View on abortion

[Stella_Omega]

A very radical new view, Harold!

My only quibble is that, we are so non-rational about babies- because every strand of our DNA, every fiber of our being, every force of life within us and around us is dedicated to perpetuating life in its image- that a s full nine months are not always enough to come to a decision.

The Maternal Instinct is the single most powerful pull I, for one, have ever experienced, knocking my butch self for a total loop. And for many many men, the instinct to fatherhood is every bit as strong- as far as I can tell. I was completely helpless in the face of this primal urge to bear my babies, and mother them- even with my gender issues.
it's been... interesting. Mother Nature doesn't give a shit about gender issues.

 

[Norajane]

I will always support your right to choose, but it would sadden me if you chose to abort for any other reason than to save your own life from death.

It would sadden me far, far more than you if I had to make that choice. Fortunately, I never have and hope never to have to. If I did have to, however, I'm glad that you would support my right to make that choice for myself.

 

[LadyCibelle]

[......]

I will always support your right to choose, but it would sadden me if you chose to abort for any other reason than to save your own life from death.

Snake, don't you know that saving ones life is not the only best reason to abort? What if the mother was selfless and wanted to save that unborn child's life by not letting it see the day? What if aborting was an act of pure love?

What some people don't understand or fail to see is that sometimes, maybe not that often but I KNOW it happens, aborting is the only right thing you can do for a child.

I don't care what people think or say about me or my way of living but I can assure you that if I had been pregnant at the time I found out everything about my ex-husband, you bet your sweet ass I would've aborted...in a heartbeat!! I would have done it to protect that child, not because I didn't love him/her, but because I loved it so much I wouldn't have wanted MY child to be born with the stigmata and genes of that man!!

 

[Purple Sage]

I firmly disagree and uphold the existence of natural rights. That's my view on things. The current laws be damned. Legislation can and often should be repealed.
They are inconsistent, anyway. I would take Jefferson's view about "inalienable rights" over traditional religions any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

As to whether the unborn are "sentient", you are entitled to your beliefs. I remain convinced of the opinion that they have souls and are living, conscious beings with as much right to live as you or me. And as much as I favor the right to choose in most matters, I uphold the right to live as a superior and superseding one.

There are too many willing, adoptive parents to take matriarch's dark view of the future. Even so, I thought we were done with this topic. Oh, well, I have heard your points of view and you have heard mine. Neither of us is likely to be persuaded of the other's stance. Honor is satisfied, so let us let it go.

As Billy Dean sang, "There ain't no good guy, there ain't bad guy, there's only you and me, and we just disagree...."

Well, TJ was on about 'endowed by their creator' with inalienable rights, so it is either a) a religious opinion or b) a way of saying 'this is what I think I don't want any arguments'. I vote for the latter. If there are in fact 'natural' rights, they ought to be able to be arrived at by the pure exercise of science. I have yet to see a convincing attempt at this, but feel free to amaze me. Show me your evidence and your chain of reasoning. So far, you simply make assertions.

As for the 'right to live'- does anyone enjoy this right at the expense of others? If I am hungry, do I have the right to demand food from you? If we consider the fetus to be 'it's own person', this is how it survives- by taking from another. What if we say, "Okay, the fetus has a right to live- on it's own. Let it get a job, pay some rent, buy groceries, and all the rights of human beings are granted it." Nowhere do we grant the unadulterated right to live to people in general- why suddenly for fetuses?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Snake, don't you know that saving ones life is not the only best reason to abort? What if the mother was selfless and wanted to save that unborn child's life by not letting it see the day? What if aborting was an act of pure love?

What some people don't understand or fail to see is that sometimes, maybe not that often but I KNOW it happens, aborting is the only right thing you can do for a child.

I don't care what people think or say about me or my way of living but I can assure you that if I had been pregnant at the time I found out everything about my ex-husband, you bet your sweet ass I would've aborted...in a heartbeat!! I would have done it to protect that child, not because I didn't love him/her, but because I loved it so much I wouldn't have wanted MY child to be born with the stigmata and genes of that man!!

Thank you. That is a very moral point of view.

