the actual consequences of an unplanned pregnancy are not consequential enough — that the consequences must be artificially manipulated to make them more dire, more punitive than they actually are.
The distinction in how the fetus is understood is an important part of what differentiates pro-choicers from pro-lifers. But it is not the only difference. Many people who oppose ready access to reproductive choice — not just abortion, but birth control and the morning after pill and the HPV vaccine — have the goal of increasing the personal cost of sexual activity. This is the coercion behind the “consequences” argument, and it’s entirely separate from the fetal-personhood question.
Comment 7/15/2007
Fred:
So your solution is to kill any unborn baby who may have an unhealthy life?
No, our solution is to kill it before it becomes a baby. You might think that a fetus the size of a kidney bean and with no cerebral cortex is exactly the same thing as a “baby,” but you’d be decidedly in the minority in holding that point of view. Hell, the ability to feel pain doesn’t even develop until after 20 weeks gestational age, so with an early term abortion, you’re literally hurting no one.
Brooklynite:
Precisely my point. You just worded it a lot better than I did.
gatt:
you all don’t seem to see taking money at gunpoint as being a negative when the government does it.
I’m sorry, I guess I didn’t realize that the compound in Montana finally got internet access. Don’t worry, “they” won’t come to implant the RFID chip in your wrist until AFTER they destroy all the evidence that they staged 9/11 to trick the American public into sacrificing their civil liberties…
Although I do have to wonder about how we go to this point, where expecting people to help pay the common costs of society is “theft at gunpoint” and an unconscionable infringement upon personal freedom, but using the force of law to require a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy is good and right and just. [To be fair, you’ve never specifically argued that abortion should be illegal. In fact, I don’t think you’ve actually taken any real solid position on abortion at all in this thread, instead choosing to speak vaguely about what “pro-life individuals” believe, and of course complaining about taxes…]
It seems to me that nine months of indentured servitude to one’s reproductive organs is a much greater infringement than a few bucks, but maybe I’m just weird.
Look, I’m not arguing that abortion is a universal good, nor am I arguing that it should be used as a primary means of birth control. All I’m saying is that women who don’t want children shouldn’t have them, and that becoming pregnant doesn’t change that equation. It’s really a simple proposition.
Ideally, everyone would use appropriate birth control, maybe even multiple methods at once. I’d love to see birth control use become much more widespread than it currently is — nothing would do more to combat abortion if that occurred. But even in that utopian scenario, some women would still get pregnant unintentionally, and some of them would still decide they don’t want the responsibility that comes with bearing a child. I see no reason why those women shouldn’t get abortions, especially early-term abortions.
Comment 7/15/2007
“Given that risk, Fred, the question is what a woman who absolutely positively adamantly doesn’t want to have a child should do.”
I said she should not kill the unborn baby. What about that do you not understand? Maybe I need to type more slowly for those who are lacking in basic human decency.
Comment 7/15/2007
“such a statement seems both preposterous and unimaginably cruel.”
A person who believes it is okay to cut up or burn to death a unborn baby should never talk about anyone being cruel. You are a sick, sick, low-life cretin.
“the ability to feel pain doesn’t even develop until after 20 weeks gestational age, so with an early term abortion, you’re literally hurting no one.”
If you were loaded up with pain killers, you would feel no pain. Would it then be okay to snuff out your life?
I think I’ll go wash my hands. It makes me feel dirty to even communicate with such a monster.
Comment 7/15/2007
Fred, “she should not kill the unborn baby” isn’t a statement about what she should do, it’s — transparently and literally — a statement about what she should not do.
Given a situation in which a woman would, if she became pregnant, have an abortion, you believe that her only moral course of action is to abstain from sex until menopause. It’s only by denying the premise that you can avoid the conclusion.
And as far as the question of fetal personhood goes, it’s an “is not” vs. “is too” situation. All the other arguments that get dragged in — about pain and compelled life support and so on and so forth — are attempts to get around that fundamental impasse.
