Abortion reasons for the curious

[D74G]

I have always been curious about what people think the opposition believes about abortion and why you believe they feel the way they do.
Example: I'm in favor of abortion and I feel that the opposition does not favor abortion because.... (fill in the blank) .... OR .... I'm NOT in favor of abortion and I feel that the opposition does favor abortion because.... (fill in the blank).

 

[RobDownSouth]

I'm in favor of allowing a woman to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and I feel that the opposition does not favor my position because they want to A) control women and/or B) legislate their religious beliefs upon all of us.

 

[D74G]

Why?

I'm in favor of allowing a woman to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and I feel that the opposition does not favor my position because they want to A) control women and/or B) legislate their religious beliefs upon all of us.

Why do you feel the opposition feels this way?

 

[O-dad's Medium]

Here's a good read...

click me

In which I had the following conversation:

There is no pro-life stance without "religious thinking".

Let me be clear.

Religions dictate what is moral, what is acceptable and what is to be valued.

Religions do not do this on the basis of logic, reason, evidence or anything but Text references that are equally unsupported by any of the above, that have oft been recompiled, recombined, reinterpreted and rewritten.

If you think a fetus is the same as a baby you don't understand developmental biology.

If you think women are obligated to bring every pregnancy to term, ask yourself why. If the answer involves her sole responsibility - then this is the exact reason as to why she should be able to choose not to. If the answer involves her accepting the consequences of their actions as defacto punishment, then you clearly don't care about human life either, just punishing women for having sex. If the answer involves the word of god, prove to me this god exists and that its word can be trusted via evidence and verification.

Finally... If it is your belief that women exist to produce babies for men... Grow the fuck up.

Abortion exists, in large part, because males like O-dad and Robbie think that males do not need to live up to their responsibility to raise their offspring, and would rather see their offspring aborted than than be required to grow up and become men.

O-dad, let me be clear. You and your ilk are dictating what is moral, what is acceptable and what is [not] to be valued.

I do understand biology, developmental and otherwise, far more than you possibly could.

It is not the woman's sole responsibility... it is yours, as well, if you are the one who impregnated her. It is your responsibility to provide for her and the child until that child is able to provide for itself. Anything less and you cannot call yourself a man. If you do not like those terms, keep it in your pants.

Perhaps, you are the one who needs to grow the fuck up.

Amusing.

I'm not deciding anything. It's not ultimately my decision. However, for the sake of clarity...

If I were to father a child, I would absolutely take responsibility. Yes that's as much down to me as the woman involved.

What you need to understand is, that even if I do that - I still don't get to tell her whether or not she carries to term or aborts it. I would be there to offer my views, my feelings, and my support - but that doesn't give me the right to tell her what to do. Ever.

That's not the same as advocating abortions for all. Which I never did.

Nor did I say that carrying to term was a bad thing. Anyone who knows me at all knows I don't feel that way.

What I said was... Pro-life is bullshit religion talking.

Though I may have been a bit verbose about it.



For further arguments... We could discuss where the pro-lifers evaporate to after the baby is born, and how much they care about life in general when it's not in a woman's womb.


Time to step back and reconsider.

You have attacked a fortress in the fog, and have no idea how high and beweaponed the didactic walls are.

But, I have not attacked the fortress, the fortress attacked me. I was just walking by the moat, expressing my opinion, as is allowed by my First Amendment Right, when the fortress opened up with 32 pounders filled with grape shot. That said, the fortress will eventually fall, they all do.

As an aside, since you used the term fortress instead of fort, do you know the difference between the two?

Anyway, back on topic. We are much closer in opinion than you might think.

Yes, I am unashamedly Pro-Life. That stems from my personal experience with elective pregnancy termination, and the grief that I still have yet to resolve from that experience some 40 years ago. That will never change.

It pleases me that you will accept responsibility for any child that you father.

What I am not clear about is what you would do if she considered termination. Would you present alternatives? Would you try to talk her out of it? Would you do everything in your power, short of physical restraint, to talk her out of termination? Or, would you just cast her adrift and say, "It is her body, it is her decision?"

This is where the really hard part of being a man comes in. It is easy to say, "Its her body, her decision," and just walk away, with your conscience clean. Its a lot harder to face up to raising the child. That is why termination has become so attractive among so many males. Note that I do not say, "men."