 

[Pure]

Hi Harold,

That's an interesting post:

WHThe discussion so far with it's quibbling of the "law of Nature" and "natural rights, has made me realize that the question is not about pro-life or por-choice; the question is about a woman's right to self-defense..

As soon as the perm and egg combine and divide for the first time, there is a new individual witha unique DNA that is unquestionably alove. For the first nine-months or so of it's life, that organism is a parasite that cannot survive without it's host. When that individual has "rights" is a huge part of the debate.

But I doubt that anyone on either side of the abortion argument -- at least none that are any kind of tenuous contact with reality -- would deny that a woman, pregant or not has a legal right to use deadly force in defense of her life and in most jurisdictions, in defense of her money, property, and to injury short of life-threatening.

How is an abortion to for any reason that would constitute justification for using deadly force in self-defense against an adult different from killing an adult.

If it is justifiable to kill a mugger "in self-defense" to protect a paycheck, how is aborting a child in defense of a college fund different?

"Justifiable homicide in self-defense" is guaged on a case-by-case basis to distinguish it from Manslaughter and premeditated murder -- and it is legally possible to pre-meditate "self-defense" in rare circumastances; so premeditation can't be used as an argument against abortion as self-defense.

The only difference I can see between shooting a mugger to prevent death or injury and an abortion to prevent death or injury is that in the latter case there is more time to make a rational and reasoned decision with access to more information than the split-second decision to pull the trigger or not.

==========

P: This is, btw, the orthodox Jewish approach, which is conservative but admits a kind of 'self defense.'

The argument does 'open the door,' and have weight against those who allegedly care so much for the 1 or 2 mm of 'human life.' Further, phrased carefully, as you did, 'self defense' is clearly arguable in a whole range of cases where life is not actually threatened. (indeed, in Louisiana, trespassing and not reacting to warning are grounds for legal use of lethal force.)

I think perhpas it sets the bar a bit too high, or requires supplementation, for the other commonly accepted reason is 'rape,' though 'rape' has no weight with RC's.

WH in defense of her money, property, and to injury short of life-threatening

P: Of course the usual approach to the rape cases, which can't be discounted, is 'mental harm'; carrying the rapist's fetus for nine months. It would take a few extra words, but perhaps to prevent that not-insignificant harm (though there's no physical injury or harm, we'll suppose.) 'self defense might be invoked. Something like if someone persistently 'stalks' and terrifies the woman, that might serve as a justification.

here's a slightly different approach: probably a woman defending against a violent rape by killing the guy would be exonerated in 'self defence.' if that's granted, then if by chance he's circumvented that (drugged her, punched her out, half strangled her), one might argue that aborting 'his' fetus is simply an extention of a right to self defence. in effect she goes from 'neutralizing' him, to 'neutralizing' the effects of his 'seed.'

 

[Rope64]

The discussion so far with it's quibbling of the "law of Nature" and "natural rights, has made me realize that the question is not about pro-life or por-choice; the question is about a woman's right to self-defense..

As soon as the perm and egg combine and divide for the first time, there is a new individual witha unique DNA that is unquestionably alove. For the first nine-months or so of it's life, that organism is a parasite that cannot survive without it's host. When that individual has "rights" is a huge part of the debate.

But I doubt that anyone on either side of the abortion argument -- at least none that are any kind of tenuous contact with reality -- would deny that a woman, pregant or not has a legal right to use deadly force in defense of her life and in most jurisdictions, in defense of her money, property, and to injury short of life-threatening.

How is an abortion to for any reason that would constitute justification for using deadly force in self-defense against an adult different from killing an adult.

If it is justifiable to kill a mugger "in self-defense" to protect a paycheck, how is aborting a child in defense of a college fund different?

"Justifiable homicide in self-defense" is guaged on a case-by-case basis to distinguish it from Manslaughter and premeditated murder -- and it is legally possible to pre-meditate "self-defense" in rare circumastances; so premeditation can't be used as an argument against abortion as self-defense.

The only difference I can see between shooting a mugger to prevent death or injury and an abortion to prevent death or injury is that in the latter case there is more time to make a rational and reasoned decision with access to more information than the split-second decision to pull the trigger or not.