You’re an “is too” person, and I’m an “is not,” and there’s nothing either one of us can say that’ll convince the other. I suspect that you’d be less eager to call me a “sick, sick, low-life cretin” if we were having this conversation face to face, but you’re of course welcome to your opinion.
Comment 7/15/2007
Fred, you can keep complaining about abortion killing babies, and you might even make some ignoramus feel bad about it, but it doesn’t make you any more right. It certainly doesn’t improve your position to keep trying to change the meaning of the English word ‘baby’ to include fetuses, though it does show how you like to deny reality.
As for your insulting those who can tell the difference between people and small clumps of cells, it does a fine job of showing your contempt, though again, its contempt for reality. Call it monstrous, even use ‘liberal’ as an insulting epithet, call it what you like, but a lot of us can tell that legislating the lives of real people for the sake of things of less value than pets is immoral. It is you who are unclean and monstrous and lacking basic human decency.
Comment 7/15/2007
Fred:
You are the most disingenuous person on the planet. Either that, or the biggest moron. You dance around direct questions and avoid the subject, and refused to bin pinned down, and then you result to insulting people and calling them “liars” when you run out of dancing room. It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad.
It is kind of funny, however, that we never seem to learn. Every time we try to pretend you’re an intelligent, thinking adult, and try to actually have a serious discussion with you, this is what we get. childish brat, incapable of answering a direct question, and unwilling to discuss anything in a mature, adult fashion.
We don’t ban commenters here, but I’d be glad to make an exception in your case.
I think I’ll go wash my hands. It makes me feel dirty to even communicate with such a monster.
You know, there’s an easy solution to this. Stop communicating with us. Simply go away. It’s easy, and everyone would be happier. Well, I suspect everyone except you. You must secretly enjoy this place — otherwise why keep returning to where everyone — including the conservative commenters — hates you and thinks you’re a childish prick?
But you know what? If getting rid of you is as easy as talking about abortions, then we’ll be all abortion all the time.
Brooklynite:
I suspect that you’d be less eager to call me a “sick, sick, low-life cretin” if we were having this conversation face to face
Only because he’d be afraid he’d get his ass kicked. But no need to worry about that, because he’s not very likely to leave the security of his mom’s basement to see you face to face anyway.
Comment 7/15/2007
“Fred, “she should not kill the unborn baby” isn’t a statement about what she should do, it’s — transparently and literally — a statement about what she should not do.”
Agreed, the opposite of she should not kill the baby is that she should have the baby. I assumed you knew the English language enough to understand that. I guess I was wrong.
Comment 7/15/2007
Fred, do you think that reply makes you look smart or cute? Do you think it’s some sort of witty reposte to his point? Do you even know when you’re dodging a point, or have you delevoped enough cognitive dissonance to think that mechanical transformations of words constitute a retort to the logical entailments of your positions?
Comment 7/15/2007
She doesn’t want to have the baby, Fred. She doesn’t want a baby. She doesn’t want to give a baby up for adoption, she doesn’t want to raise a baby, she doesn’t want to have a baby.
If she gets pregnant, she’s going to have an abortion. This is the decision she’s made, and it’s not a decision that’s going to change. According to you, given that context, she has a moral obligation to abstain from sex indefinitely. I don’t see why you’re shying away from this.
And now I’m going to go a step further, and step back into the “is not”/”is too” breach. Consider two scenarios:
In the first, a woman knows she doesn’t want to be a mother, and knows she could never give a kid up for adoption. She gets married, and she takes the pill conscientiously. She rolls snake-eyes one month, gets pregnant, and has an abortion. A week later, her husband has the vasectomy he’s been putting off. She has a long and happy romantic life, and dies with her husband of forty years by her side.
In the second scenario, the same woman refrains from having sex since she knows that if she gets pregnant she’ll abort. She never has a romantic relationship. She never gets married. Her life is full in some ways, but it lacks the companionship and comfort that comes with marriage, and she feels the lack acutely. In her twenties and thirties she meets several men she feels she could fall in love with, but none are willing to join her in a life of celibacy. She’s tormented by her decision, but sticks to her principles. She dies alone, consumed with regret.