One does not have to advocate for abortions to be complicit. "The greatest tyrannies are allowed by men who say nothing." I don't know who is the author of that, and I probably paraphrased it, but it gets the message across. Perhaps you don't have the right to tell her what to do... as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on that one. You do have the right to "loudly" influence her decision. And, by loudly, I am not talking about volume, I am speaking of content of argument. To do less, up to and including offering to raise the child by yourself, drops you out of "men," and into "males."

Like you, I am sadly, sadly disappointed in those who advocate the anti-abortion position, and stop there. Note that I did not say Pro-Life. I think that to be truly Pro-Life, you can't stop with just preventing termination of pregnancy. The idiot male, the sperm donor, is usually out of the picture, so who is going to provide for the mother and the child? The state? God Forbid. Who then? My co-religionists get uncomfortable when I ask that question. So, I ask it frequently. They are beginning to come around. It is a slow process.

Unfortunately, it is usually the welfare system that provides the majority of support for the mother and child. That is a whole 'nuther can of worms, and that is where my co-religionists can step in and make a difference.

So, you see, we are not that different. The biggest difference, I suspect, is that you have not yet had a personal experience with pregnancy termination. It does change your mindset.

Careful. Assumptions can be dangerous.

And yes I defend more than just soldiers and arms. People can live within the walls of my argument.

You asked a pertinent question. And my representations arguments and advice would have take into consideration the following: Her health, is there any reason this could be medically difficult or dangerous for her. Our economic stability, separately and as a couple (depending on what I'm suggesting and what she's preferring). Our ability regardless of economics to pay the required attention to a child, the support available to us both, and the environment we would intend to raise the child in.

With all of that in hand, I might have cause to argue very strongly for keeping the child, as a couple or on my own. Then again, I may not. It all comes down to where I see the child ending up and how tenable it is. And it's not a case of convenience, these matters are not light, but of practical realities.

And in the end... I have to be reconciled that even if I were to volunteer to raise the child on my own with reasonable success/stability - she can still say no. It's her body. it's her choice.

Don't presume I haven't been there... Or that you know what the outcome was. You have to do the right thing. By everyone. Not just the unborn.

That said... People as individuals will make hard and uncomfortable choices sometimes. And sometimes to not become a bad person ourselves, we have to let them.

 

[run_silent]

The way I feel is not based on what the other side thinks. I feel life is created at conception. I feel the dates for abortion are arbitrary. One month before birth is an abortion, one month after birth is murder. I don't want to control women, there are plenty of ways to not get pregnant totally within a woman's control. It's like drinking and driving. You are free to get as drunk as you want but if you hop into a car and kill someone else that's a whole different story. No one buys your story about how finding another way home was just to difficult.

 

[TexasWife25]

I have always been curious about what people think the opposition believes about abortion and why you believe they feel the way they do.
Example: I'm in favor of abortion and I feel that the opposition does not favor abortion because.... (fill in the blank) .... OR .... I'm NOT in favor of abortion and I feel that the opposition does favor abortion because.... (fill in the blank).

This feels trollish but I will particpate anyway

I'm in favor of a womans right to choose and I feel that the opposition disagrees because of moral or religious reasons that have no basis in medical facts.

 

[O-dad's Medium]

Chalk another one up for punishing women for having sex.

I don't think anyone thinks abortion is a good thing.

I also don't think it's anyone's call but the person who has to carry the child.

 

[blobfish]

All the Alda Men of the GB need to make a choice; are women delicate flowers or ultra independent she-wolves? You can't have it both ways.

 

[run_silent]

Chalk another one up for punishing women for having sex.

I don't think anyone thinks abortion is a good thing.

I also don't think it's anyone's call but the person who has to carry the child.

Yes the aborted unborn don't make much noise. If only they could figure out a way to get a good lobbyist.

 

[run_silent]

This feels trollish but I will particpate anyway

I'm in favor of a womans right to choose and I feel that the opposition disagrees because of moral or religious reasons that have no basis in medical facts.

I like you so I'm treading gingerly. This has always been the major question- When does life begin? I have no religious dog in this fight.

 

[O-dad's Medium]

All the Alda Men of the GB need to make a choice; are women delicate flowers or ultra independent she-wolves? You can't have it both ways.

Silly.

They are independent and delicate she flowers who will wolf you.

 

[TexasWife25]

I like you so I'm treading gingerly. This has always been the major question- When does life begin? I have no religious dog in this fight.

It begins the same place it ends, and is determined by facts, gathered by and agreed upon by a majority of those in the medical community.

 

[mustang200]

I'm in favor of allowing a woman to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and I feel that the opposition does not favor my position because they want to A) control women and/or B) legislate their religious beliefs upon all of us.