But people do have obligations, sometimes, to each other -- it is not a trapeze artist's right to answer his cell phone at the moment his partner is expecting him to catch her, is it?

People acquire obligations to each other through contracts. These may be explicit, as in a promise to do X in exchange for Y; they may be implied, as in the aforementioned trapeze cooperation; and they may be social, as in the general agreement that we may not kill each other.

But are there "right" and "wrong" social contracts? If one society expects and demands X and another society expects and demands the opposite, is this any different, morally, from one speaking French and the other speaking English? Could we not have a functional society in which a red light means "go" and a green light means "stop?"

There are obviously evolutionary dead ends -- a society whose rules prevent it from perpetuating itself is doomed. But beyond this, how far can we really go in saying that a society's judgement is wrong in some axiomatic way?

As immediately offensive as abortion is (let us admit), there is strong evidence that the legalization of abortion in the US has been a direct cause of drops in crime rates fifteen to eighteen years later. If crime were such a problem that it was causing the decline of a society, it might be societal suicide to prohibit abortion -- how would that be right?

Humanity, I think, is defined by having a moral sense. If a clone has a moral sense, it's human. If a dog has a sense of right and wrong (and I think a lot of animals do, to a limited degree), it's human. The dog is more properly "he" than "it." I don't think this necessarily means that you should never kill your dog and eat him if you were going to starve otherwise, but you ought to recognize that doing so is different from eating a turnip.

Anyway, just having a moral sense is not the end of the story: different people's moral senses often disagree -- maybe human life should be preserved at any expense beginning with conception; maybe only beginning half-way through pregnancy; maybe only after birth; maybe only after the newborn infant has survived three days of exposure (Sparta's standard); maybe only after the infant can sit up on its own (the traditional Inuit standard, or so I am told). We might reasonably argue about which standard best serves a society's "needs," whatever they are, but for Smith to insist that his moral sense is inherently better than Jones' and therefore should be imposed upon Jones is to deny Jones' humanity with no rational basis (Jones could as easily make the exact opposite argument).

I don't think it's unreasonable just to enforce (where necessary) the moral sense that is the general consensus of the population. For most sane people, this will mean that their own moral sense will be violated by the law in some instances, but this is a necessary cost of living in a orderly society, something that has immense benefits.

If the consensus of our society is, as indeed it seems to be in the US, that abortion should be legal and generally available with limitations that increase with the duration of a pregnancy, that is what the law should be. Maybe different individuals think that this standard is morally repugnant, but it is the height of arrogance to insist that the law should conform to your own moral sense alone while trampling everyone else's.

And, I would say that abortion is very different from self-defense in many respects, mostly having to do with social and implied contracts. Some people legitimately believe that human life should always be preserved; some people believe that the act of sexual intercourse is an implied contract to carry any pregnancy that results to term; some people believe that there is never any obligation for a woman to carry a pregnancy to term; and some people think that at some point in a pregnancy after conception, an implied contract arises according to which the mother agrees to carry the pregnancy to term. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this positions; the only issue is that in American society, only the last seems to be the general consensus. And if you want to benefit from the orderliness of American society, you ought to abide by this standard, even as you rail against it.

 

[Rope64]

... and now back to the fuck stories.

 

[BlackSnake]

What's more important to me, anyway- Did any of this help you in writing your story, Blacksnake?
By the way, and somewhat related,
my husband and I were very willing to move his mistress in with us, if she'd desired to- she didn't. And we are godparents to her older son, who is a few months older than ours. I'd gladly accept godparent stus for the younger one as well, if she asked me.

I did not see that coming. I was thinking that since in a good plot the first attempt to resolve the conflict must not only fail, but make things worse. Wow, a much better resolution than I figured.

I also wonder if anyone else is getting the writting lesson going on here.

Really, but there is still more. The falling action.

How do you feel about making that life and death decision. You are deciding if someone will live or die. It is totally under your control. No one else has the right to make that decision but you.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You speak of an "orderly society", but how can you have one if people are always murdering each other for convenience? If you start with the unborn, what's to stop the murder of the elderly?

