for those against abortion

[Totenkindly]

this is similar to "you should believe in god...just in case!" which is a ridiculous argument. This isnt a game of black jack! (im not saying your beliefs are wrong or right, but your justification...)

I don't think it's a ridiculous argument, nor is it entirely equivalent to the God argument you are tossing out here.

In the God argument, we can't tell if ANYTHING exists whatsoever. Nothing tangible is there. There's a wide range of options there -- anywhere from God exists and fits a particular image that people have come up to the extreme of God does not exist at all.

With the fetus, we DO know it at some point it becomes a baby... and we consider a baby a person. So the range here is that the "fetus is alive but has not yet become a person" to "the fetus is alive and a person." This is a much narrower range. We know it becomes a person, it's inevitable, we just don't know when. If the God argument was expressed in similar terms, our range would something like "God exists and has goals towards humanity" to "God exists and fits the exact image of a particular religion."

This is why the "fetus might be a person at such-and-such a stage, let's show some prudence" argument does need to be considered... except for the fact that we just can't get more granular with it.

It's the same reasoning that comes up in cases like Terry Schiavo's -- we know she used to live and "look alive" and could engage people like everyone else, now we can't see inside her head and know what's going on, so... let's be careful about what we assume and what we do.

It's very prudent and very appropriate.

 

[Risen]

Even for women who would have to do it to keep them from becoming crippled/dying?

She's talking about the gruesomeness and ill emotions that some women experience with aborting a fetus. If you're gonna choose to do it, then know you'll have to deal with that. Trying to eliminate that would serve to diminish the impact their actions have on their psyche. It's similar to how people can go on the internet and act like a-holes. They do it on the net because there are no repercussions for their actions. If it were in the real world where they immediately receive punishment from others for antisocial behavior, they would cease to act that way. If a woman has an abortion and has to actually look at what they are doing to the fetus, they would be much more likely to change their behavior to avoid that in the future. Take that away, and nobody learns or changes their behavior.

 

[Usehername]

So one moment you claim that the definition of human is largely a subjective, unsubstantiable opinion, yet try to back it up with the objectivity of science? No that's not consistent. You're conceding that there is an objective element to defining what is human. Then again, defining personhood as I said earlier is largely an ethical matter, which does makes claim to objectivity as well.

The whole concept of justice and law is based upon an objective standard; otherwise you leave room for things like the Nuremberg laws as I mentioned earlier. And here's a little piece of the subjective morality that undergrid that regime:

--Heinrich Himmler, October 4, 1943 in Poznan

I didn't back it up with the objectivity of science, I specifically said that it was subjective and unsubstantiable. All that I said was that reviewing the science was one of the premises that leads to my ("subjective," "unsubstantiable") conclusion. I said I don't feel confident about the grey area stuff, I said I simply have an opinion about the grey area stuff.

 

[Sniffles]

I didn't back it up with the objectivity of science, I specifically said that it was subjective and unsubstantiable. All that I said was that reviewing the science was one of the premises that leads to my ("subjective," "unsubstantiable") conclusion. I said I don't feel confident about the grey area stuff, I said I simply have an opinion about the grey area stuff.

Then forgive any misunderstandings on my part.

 

[Totenkindly]

And do not get me started on the people who use this as repetitive birth control. I'm sorry, but I find that a cruel way to keep yourself repeatedly from being pregnant.

I agree, that really bothers me.
Just too many assumptions at work there and a seeming callousness.

I know that being pro-choice doesn't mean you WANT an abortion. But if we're going to have them, can't we try and make them less...what's the word...traumatizing?

I have strongly mixed feelings.

As a parent and just as a person, I am a strong believer in cause/effect and realistically accepting the outcome of one's decisions. I don't think anyone should be put through unnecessary duress in a situation where an abortion is chosen agonizingly, at the same time I really don't like taking away the natural consequences of a decision like this because it I just feel like we have to accept the weight of our decisions -- it influences what we choose, it gives our choices meaning, it helps us understand the ramifications of our decisions.

(This example is trivial, but I'm reminded of that old Star Trek episode where two cultures would schedule a simulated war on their computers, calculate who died during the bombings, then order the appropriate people to report to termination centers where they would be killed as casualties, meanwhile the rest of the cultures would just buzz right along no worse for wear... and everyone just accepted this because they were not exposed to the horrific nature of bombing runs, collateral damage, fires in the streets, the collapses of the cultures' infrastructures, etc. Sanitizing the war enabled the horrors to continue, whereas not sanitizing it provided a motivation to avoid fighting in the first place.)

EDIT: This sort of aligns with what Risen said when I was writing my post. Take away the ramifications of what the choice to abort means directly, and you enable the behavior to occur hapazardly/callously... and that's not good for the woman either, because she might make a choice that then she WILL regret and just didn't realize it up front.

Of course, I also think that a child is a child, unborn or not, but that's just me. Ever been to a miscarried child's funeral?

To me it's a sign that no matter how we try to intellectualize this argument and make it one of ideas and ideology, the bottom line is that many people still instinctive view a fetus as a baby and person.

 

[Take Five]

Would somebody explain to me how a fetus is not a human?