Why do you feel the opposition feels this way?

The problem with Rob, in my opinion, is that he feels, he doesn't think. I know of no thinking Pro-Life person who (a) wants to control anyone, or (b) wants to legislate their religious belief on anyone. The honest Pro-Life person just wants to stop the carnage. I recognize that it might feel that way to someone, but the motives are not as Rob describes.

I'm in favor of a womans right to choose and I feel that the opposition disagrees because of moral or religious reasons that have no basis in medical facts.

Hi, Tex. Got any cookies? Can you flesh that out a little? I just came in from the garden, and I'm a bit sweaty, so my brain has taken a vacation, it seems. I don't understand just what you mean. I think that I might, but I want to be sure.

I'm the other half of O-dad's conversation, so let me chime in here.

I am un-ashamedly Pro-Life. I still grieve over my child who did not get a chance at life. She would have been 39 this month.

I have no desire to control anyone. I have enough problems controlling myself. I have no desire to force my, or anyone's religion on anyone. There are some whom I might invite, but that is as far as it will go.

If there is any talk of punishing a woman who has an abortion, then the punishment must be equally shared by the father. That should put an end to that nonsense.

I understand all who say that it is a woman's right to choose. Believe me, I do. I just hope and pray that she chooses life. I can't control her decision. I can influence it, though, and not by those awful tactics that are being used in some places. An IVag Ultrasound??? C'mon... Really? That is just icky. And not indicated.

I spent the majority of my life in primary care medicine, fighting death in one way or another. It is not in my DNA to stop on this battlefield.

I often feel like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, debating with himself... "On the other hand..." Finally, "No, there is no other hand."

 

[blobfish]

The problem with Rob, in my opinion, is that he feels, he doesn't think. I know of no thinking Pro-Life person who (a) wants to control anyone, or (b) wants to legislate their religious belief on anyone. The honest Pro-Life person just wants to stop the carnage. I recognize that it might feel that way to someone, but the motives are not as Rob describes.



Hi, Tex. Got any cookies? Can you flesh that out a little? I just came in from the garden, and I'm a bit sweaty, so my brain has taken a vacation, it seems. I don't understand just what you mean. I think that I might, but I want to be sure.

I'm the other half of O-dad's conversation, so let me chime in here.

I am un-ashamedly Pro-Life. I still grieve over my child who did not get a chance at life. She would have been 39 this month.

I have no desire to control anyone. I have enough problems controlling myself. I have no desire to force my, or anyone's religion on anyone. There are some whom I might invite, but that is as far as it will go.

If there is any talk of punishing a woman who has an abortion, then the punishment must be equally shared by the father. That should put an end to that nonsense.

I understand all who say that it is a woman's right to choose. Believe me, I do. I just hope and pray that she chooses life. I can't control her decision. I can influence it, though, and not by those awful tactics that are being used in some places. An IVag Ultrasound??? C'mon... Really? That is just icky. And not indicated.

I spent the majority of my life in primary care medicine, fighting death in one way or another. It is not in my DNA to stop on this battlefield.

I often feel like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, debating with himself... "On the other hand..." Finally, "No, there is no other hand."

Cheers! You read my mind almost perfectly.

 

[TexasWife25]

Mustang,

I believe the essence of our difference was pointed our perfectly by run_silent.

When does human life begin?

 

[run_silent]

It begins the same place it ends, and is determined by facts, gathered by and agreed upon by a majority of those in the medical community.

OK but do you have an opinion when life begins. Do have an opinion of the date when abortion should not be allowed. It's ok if you don't know the answer but please just say so. Don't repeat the the answer above.

 

[O-dad's Medium]

Yes the aborted unborn don't make much noise. If only they could figure out a way to get a good lobbyist.

Well that would be a good trick for a little packet of developing cells.

You addressed this to TW, but I also have an answer.

Life never stops. Even the death of an organism, even we humans, allows other life to continue - but this gets gross so I'll not belabor it. So how can life really begin if it never really ended?

I'll clarify. The sperm and egg cells in both parents bodies aren't inert or dead. The mother has had hers since birth, the father makes new ones all the time - but each are produced according to the patterns set down when he was born also. So If a collection of eight, sixteen, thirty-two cells is alive... why isn't an egg? Why isn't a sperm?

No. The THEOLOGICAL question of when life begins isn't about science or facts or understanding or grappling with the issues above. This theological life is not about LIFE (which is why it's okay to swat flies, eat meat and kill death row prisoners), but about sin and guilt and it's punishment.