It is obvious to the point of absurdity to me that the first life is the better life. It is obvious to the point of absurdity to you that the second life is the better life. Is it really so clear that this difference of opinion makes me a “sick, sick, low-life cretin”?
Comment 7/15/2007
Oh, Brooklynite, stop talking like pregnancy, sex, and celibacy have consequences for others besides the children! (Joking.)
Comment 7/15/2007
I honestly believe LL will be a better site if Fred is banned. He drags down the level of discourse significantly, and has done so for quite some time
Comment 7/15/2007
you are almost correct. It should be if a woman cant raise a child then she should stop being a whore
Comment 7/16/2007
Oh, very clever Tgirsch. Shortly after I hypothesize that you guys are really “Fred,” you start talking about banning him.
It is clear that you guys realize that you’ve been found out, and that you are now hatching an escape plan…
And yes, Jim, if daughter gets raped and becomes pregnant, remind me to call her a whore.
Comment 7/16/2007
Unfortunately, this is a very complex issue which is often boiled down to pro-life and pro-abortion (or anti-life and anti-abortion or pro-choice and anti-choice). When in reality there are a multitude of related issues that intertwine to make it very complex.
1. Should a woman have a right to make any and all decisions regarding her own body? Yes
2. Should a man who has sex with a woman who willingly chose to have sex with him auatomatically be held responsible for child support payments if the woman becomes pregnant and carries to term?
3. When is a fetus considered to be alive? What constitutes actual life? If one must be able to survive outside the womb without assistance to be considered alive, then what does that mean for someone who needs life support to survive?
4. Is it fair that a man is completely removed from decision-making, but held completely responsible for the end result of what happens with his sperm once it leaves his body?
There are several other things tied to this, but those are just a few I could think of right now.
In regards to the initial question, the morally correct choice is to abstain or to get a tubal ligation so as to avoid the possibility of pregnancy in the first place.
Comment 7/16/2007
Big U:
The problem with your #2 is that there’s no perfect answer. While it may not be fair to hold a man “completely” responsible in such circumstances, it isn’t fair to completely absolve him of those responsibilities, either.
With respect to your #4, since it’s the woman who has to endure the pregnancy, it’s only right and proper that she should be the ultimate decision maker in that regard. If a man is set on fathering a child, he needs to find a willing mother. And even if she thinks she’s willing but changes her mind, that’s still her prerogative, as he cannot assume the burden of pregnancy for her if she doesn’t want it. (Yes, pregnancy is a burden, even for those who want it.)
Finally, it should come as no surprise to you that I disagree with your “morally correct choice.” But much of this is predicated on the belief that a fetus is a non-person, and that thus no one is wronged if a woman becomes pregnant and has an early-term abortion.
Comment 7/16/2007
Tgirsch > I can clearly understand your position so I apologize in advance if this sounds stupid or unreasonable, but what “right” does the father have in either 2 or 4?
A big chunk of the abortion rights movement is the woman’s right to do as she wishes with her body, but at the same time, society is telling men they have no rights unless the woman allows them to but they have complete responsibility if the woman decides she wants them to.
Comment 7/16/2007
Just to add more hairiness to the question, what about the situation where the woman has promised to abort and then keeps a child that the man did not want to father?
(This is a real-life example from a couple of my fraternity brothers. I think the best answer, in all of these, is for the two people involved to have a respectful relationship and have a well-considered plan. The matter of rights only occur when that best option has broken down.)
Comment 7/16/2007
“When in reality there are a multitude of related issues that intertwine to make it very complex.”
It’s no more complicated than either the unborn baby lives or dies. There’s no in between for the baby.
Comment 7/16/2007
“She doesn’t want to have the baby, Fred. She doesn’t want a baby. She doesn’t want to give a baby up for adoption, she doesn’t want to raise a baby, she doesn’t want to have a baby.”
