Too Pro-Life for Pro-Choicers, Too Pro-Choice for Pro-Lifers (FYM Challenge Spinoff)

[pax]

I started a thread about abortion a while back, but I know it came from my trip to NYC, which was in October--so I suppose it's okay to start another one.

In response to a website called www.feministsforlife.org and a question raised by whenhiphop..., I'll try to state my views on this. I'm almost twenty-one years old and could finish college as early as this December (though I'll probably wait until May '04). I'm not sexually active, but I have been, and if I got a boyfriend I would probably be sexually active again. At this point in my life, it's easy for me to be pro-life; the guy I'm kind of seeing at the moment is a little older than me and has a good job, and I'm almost done with school and could conceivably get a decent job within a year or so.

But I have never been raped. I have never been faced with pregnancy while I was poor, in an abusive relationship, or living in an abusive home. I'm not a member of a religious sect that might disown me--or worse--were I to become pregant. And I realize that even in the United States, there are women who face such situations.

Am I pro-life? In theory, yes. I believe that life should be respected--who doesn't? I would love it if every child were a wanted child. It would be great if we as a society could guarantee to poor, frightened women that the children they were about to bear would be welcomed, fed, sheltered, and schooled. It would be even better if we could say those things and also guarantee that the woman would be employed, that decent, affordable child care would be provided, and that she would have opportunities to better herself. That is, unfortunately, not universally so, even in these great United States. But that is what would have to happen, I believe, to end or even noticeably reduce abortion.

So am I then pro-choice? In practice and for the moment, yes. Ultimately I believe that I do not know where life begins, and probably only God knows that. And while I've been fortunate in my life to have health insurance and thus have access to safe, affordable birth control, many women are not so fortunate. And women are raped, and women are abused, and women are poor. These are all reasons that abortion happens.

If we as a society want to end abortion, we must end rape, abuse, and poverty. And that is not going to happen. I strongly support birth control, emergency contraception, and adoption. But I also support Roe v. Wade, at least for now.

So that's where I am.

I predict that this thread will see at least 20 replied by tomorrow afternoon.

 

[hiphop]

Hmmmm *thinking*

Now what if we had the possibility of ensuring a raped woman that her child will get good care? But anyway she wants an abortion. Not for the reasons you metioned, but for the reason that she doesn?t want to carry a baby in her body for 9 months that she might never think of as being "her baby"?

What if a woman is not raped and would be secured enough to give her child a good life, but she is "sexually active" and her pregnancy "just happens" because she is careless? You could surely say its not right she (and he) were that careless, but thats no reason why she should decide for the child if she doesn?t want it - or is it?

Now, what about the man? What if the woman wants an abortion, but he would like to bring the child up, to care for it, to nurture it? Should the woman have the right to say "no", if there is a presumably good father who could take care? Everyone agrees, >I guess that when the situation is the other way ?round, (the woman wants the child, the man doesn?t), he has to pay for the rest of his life, which is fair. What about equality in decision?

I am for living children, like anyone else, I guess, but I think there are far too many complex situations, so I can?t say yes or no to abortion in general. I think everyone has to decide for him/ herself. And its complicated enough that there are two potential parents.

 

[bonosloveslave]

There is a similar thread going on in Goal is Soul, "its been 30 years" (just FYI).

I just think legalizing abortion hasn't solved many problems - feminists still chant "every child a wanted child" - I don't think legal abortions have helped make that dream happen, I think it's much more of a problem than it ever was.

And if women are too poor to have children, why don't we just tell them to get rid of a few that they already have? No one sees that as an option, so why is it ok to get rid of the 'newest' child?

You know, I realized that I am pro-choice - choose to keep the baby or choose to put it up for adoption. Yes, in the past some women chose dangerous, illegal abortions. People choose to do many foolish things when there are other reasonable alternatives available. That's just the point: People choose.

Sometimes they make bad choices, but the choice is still their own. There's no coercion. A woman is no more forced into the back alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob banks because the state won't put him on welfare. Both have other options.



I hope I don't come off as sarcastic but this makes me really angry.

 

[hiphop]

You don?t think legalizing abortion has solved many problems?

What about the many women that died or were suffering horrible infections because they consulted doctors illegally, doctors who really treated them bad? Those are things that practically don?t happen when abortion is legal. i think legalizing abortion has solved this problem at the very least.