And in theological terms, women are to be discouraged from promiscuity by being made to live with the consequences of sexual union regardless of circumstances. So rape is irrelevant, medical necessity is irrelevant, and the woman's feelings are definitely irrelevant.

So when does life begin? For many it begins whenever god says so. But I'm not keen on taking the word of a fictional character to base my life decisions on without further fact to independently support it, so I don't suggest women should either.

Now, if your question is about when an unborn child might actually be aware it's being aborted, or feel pain. Then we can start having a detailed discussion about developmental biology.

So, for clarity... Which beginning of life did you want to address?

 

[run_silent]

Well that would be a good trick for a little packet of developing cells.

You addressed this to TW, but I also have an answer.

Life never stops. Even the death of an organism, even we humans, allows other life to continue - but this gets gross so I'll not belabor it. So how can life really begin if it never really ended?

I'll clarify. The sperm and egg cells in both parents bodies aren't inert or dead. The mother has had hers since birth, the father makes new ones all the time - but each are produced according to the patterns set down when he was born also. So If a collection of eight, sixteen, thirty-two cells is alive... why isn't an egg? Why isn't a sperm?

No. The THEOLOGICAL question of when life begins isn't about science or facts or understanding or grappling with the issues above. This theological life is not about LIFE (which is why it's okay to swat flies, eat meat and kill death row prisoners), but about sin and guilt and it's punishment.

And in theological terms, women are to be discouraged from promiscuity by being made to live with the consequences of sexual union regardless of circumstances. So rape is irrelevant, medical necessity is irrelevant, and the woman's feelings are definitely irrelevant.

So when does life begin? For many it begins whenever god says so. But I'm not keen on taking the word of a fictional character to base my life decisions on without further fact to independently support it, so I don't suggest women should either.

Now, if your question is about when an unborn child might actually be aware it's being aborted, or feel pain. Then we can start having a detailed discussion about developmental biology.

So, for clarity... Which beginning of life did you want to address?

The sperm and egg isolated have no chance of creating life. It's once they combine that two separate things become life.

 

[TwoHundredTabs]

Frank

Attitudes about abortion are generally a product of socialization.

If you grew up in a home where the emphasis was on "purity", "stability", and other ideas around a "moral life" from a religious perspective, you're more likely to emphasize a deontological (or "duty-based") perspective in your worldview. That often means being an absolutist - divorcing actions from their consequences when making moral judgments. The "consequence" of concern is whether or not one's actions violates the religio-cultural-moral dogma. It doesn't have to be a "formal" dogma or that of an established religion, but most proscriptivist cultural ideas are.

If you grew up in a home where the emphasis was on "responsibility", "care", and other ideas around an "ethical life" (ethics being the domain of public action, rather than private action), you're more likely to emphasize a consequentialist perspective in your worldview. That often means being pluralistic - allowing that others might have knowledge or experience that you do not, and trying to understand actions and all of their consequences at length before you make a decision. This type of thinking isn't restrained by traditions.

Those who grew up as absolutists often feel that consequentialists are shirking their moral duties - that they're irresponsible, lack humility, and lack respect. This is because the absolutists don't see the image of unwavering self-discipline that they have come to expect through their upbringing. The lack of consistency in others' choices is viewed as scary and off-putting.

Those who grew up as consequentialists often feel that absolutists are shirking their ethical duties - that they're uncaring, stubborn, selfish, and arrogant. This is because the consequentialists don't see the complex reasoning and openness to experience that they have come to expect from their upbringing. The lack of contextualizing in others' choices is viewed as scary and off-putting.


People who grew up in one kind of home or another and later start to switch perspectives because of life experiences (often becoming more absolutist when they experience personal crises that alienate them, and more consequentialist when they experience new cultures or go into higher education) tend to have more mixed feelings about issues and other people, and change their positions. You could call them moral/ethical swing voters - and, yes, it often does line up with political parties.


The people who have a strongly developed and integrated sense of personal morals and social ethics are outsiders to everyone because they "feel like" family and like the enemy to both groups. They're rare, and are often both highly respected and highly ignored.


So when you ask about abortion, others' views on it, and one's own perspective, my answer is that it depends mostly on where they came from, their level of education, and their degree of concern about morality.

For me - one of the integrated people - abortion by definition is undesirable, but may be reasonably perceived as the best option - or even necessary - depending on the circumstances. If we look at individual cases, it's obviously something that all women struggle with when their pregnancies are months along. If we look at statistics, most women get abortions within the first three months - when the fetus is so obviously not a child that the emotional impact is greatly lessened.