Tough. Don’t take it out on the baby. Only a monster of pure evil will kill an unborn baby.
Comment 7/16/2007
translation: “unborn baby” == clump of cells that happen to have a human genome
What about all those dependent tumors and teratomas that people have excised from their bodies, exposed to toxins and utterly destroyed if at all possible? Oh, the humanity!
Comment 7/16/2007
“You keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Comment 7/16/2007
Big U:
This is quite a digression, and a topic for another time, but I find the whole “men’s rights” aspect of this to be quite uncompelling. The woman by necessity assumes all of the physiological risk and all of the physiological liability. The man’s concerns in this case are secondary. This isn’t to say that they don’t exist, but they hold much lower priority.
I wish there were a better answer, I really do. But every idea I’ve heard that ostensibly makes things “less unfair” for the men in question also makes things orders of magnitude more unfair for the women involved. Because all the burden and all the risk is necessarily hers, we have to err on the side of her interests.
If you’re that concerned about it, however, that’s all the more reason to be careful where you stick it. If it scares you that much, then wear a condom whether or not she’s on birth control. And support ongoing research into a “male pill” (current prototypes are at about 80% effectiveness, so there’s a long way to go).
In the absolute worst-case scenario, where you’re double-crossed and a woman bears your child against your will, the worst she can do is hold you partially financially responsible for the child. She can’t make you babysit, allow the child into your home, raise it in any way, or any of that. When her risk is physiological and mine is merely financial, my interests are outweighed by hers.
For what it’s worth, some progress is being made in terms of “men’s rights.” My brother received child support from his ex-wife until his daughter became an adult. 20 or 30 years ago, that was almost unheard of.
Fred:
Only a monster of pure evil will kill an unborn baby.
At least you’re starting to realize that George W. Bush is a monster of pure evil…
Comment 7/16/2007
INCONCEIVABLE!
Comment 7/16/2007
Big U - just a technical note; tubal ligation isn’t 100% effective, which means you’re left with hysterectomy or complete abstinence.
Comment 7/17/2007
“What about all those dependent tumors and teratomas that people have excised from their bodies, exposed to toxins and utterly destroyed if at all possible?”
What about it?
Comment 7/17/2007
Fred, in case you’re actually just a moron and can’t tell, rather that being a belligerant asshole feigning idiocy (Would that help your case?), Rachel’s obvious point is that tumors and other clumps of cells have the exact same rights as the other clumps of cells we’ve been discussing. Cancers are not people. Neither are fetuses. You’re a “monster” for not being able to tell that non-people can’t have rights that trump the rights of people. Oh, and she appears to be mocking you.
Comment 7/17/2007
In fairness to Fred, there is no chance that a lump of cancer cells will turn into a person.
Of course I’d feel more obligated to to offer this obvious caveat if Fred wasn’t so disingenuous in his own arguments.
Fred obviously sees a distinction between the tumor and the fetus that is beyond simple cellular biology (or whatever).
I think we all do. That doesn’t seem to be a defining point of anybody’s perspectives here, though.
Not that I object to sarcasm or mockery, by the way.
Comment 7/17/2007
“Cancers are not people.”
And you are a moron(in fact, you are much worse) for suggesting that cancer and unborn babies are equivalent.
You people remind me of Nazis who thought that Jews were sub-human or not worth living. Hopefully, some day the world will look on you the same way we look on those who were so devoid of human decency.
“Fred, do you think that reply makes you look smart or cute?”
Do you think that someone pretending not to know the opposite of “don’t kill” is smart or cute?
Comment 7/17/2007
“You people remind me of Nazis who thought that Jews were sub-human or not worth living.”
Godwin’s law! You lose. Again.
And bloody stop calling fetuses babies. They’re not. Early-term abortions are killing a spheroid of cells called a “blastula”. Go on and argue for blastular rights. “Conservatives” always accuse “liberals” of heartstring politics, but that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Comment 7/17/2007
Rachel I.:
“Conservatives” always accuse “liberals” of heartstring politics, but that’s exactly what you’re doing.