Not that I would be pro-abortion, sure. But if pro.life means to be against abortion for whatever reason, I am not pro-life. Plus, the protests going on in front of some clinics are disgusting, too.

 

[bonosloveslave]

There may be less actual deaths than there used to be, but there are still many complications (blood poisoning, massive infections, punctured/lacerated internal organs) and several deaths each year due to abortion. Much of this is due to the assembly line set-up in the industry. Now these women aren't dead but are doomed to a life of guilt, depression, self-loathing, or breast cancer at an early age. I'm not sure that the problems now are any less or better than problems in the past - and there are millions more women affected today.

 

[hiphop]

Ok, thats your opinion, I accept that, and probably you are right. We would need statistics for that, but lets not drown in those.

What about rape then, bonosloveslave?

 

[bonosloveslave]

Abortion doesn't 'unrape' a woman or remove the violence that has been perpetrated against her. Why complicate the crime of rape with the crime of taking an innocent child's life? Or, to put it another way: Why should the child pay with its life because its father is a rapist?

 

[STING2]

I think the whole issue of abortion centers around the question of when life begins, not rape, poverty, or womens rights. Clearly, infanticide is not justified by any of the above but people do do that citing the above problems. At what ever point life is determined to begin, depending on who you talk to, after that point probably only the life of the mother would justify abortion.

I took a philosophy class that involved this issue and all the the professor was pro-choice, he did get everyone to recognize that the chief issue was when life began.

I don't have an honest answer really to that ultimate question. Another question is whether a person can be convicted of manslaugther if they are say in a car accident with a pregnant women and the women loses the Fetus/Baby.

 

[hiphop]

It doesn?t unrape a woman, but probably you will agree that this might be a reason why she doesn?t want to keep a child. Because she never wanted it, its "not hers".

Why should a woman carry a baby in her body when she feels its not hers? Or, to put it another way: Why should she pay at least 9 months of her life bc the father is a rapist? Why should the child pay by knowing it was not only unwanted, but came on earth by a really bad act of violence?

And, especially: why do you want to forbid this woman to have her own thoughts and make her own decision about it? When she is closer to that baby than you ever will be. You could always decide to keep it in whatever situation. but why do you want to set up a rule that forbids the potential mother to deal with her life and the life of her potential child in her way?

 

[hiphop]

I don?t think so, STING2. I think the questions of abortion also have to do with practical issues. Its a very practical thing to raise a child.

Sure, a philosophy professor, who is philosophing around and never can be raped or get pregnant, can afford to think different about it.

 

[bonosloveslave]

It doesn?t unrape a woman, but probably you will agree that this might be a reason why she doesn?t want to keep a child. Because she never wanted it, its "not hers".

Why should a woman carry a baby in her body when she feels its not hers? Or, to put it another way: Why should she pay at least 9 months of her life bc the father is a rapist? Why should the child pay by knowing it was not only unwanted, but came on earth by a really bad act of violence?

I understand that might ease the mother's pain, it might make the mother feel better (though, it may make things more difficult, too). But even if it did, even if she felt great afterwards, is that a good reason to take the life of an innocent human being, because it removes the reminder of the terrible violation she experienced?

Should we allow the mother to summarily kill the guilty rapist if he was caught, so she would feel better? Then why should she be allowed to kill the innocent child to feel better?

STING2 is right - all these arguments ultimately hinge on the question, are we killing a human being? Humans don't have monkeys, humans don't have frogs, humans don't have gnomes - they have human beings.

*edit - I have read many, many stories of people who survived botched abortions, whose mothers changed their lives at the last minute and kept them, even those whose mothers gave them up for adoption - I have yet to see any who have said they wished they were never born.

 

[bonosloveslave]

And, especially: why do you want to forbid this woman to have her own thoughts and make her own decision about it? When she is closer to that baby than you ever will be. You could always decide to keep it in whatever situation. but why do you want to set up a rule that forbids the potential mother to deal with her life and the life of her potential child in her way?