 

[Risen]

the bottom line is that many people still instinctive view a fetus as a baby and person.

As it should be. Geez.

 

[MacGuffin]

Would somebody explain to me how a fetus is not a human?

It's human, as in it belongs to the species homo sapiens.

As to whether it is a human being, and subject to the same rights, laws, and ethical concerns is the problem.

 

[Tiltyred]

It's not about the fetus.

It's about sexual equality and women's rights.

If you are male, you will never be pregnant, no matter how many times you have sex.

If you are female, you take a chance every single time you have sex that you could become pregnant.

It used to be legal in this country to ask a woman before you hired her if she was pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and DENY HER EMPLOYMENT on that basis.

It used to be assumed that women would marry and have kids (or get pregnant, marry, and have kids). Because of that assumption, fathers sometimes refused to provide for daughters to go to college. What's the use? She'll be a mother and she won't have any use for an education. She won't need to work.

Pregnancy makes a woman dependent. If she has no one to depend upon and she can't support herself, it may be her choice to abort rather than go on welfare, Aid To Dependent Children, etc.

And the idea is that women should not have to live in fear of unwanted pregnancies, that they should be able to experience sexual freedom as much as men can, that they should have a right to be considered NOT pregnant until they say they want to be pregnant, whether pregnancy happens or not -- in other words, that they can to some degree plan their lives and have control over what happens to them. They can go to school, have careers, do something other than be mommies.

 

[MacGuffin]

It's not about the fetus.

It's about sexual equality and women's rights.

If you are male, you will never be pregnant, no matter how many times you have sex.

If you are female, you take a chance every single time you have sex that you could become pregnant.

It used to be legal in this country to ask a woman before you hired her if she was pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and DENY HER EMPLOYMENT on that basis.

It used to be assumed that women would marry and have kids (or get pregnant, marry, and have kids). Because of that assumption, fathers sometimes refused to provide for daughters to go to college. What's the use? She'll be a mother and she won't have any use for an education. She won't need to work.

Pregnancy makes a woman dependent. If she has no one to depend upon and she can't support herself, it may be her choice to abort rather than go on welfare, Aid To Dependent Children, etc.

And the idea is that women should not have to live in fear of unwanted pregnancies, that they should be able to experience sexual freedom as much as men can, that they should have a right to be considered NOT pregnant until they say they want to be pregnant, whether pregnancy happens or not -- in other words, that they can to some degree plan their lives and have control over what happens to them. They can go to school, have careers, do something other than be mommies.

While I agree with all of that, you're ducking the crux of the matter. It is about the fetus. The vast majority of those who have problems with abortion aren't seeking to keep women subjugated (though I'm sure gender equality is found threatening by some of them).

 

[Bubbles]

It's called REPERCUSSIONS.

Babe, I don't think you want pro-lifers portrayed as merciless "punish those evildoers!!!1!" do you? I don't.

My point in saying that abortion is difficult is that I think both pro-lifers and pro-choicers have things we should work on. For pro-lifers, we need to have more programs out there to support the children that are born without supportive parents. (GOOD programs.) I'm also suggesting that maybe pro-choicers ought to support further technology to make abortion a less psychologically scarring process. It's a hard decision to begin with, y'know? Don't add on to that with unnecessary...complications.

 

[mockingbird]

It's not about the fetus.

It's about sexual equality and women's rights.

If you are male, you will never be pregnant, no matter how many times you have sex.

If you are female, you take a chance every single time you have sex that you could become pregnant.

It used to be legal in this country to ask a woman before you hired her if she was pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and DENY HER EMPLOYMENT on that basis.

It used to be assumed that women would marry and have kids (or get pregnant, marry, and have kids). Because of that assumption, fathers sometimes refused to provide for daughters to go to college. What's the use? She'll be a mother and she won't have any use for an education. She won't need to work.

Pregnancy makes a woman dependent. If she has no one to depend upon and she can't support herself, it may be her choice to abort rather than go on welfare, Aid To Dependent Children, etc.

And the idea is that women should not have to live in fear of unwanted pregnancies, that they should be able to experience sexual freedom as much as men can, that they should have a right to be considered NOT pregnant until they say they want to be pregnant, whether pregnancy happens or not -- in other words, that they can to some degree plan their lives and have control over what happens to them. They can go to school, have careers, do something other than be mommies.

It is all about the fetus. Nothing but. I am a woman and I do not wish to be punished for my gender any more than anyone else does. If the fetus is a person, then you have no right to kill it no matter how much it inconveiniences you any more than you have a right to kill any grown person that you feel is getting in your way.

 

[Haphazard]

Screw gray areas, just make it okay to abort children until they are 18 years of age.

 

[Oaky]

It is all about the fetus. Nothing but. I am a woman and I do not wish to be punished for my gender any more than anyone else does. If the fetus is a person, then you have no right to kill it no matter how much it inconveiniences you any more than you have a right to kill any grown person that you feel is getting in your way.

I agree with this.