No, we accuse you of bleeding-heart politics. I am happy to be accused of having my heartstrings touched by the death of pre-born babies. At least, I have a heart.
Comment 7/17/2007
Now if only the deaths of post-born Muslims bothered you nearly as much…
Comment 7/17/2007
Muslims aren’t humans, don’t you know.
On which note, this is entertainingly disgusting: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2766040.ece
But back to the current point being ignored - aren’t babies, you know, those wiggly things that cry or giggle and stuff? The ones with personalities developing, and all that. Since when do blastulae fall under THAT category? How is it worse to kill an emotionless clump of cells than it is to kill a mouse? It’s like swatting a fly, and about the same size even.
Comment 7/17/2007
“How is it worse to kill an emotionless clump of cells than it is to kill a mouse? It’s like swatting a fly, and about the same size even.”
There will be a special place in hell for people such as you.
Comment 7/17/2007
“Now if only the deaths of post-born Muslims bothered you nearly as much…”
On what basis do you think that the death of any person doesn’t bother me? Why does the religion of a person have anything to do with it? Your assumptions, as usual, are based on your hatred and bigotry.
Comment 7/17/2007
I assert that the ovum is not any more a person the moment after it is fertilized, than it is the moment before it is fertilized, and just as it is not any less alive the moment before fertilization, than the moment after. Conception is only just one step in the nine month process. And so I’m going to have to agree with God on this debate, we become a living Soul or a person, when we breath that first breath into our “nostrils” at birth.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Ezekiel 37:5 Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: &10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Acts 17:25 he giveth to all, life and breath, and all things.
Genesis 6:17 And behold I, even I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Psalm 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
Jeremiah 10:14 ?.every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
1 Kings 17: 17 and it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him.
&21 And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. &23?..and Elijah said, see, thy son liveth.
Job 9:18 He will not suffer me to take my breath, but filleth me with bitterness.
Comment 7/17/2007
see my entire essay at:
http://judemccarney.blogspot.com/2007/06/when-does-life-begin.html
Comment 7/17/2007
“There will be a special place in hell for people such as you.”
You could have told me why you think I’m wrong, but no, you just had to jump to the Damnation bit. Care to try again, or will you stick by your senseless guns of arbitrary judgment?
Comment 7/17/2007
“You could have told me why you think I’m wrong, but no, you just had to jump to the Damnation bit.”
It is wrong to kill pre-born babies. I think you are wrong to favor their deaths. That has been stated by me a number of times. How could you have missed that?
Killing those cells that you so disgustingly refer to as no more important than flies has all the humanity in its cells that it will ever have.
Comment 7/17/2007
That’s an impressively low view of humanity, Fred. Maybe that’s accurate where you’re from, but the folks I know and love have a bit more depth to them than just their cells.
You wanted them to keep Schiavo’s corpse on life-support, too, didn’t you?
Also, why don’t you respond to Jude soon, as they’ve pointed out some very intriguing passages which rather counter what you’re saying, assuming religion is at the basis of this belief in what makes one Human.
Comment 7/17/2007
“There will be a special place in hell for people such as you.”
Awesome! It’s so neat to watch you avoid a point of discussion by claiming that things will just be the way you want them in a magical place in the magical future when all that’s left is our invisible bits. You’re an idiot and a coward.
Comment 7/17/2007
those cells … has [sic] all the humanity in its cells that it will ever have.
Then I think we have a solution. If that’s the peak of humanity, then we just replace abortion with removal. Take the embryo or fetus out alive, and put it in indefinite cryostasis. That way, the humanity is preserved, and nothing is lost, because it already has all the humanity it will ever have.
Comment 7/17/2007
Flies are way more important than unwanted embryos. It’s legal to use the former to increase medical knowledge.
(Yes, I know that’s an overstatement of the restrictions of embryo research.)
Comment 7/18/2007