You don't think that the issue of life/humaness is key. But it really is. We have tons of laws/rules that regulate how someone deals with their life and their children. Child abuse and neglect is illegal. Murder of anyone after birth is illegal. Children have to be schooled. Parents don't get to make every single choice, they have a moral obligation to care for them. If you think they don't, then why the outcry over Susan Smith who drowned her kids in the car? Or the mom last year that drowned her kids in the bathtub? Because they were children. People. Human. That's what made it wrong. It's easy to justify removing something that's not human.

 

[hiphop]

It doesn?t "remove the reminder of a terrible violation". But she might have the feeling its not her child, no? I don?t even think it makes her feel better. The compare that you are implying, like as if she was psychologically ill and now wants to "kill the raper", but instead "kills the child", is not quite the point.

The point is that pregnancy itself is a great thing, but can be tough - I think. Maybe too tough for the mother, and too tough for the upcoming child. Then, the second point is, why you want to forbid the mother to make her own decision about it.

Its not the question where life begins. If we all ultimatively agree that life begins with the first cell-splitting, my arguments stay the same.

Maybe we can neither imagine how she must feel. I am male, so I am lucky to not have to deal with those problems first hand, and I surely can?t imagine how it is to be pregnant. You are happily married, bonosloveslave, and hopefully you will never have to deal with those issues.

So we should leave the decision up to the one who has the right to decide. The child can?t speak up. To summarize it wants to be born, is not the right point - there are children in this world who think "Oh, if I was never born".

The right point, in my opinion, is to leave this decision to the mother. the relation she has with her potential child, is so intime, so near, that she should be the only one to deal with those issues. Not a ridiculous law that tells her what to do and whatnot.

I agree, though, that 40 millions of abortions is a high number, and (hope) that a relatively small part of this number was actually raped. I agree that there may be again a small number of women, who deal with pregnancy carelessly, who say "Who cares, I am too lazy to use other methods of security". And I agree that under those circumstances, it is not right to kill an unborn child - even if it stays the right of the mother to do so in the first three months.

The practical responsibility is just sth. you can?t negate. And you can?t negate the right of the mother to decide for her child. The child may have the right to live, under every circumstance, but as long as it can?t execute that right, the process of decision has to stay with the mother.

*plus edit1: its forbidden from the 4th month to make an abortion (dunno the U.S. laws though) - so mothers are not always allowed to kill their unborn children, you see?

*plus edit2: its an honor to discuss with someone actually caring that much for that issue at half past five in the morning, but I really have to go soon.

 

[bonosloveslave]

If we all ultimatively agree that life begins with the first cell-splitting, my arguments stay the same.

So what is your definition of killing? I would propose something lto the effect of, taking the life of someone without their consent.

 

[hiphop]

I think it is killing, but at that point I would allow two exceptions from the persecution of law:

Killing in the first three months can be justified, for abovementioned reasons. I also think that a majority of women who do an abortion, are pretty sure about the feeling they are killing their unborn, and don?t feel like "hey, it wasn?t a human being, so what". The definition in existing laws is there for Iuris which has to forbid to kill for whatever reason (if it has to have any sense).

And killing of Euthanasian reasons (f.e. someone who is so old, machines in hospital, braindead, only physical pain, and agreement beforehand etc.) can be justified too.

Actually, in the second case, I think death can be a gift.

I?m not so sure about the first case.

But anyway, in my opinion the mother has more right to decide about the life of her child than the state.

(The state, or existing laws can?t ever say "Ok, we allow you to kill your unborn in the first three months". So they had to formulate it differently. But thats not the point.)

 

[pax]

Now what if we had the possibility of ensuring a raped woman that her child will get good care? But anyway she wants an abortion. Not for the reasons you metioned, but for the reason that she doesn?t want to carry a baby in her body for 9 months that she might never think of as being "her baby"?

Well, that's a tough issue. I can't rightly say. Keep in mind that I do believe abortion should remain legal. If she didn't want that reminder...well, I can't say I'd blame her.

What if a woman is not raped and would be secured enough to give her child a good life, but she is "sexually active" and her pregnancy "just happens" because she is careless? You could surely say its not right she (and he) were that careless, but thats no reason why she should decide for the child if she doesn?t want it - or is it?

Now *that's* a hard question. I don't believe that she should have an abortion at that point. But who is to stop her? If we said, for example, that a woman would have to prove rape or hardship to get an abortion, then careless/unlucky/plain dumb women would lie. I think this problem could be countered somewhat by greater awareness and availability of birth control and the lessening of societal stigmas surrounding it, but this has already happened in a lot of ways, too. I don't have an answer for that one, hiphop, except to state that I think it would be an abuse of the right to choose.