For the women who are in a gray area - an emotionally-charged, difficult space - it all comes down to their life situation and their emotional ability to cope with whatever final choice has been made.

I'm not in favor of terminating fetuses or forcing women to have children. I think that setting either as the default position is morally and ethically wrong, and disrespects the lives and decisions of men, women, and intersexed people who make tough choices one way or the other.

 

[TexasWife25]

OK but do you have an opinion when life begins. Do have an opinion of the date when abortion should not be allowed. It's ok if you don't know the answer but please just say so. Don't repeat the the answer above.

I believe everything that makes us alive, in any real sense, is our brains. When someone is in a hospital, and their body is being kept alive by means not their own, and they dont have any brain function, we declare them dead, because without the brain, the body is nothing. An embryo crosses the line from living to being alive, when it has sustainable measurable brain function, and its the consensus of the medical community that that occurs around the 26-27th week.

 

[TwoHundredTabs]

I like you so I'm treading gingerly. This has always been the major question- When does life begin? I have no religious dog in this fight.

No answer to this question will be satisfactory, because the question is worded insufficiently.

Biological life is different from spiritual life (if you believe in such a thing), both of which are different from the onset of psychological personhood.

We know, roughly, when biological life begins based on scientific definitions. We have no clue when "spiritual life" beings, because there is no inter-subjective definition for it [i.e. it's all personal, based on your specific beliefs]. We have a very broad idea of when personhood begins, which is presumed to begin when a lifeform shows self-recognition. The rouge test is a very simple example of this. Apes and dolphins pass it.

 

[Liar]

The problem with Rob, in my opinion, is that he feels, he doesn't think. I know of no thinking Pro-Life person who (a) wants to control anyone, or (b) wants to legislate their religious belief on anyone. The honest Pro-Life person just wants to stop the carnage. I recognize that it might feel that way to someone, but the motives are not as Rob describes.

"The carnage" sounds an awful lot like an emotion packed phrase to me. Are you sure you're not feeling instead of thinking a wee bit here?

Thing is, there is no pro-choice vs pro-life debate. There's a pro-choice vs anti-choice debate. If there was a pro-life debate, we'd be asking "how do we make women want to choose life?". We don't. All "pro-life" policy I've seen have been about ways to force women to not have abortions.

Why do countries like Canada and Germany, with more pro-choice policies, legal, easily available and comfortably affordable abortions for all women, have lower abortion rates than the US? If the goal is to minimze the numbers of abortions, can something be learned there?

 

[AngeloMichael]

I am against abortion but I'm more against a woman not having the right to choose what happens to her own body.

I don't like abortion, I think it must be one of the most painful and weighty decsions a woman can make, but it's important to keep that decsion in her hands and not the government's.

I feel a fetus is a proto life, it is alive and subject to protection under the laws but the protection of the mother and the mother's wishes for her own life supercedes that of the protection of the fetus'.

I always hear the argument "Somebody has to be looking out for the rights/protection of the unborn."

I see lots and lots and lots of people doing that and as time goes by alarmingly few doing that for the actual mothers.

 

[run_silent]

No answer to this question will be satisfactory, because the question is worded insufficiently.

Biological life is different from spiritual life (if you believe in such a thing), both of which are different from the onset of psychological personhood.

We know, roughly, when biological life begins based on scientific definitions. We have no clue when "spiritual life" beings, because there is no inter-subjective definition for it [i.e. it's all personal, based on your specific beliefs]. We have a very broad idea of when personhood begins, which is presumed to begin when a lifeform shows self-recognition. The rouge test is a very simple example of this. Apes and dolphins pass it.

I'll bite. When does biological life begin based on scientific definitions?

 

[blobfish]

"The carnage" sounds an awful lot like an emotion packed phrase to me. Are you sure you're not feeling instead of thinking a wee bit here?

Thing is, there is no pro-choice vs pro-life debate. There's a pro-choice vs anti-choice debate. If there was a pro-life debate, we'd be asking "how do we make women want to choose life?". We don't. All "pro-life" policy I've seen have been about ways to force women to not have abortions.

Why do countries like Canada and Germany, with more pro-choice policies, legal, easily available and comfortably affordable abortions for all women, have lower abortion rates than the US? If the goal is to minimze the numbers of abortions, can something be learned there?

Abortions aren't difficult to obtain here.