There is a beautiful thing about a fetus. It is the bud of a life that will grow into one of the most beautiful things, which is a baby. That bud depends on you to let it grow into that miracle. And thus, abandoning it and letting it die is not allowing that baby to live. Many babies that could have been alive now could have been your best friend, lover, teacher, doctor, savior, etc. To think that a baby would die before it has a chance to be one is very upsetting.

Oh yay. This was my 1000th post

 

[Risen]

Babe, I don't think you want pro-lifers portrayed as merciless "punish those evildoers!!!1!" do you? I don't.

My point in saying that abortion is difficult is that I think both pro-lifers and pro-choicers have things we should work on. For pro-lifers, we need to have more programs out there to support the children that are born without supportive parents. (GOOD programs.) I'm also suggesting that maybe pro-choicers ought to support further technology to make abortion a less psychologically scarring process. It's a hard decision to begin with, y'know? Don't add on to that with unnecessary...complications.

No abortion, no complications. The procedures are safe, what you are arguing about is the fact that the procedure makes people "FEEL" bad about it. Tough luck, you should feel bad. I mean geez, it's like saying "I want to be able to shoot somebody dead for inconveniencing me, but I want a way for me to shoot them and never have to witness or be fully conscious of the aftermath. I just want them GONE." It's pathetic in all honesty. If you're going to kill something, then be willing to look at your handiwork.

However, I do agree that we need better adoption programs.

 

[Take Five]

Though I'm not knowledgeable of the specific details, there is a Pregnant Women Support Act that has been bounced around. This bill aims to provide financial resources to women in order to avoid abortions. I think provisions similar to this, and measures to improve adoption, would rule out the "women suffer from unwanted pregnancy" argument.

While a pregnant woman has the right to be upset at an unwanted pregnancy, her rights end where another's begin. It is not unusual for the murder or assault of a pregnant woman which causes the death of a fetus to result in charges of double homicide. Suppose a happily pregnant woman is murdered. Should the resulting death of the fetus be grounds merely for charges of destruction of property? No.

The legitimate argument here is at what point does the Human Being start existing. I would argue the moment at which natural growth of a living being begins is the moment at which the person is made. It makes no sense to limit personhood to any particular level of development--people continue to grow long after birth. Further, one can suffer the absence of any number of limbs or body parts and still retain human personhood. Lack of full development, or even lack of consciousness, does not equate to lack of personhood.

Abortion is irresponsible and selfish.

 

[Haphazard]

No abortion, no complications. The procedures are safe, what you are arguing about is the fact that the procedure makes people "FEEL" bad about it. Tough luck, you should feel bad. I mean geez, it's like saying "I want to be able to shoot somebody dead for inconveniencing me, but I want a way for me to shoot them and never have to witness or be fully conscious of the aftermath. I just want them GONE." It's pathetic in all honesty. If you're going to kill something, then be willing to look at your handiwork.

I dunno, giving birth is pretty traumatizing in and of itself. As traumatizing, even -- incidence of post-partum depression is about the same between women who have abortions and women who give birth.

 

[Haphazard]

Though I'm not knowledgeable of the specific details, there is a Pregnant Women Support Act that has been bounced around. This bill aims to provide financial resources to women in order to avoid abortions. I think provisions similar to this, and measures to improve adoption, would rule out the "women suffer from unwanted pregnancy" argument.

While a pregnant woman has the right to be upset at an unwanted pregnancy, her rights end where another's begin. It is not unusual for the murder or assault of a pregnant woman which causes the death of a fetus to result in charges of double homicide. Suppose a happily pregnant woman is murdered. Should the resulting death of the fetus be grounds merely for charges of destruction of property? No.

The legitimate argument here is at what point does the Human Being start existing. I would argue the moment at which natural growth of a living being begins is the moment at which the person is made. It makes no sense to limit personhood to any particular level of development--people continue to grow long after birth. Further, one can suffer the absence of any number of limbs or body parts and still retain human personhood. Lack of full development, or even lack of consciousness, does not equate to lack of personhood.

Abortion is irresponsible and selfish.

Then we need to expand all rights of people to fetuses, too.

Like taxes. Fetuses need taxes paid on them. Rights need to begin at fetushood, meaning that any person conceived in the US could become President, not just those born there. And if they want to leave the country, they'll need passports, too. Also, if the mother is abusing the fetus it needs to be able to be taken away by child services to a more loving womb.

 

[Usehername]

Then forgive any misunderstandings on my part.

I could've been more clear with my words.

 

[Oaky]

Then we need to expand all rights of people to fetuses, too.

Like taxes. Fetuses need taxes paid on them. Rights need to begin at fetushood, meaning that any person conceived in the US could become President, not just those born there. And if they want to leave the country, they'll need passports, too. Also, if the mother is abusing the fetus it needs to be able to be taken away by child services to a more loving womb.

Your comment is very saddening. One must realise that what they are dealing with is a life. The fetus is there awaiting to be born yet it is prevented. Life is being constructed in the fetus. You would be removing the life of a baby that would have been born within less than half a year. It would be the dead older brother or sister of a child you may have in the future. It could have been your son or daughter that would have come to you for help whenever someone picked on them in school. It is sad to see that someone would abort what would have loved them a year later.