Now, what about the man? What if the woman wants an abortion, but he would like to bring the child up, to care for it, to nurture it? Should the woman have the right to say "no", if there is a presumably good father who could take care? Everyone agrees, I guess that when the situation is the other way ?round, (the woman wants the child, the man doesn?t), he has to pay for the rest of his life, which is fair. What about equality in decision?

But you save the heaviest ammo for last. This case, I think, is rare. I think I would have a hard time understanding why a woman would want to have an abortion if she knew that she'd have no responsibility after birth--but I guess some women feel that way. And even though this situation is somewhat uncommon, I recognize that it happens. It's very difficult because you can't take the baby out of the mother and let the father carry it; in the end, she has to do the work, and her mind is living in the body. I would think that a woman would be mature enough to recognize that the father has a say in this decision. Again, I don't have an answer for you, at least not yet.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Can you say what magically happens on the first day of that 4th month that makes the killing wrong?

I'm basically hearing that abortion is justified if the mother doesn't want the baby. To use being wanted by someone as a measure of whether a human life is allowed to live is a frightening concept. Its converse logically awaits us ? that the unwanted can be eliminated. Don?t forget, Hitler?s Germany was ideal for wanted Aryans.

 

[pax]

I'm not sure that the parallel you draw is a fair one, b'sls. The decision to abort remains a very personal and difficult one that the woman has to live with for the rest of her life, no matter what she chooses. The assumption that underlies your argument is that women--all women--are meant to be mothers, and I don't believe that this is so.

 

[hiphop]

Nothing happens, bonosloveslave (or yes, the child is growing, but that doesn?t have an effect on our discussion). But the law has to set a border somewhere. And since you can define three months as enough time for the mother to feel that she got pregnant plus to think of the possible consequences, I think that this border is chosen relatively ok- maybe it could be lowered to two and a half months, I don?t know.

The last assumption you make is a gross one. I think, f.e. that when a child will be handicapped, anyway the mother should decide to keep it, if she can deal with it. But anyway, it stays the decision of the mother. Not the one of the state. Under Hitler, the decision was taken away from the mother, and transferred to the state.

One of my uncle?s wives has made the decision to let her child live, and it could be that this juvenile dies soon, she is heavily handicapped but has lived for over seventeen years now, and we all assume she likes it, because she smiles and is treated with great care. This mother is an extremely strong and brave person.

I never said that "being wanted by someone is a measure of whether a human life is allowed to live or not". In this case, it is not "someone", it is not Hitler, it is not a mass murderer and not a killer. It is the mother. If you want to compare a mother to Hitler, thats your problem.

I don?t think you meant it personal, anyway. I just think you are drawing up those arguments because I was tough enough to say what I think about when the act of killing can be justified - or maybe neither justified, I am not the judge here; but when law should allow the mother to kill her unborn child.

I was tough enough to say so. On the other hand, I think you are caring and feeling enough, with your natural instinct as a woman, to think "My God! Its about the babies, the poor babies. The crying, little, great, poor, wonderful babies that are denied life".

You will use every argument you need for that feeling, even if you can somehow see the fact that some arguments I use are not coming out of nowhere, and not said carelessly.

And it is good that you do that, because ultimatively feelings should be worth more than laws, and have a greater value than arguments. They don?t, in our world, but they should.

Just accept the fact that its up to every mother to make her decision.

Good night

 

[bonosloveslave]

I'm not sure that the parallel you draw is a fair one, b'sls.

I think maybe you don't see it as parallel because you say the mother is the main issue. But is that baby a person or not? If it is, then they should be an equal part of the issue. If it is a person, then 43 million persons are being exterminated each year because they are not wanted. Hitler didn't want the Jews around, they were persons - why is it ok to exterminate preborn persons and not Jewish persons?

 

[bonosloveslave]

Hiphop - you're right, I can't get past the fact of these babies. I see them as persons. I don't understand why a mother should be allowed to kill her 3 month old preborn baby and not her 3 month old born baby. If you don't see these babies as persons, then you'll never understand where I'm coming from.


Sorry I kept you up so late

 

[hiphop]

postscriptum:

I see those babies as persons, just like you, and I understand where you?re coming from.

But those babies can?t have an equal share of the decision that is to be made in a tough case. The baby can?t speak yet, the baby can?t raise a finger to show you it wants to live, the baby can?t sign on the dotted line.

If you transfer the right of the mother to clearly think about this issue to the right of the state which allows and forbids whatever it wants at the moment in the interest of the state - and the interest of the state can also change - , you?re moving in the wrong direction.

The only thing we can do is to educate the mother to not make a decision for herself, but a decision for the child and herself. And the state allows her three (or two, because probably she doesn?t realize it the first day) months to decide.

Don?t be sorry for keeping me up, it was my pleasure.

 

[bonosloveslave]

But those babies can?t have an equal share of the decision that is to be made in a tough case. The baby can?t speak yet, the baby can?t raise a finger to show you it wants to live, the baby can?t sign on the dotted line.

You're correct - and I realize you have a slightly different societal background than I do - I am drawing a blank on what country you're from (but it's in Europe somewhere, right?). I'm assuming euthanasia is legal there?

I'm just of the belief that all life is inherently valuable. I think a toddler is just as valuable as his teenage brother, who is just as valuable as his mother, who is just as valuable as Grandma with Alzheimers, who is just as valuable as someone with Down's Syndrome, who is just as valuable as a person at any stage of gestation. I'm very glad that America has decided that even though Grandma with Alzheimers may not be able to talk, can't verbalize if she wants to live or die, can't sign on the dotted line to say please don't kill me - we still do not have the right to make that choice for her. A handicapped person likely cannot do those things either, and yet we cannot just decide we don't want them around, they are too much of a burden, buh-bye. They have inherent value solely because they are people, period. We don't have the right to say, you're not worth the money to care for, you make my life miserable so I want you gone for good.

And I'm glad we don't. Because it wouldn't be long before someone said my life wasn't worth living for something much less than those reasons above.

 

[Kristie]

I'm going to take this from an utterly selfish rambling train-of-thought standpoint that's probably going to offend someone.
I'm pro-choice... I hate children. I'm utterly terrified of getting pregnant, I'm the most impatient person in the world and I really can't think of anything that would ruin my life more than getting pregnant. A lot of you would say children are a blessing, it's different when they're your own, etc... but I have a lot of things planned for my life and it would be impossible to do most of them if I had a kid. My worst fear is to wake up one morning and realize I never did anything I wanted to in life. That said, I haven't had a date for six years, so in the unlikely event that I would get pregnant... I don't know what I would do, probably give it up for adoption, I promised a friend I'd do that once. My cousin Akuah got pregnant two years ago when she was 17... I was recently with her and her baby and she told me "You know, I really wanted to go to college and live in the dorms, but then I got pregnant and it fucked it all up..." My dad once told me that if I got pregnant I should run away before he killed me.
Not that I think all unwanted babies should be aborted, I very much respect and support those who choose to have theirs. I'm a giant supporter of birth control.
I also have a sort of irritation with pro-life, I associate it with the pro-life hecklers on campus. Every now and then there's people EVERYWHERE on campus with giant signs and pamphlets, they MAKE you take them and yell at you about how you're going to hell and then write editorials in the paper about how the annual drag show and democrats cause us to have abortions because we're all incarnations of the whore of Babylon.
I'm not going to say anything about the "Where does life start?" question because I haven't made up my mind on that.

 

[daisybean]

along the lines of what Kristie posted...I'm pro choice...however I would never consider having an abortion, or if a friend of mine wanted to have one, I would make sure that she has thought this through completely.

I understand the pro life argument...and in a sense I am pro life, however what may be good for me, may not be good for someone else. However, what I don't understand is the "guerrilla pro lifers," the ones who think it's a horrible sin to kill an unborn child, but think it's perfectly alright to kill a doctor or bomb a clinic and take the lives of the people inside. I am all for one in "live and let live," however, I don't want someone else shoving their ideologies down my throat, like the people on Kristie's campus.

Nor do I agree with the women who use abortion as a form of birth control. When I was in school, I knew a girl who had at least six abortions during her four years in high school. Her "boyfriends" didn't want to use a condom, and she couldn't afford birth control pills. I know the logic doesn't make sense, the pill is more cost effective than an abortion, but I guess some people don't think. Anyway, the first one she had was horrible for her obviously....then, according to her, over time, it became "nothing" to her, "like having an ear infection and getting antiboitics." Needless to say, I found it hard to be friends with someone who devalued life that much.
It also called into question my pro choice stance...was I really pro choice? How was it okay for me to say, "yes it's an individual decision, I may not agree with it, but I must be supportive," yet feel so sickened by this girl who treated pregnancy like an infection.

So I guess, I stand somewhere in the middle....

 

[beegee]

hmmm. i was hoping that this topic would never surface, but here it is. it is difficult to listen to people who have never had to deal with unplanned pregnancy discuss what women who have faced it should or should not do. surely, with the abortion rate so high, there must be at least one woman here who has been in this situation...hiphop, you say you aren't familiar with u.s. abortion laws. i believe they may vary from state to state, but i do know that in nevada, abortions are legal up to twenty-four weeks. imagine that. six months. and yes, daisybean, it is easy for abortion to become "nothing" to women when a first trimester abortion is easier and quicker than going to the dentist. a woman is simply brought into an office, counseled briefly, given a shot to render her unconscious, and there you are! problem solved! and ads like the one in my phone book touting "silent suction machines" and "one short visit if 11 weeks or less" make the abortion option seem even friendlier. i think these ads are sick. what these ads should include is the truth. they should explain to women that a second trimester abortion will be a painful, two-day procedure involving what is essentially a forced miscarriage and an excruciating scraping of the uterus. they also do not tell you how you will remember every minute of this procedure, everyday, for the rest of your life. nor will they tell you of the overwhelming guilt you will feel when in a roomful of people who are having discussions like this.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Lets not underestimate the grief felt by those who do abort for whatever reason it is. We can argue in a clinical manner about laws and the stages of a developing fetus, but I think most of those who do abort feel that decision keenly and more than an outsider can ever imagine, every day for the rest of their life. An abortion only ends a pregnancy, no other problems does it solve.

 

[hiphop]

You're correct - and I realize you have a slightly different societal background than I do - I am drawing a blank on what country you're from (but it's in Europe somewhere, right?). I'm assuming euthanasia is legal there?

I'm just of the belief that all life is inherently valuable. I think a toddler is just as valuable as his teenage brother, who is just as valuable as his mother, who is just as valuable as Grandma with Alzheimers, who is just as valuable as someone with Down's Syndrome, who is just as valuable as a person at any stage of gestation. I'm very glad that America has decided that even though Grandma with Alzheimers may not be able to talk, can't verbalize if she wants to live or die, can't sign on the dotted line to say please don't kill me - we still do not have the right to make that choice for her. A handicapped person likely cannot do those things either, and yet we cannot just decide we don't want them around, they are too much of a burden, buh-bye. They have inherent value solely because they are people, period. We don't have the right to say, you're not worth the money to care for, you make my life miserable so I want you gone for good.

And I'm glad we don't. Because it wouldn't be long before someone said my life wasn't worth living for something much less than those reasons above.

I believe the same.

And no, euthanasia is not legalized in my country. I think maybe its legalized in Holland, but I don?t know - and if it has been leg., thats about the only country in Europe where its been legalized.

And I think that the grandma with alzheimer who can?t sign the dotted line can?t decide. The decisions in this case are not made because those people are a burden, but probably bc its just the machines that keep them alive with their pain. You?re right, under normal circumstances we don?t have the right to decide to kill them. But do we have the right to force them to live on?

As for abortion the decision of euthanasia has to involve the loved ones, the people who are very near to this person. How could you kill your mother if you love her? I guess I could never do that, also if she is suffering incredible pain.... its just theories, like some have pointed out.

Just my opinion.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Too Pro-Life for Pro-Choicers, Too Pro-Choice for Pro-Lifers

I think that pretty much sums up my opinion on this issue. I'm pro-life in that I'd never have an abortion myself. I'm pro-choice because not all women have the luxury of making that decision. So both the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers hate me so I pretty much keep my mouth shut on this issue

 

[diamond]

if the babies are innocent why must they b killed?
does "convience" take presedence over "innocence"?

forgive sp errors.