You are right when you say that the role of government is not to impose MY morality or yours. However, there IS a role of government, and it is to protect people from active harm to their persons, freedom, family, or property. The very fact that government exists indicates that the populace wishes these things to be protected, at least in some sense of the word.

If they are willing to have the safety of these things protected to such an extent that they would COERCE others to respect them, then they must feel some kind of "moral or natural right" to them. Ergo, the very existence of human government demonstrates the significance of the rights established by the ordo natura. Government is fundamentally a coercive institution, so people SHOULD tread lightly when exercising its power.

The clearest sign of conscious human life to ME is the existence of a WILL. No one can deny that the unborn demonstrate THAT, at least mid-way through the pregnancy. And, Lady Cibelle, if I were that child, I would rather LIVE with those genes than DIE without them. The will to life is as strong for the unborn as the will to power for many grown-ups. Life is better than death, for me, because consciousness permits me to think. I get no such guarantees with death.

And, SERIOUSLY, people, "self-defense" against an INNOCENT? I nearly gagged when I read that.

 

[BlackSnake]

....

And, SERIOUSLY, people, "self-defense" against an INNOCENT? I nearly gagged when I read that.

That's what I was talking about earlier. Blowing smoke, so the flaws in your opinion can't be seen. The only thing I don't like about debates. It is an acceptable practice, though.

 

[BlackSnake]

Snake, don't you know that saving ones life is not the only best reason to abort? What if the mother was selfless and wanted to save that unborn child's life by not letting it see the day? What if aborting was an act of pure love?

What some people don't understand or fail to see is that sometimes, maybe not that often but I KNOW it happens, aborting is the only right thing you can do for a child.

I don't care what people think or say about me or my way of living but I can assure you that if I had been pregnant at the time I found out everything about my ex-husband, you bet your sweet ass I would've aborted...in a heartbeat!! I would have done it to protect that child, not because I didn't love him/her, but because I loved it so much I wouldn't have wanted MY child to be born with the stigmata and genes of that man!!

See, before he was your ex he was a man you found at least interesting. So he wasn't the man he pretended to be. We never are. We want you. The child is not him. Do something about him.

I hope you would choose life. You are not protecting a child by killing it. Remove it from the influences that you fear.

 

[BlackSnake]

SEVERUSMAX

Where's MY right to choose?
In light of the recent thread on abortion and the fact that some states allow it but prohibit husbands to get vasectomies without their wives' permission (I wonder if such rules apply for lubal ligations), this double standard has caused to think. Where is MY right to choose? After all, no massacres, butcherings, blood (for the most part, not counting MY blood, which I am risking here), harm to innocents, or any other such reason exists to violate MY right to do what I please with MY sperm! It's my body, my choice! If husband doesn't own wife's body (as feminists assert repeatedly), then wifey doesn't own hubby's, either! Damn it, ENOUGH with the double standards!

Sorry, I just had to pull you in here. It just fits.

The father of the child is trying to convince the new mother not to abort. He knows that it her body and her right to choose. He wonders, what in the hell about his rights? Without him there would not be a child.

She's the one that has to carry the child to term inside her body.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Sorry, I just had to pull you in here. It just fits.

The father of the child is trying to convince the new mother not to abort. He knows that it her body and her right to choose. He wonders, what in the hell about his rights? Without him there would not be a child.

She's the one that has to carry the child to term inside her body.

It's still HIS sperm and HIS money going to child support.

 

[BlackSnake]

It's still HIS sperm and HIS money going to child support.

Here is the way around that issue. Stay with her and treat her well, so you can get your money's worth.

He has to deal with the reality. He has no say, so what is he going to do about it?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Here is the way around that issue. Stay with her and treat her well, so you can get your money's worth.

That depends. Suppose we no longer get along, or it was just a one-night stand. Suppose the condom broke, or she was a psycho who saved up cum from the rubber. I don't want to live with a loony! Suppose she doesn't treat ME well. My point is that you would NEVER tell a woman, "Stay with him and treat him well. Then you will get your pain's worth."

I think that MY sperm are MINE. If I wish to get a fuckin' vasectomy, it's my goddamned right to do so!

 

[matriarch]

That depends. Suppose we no longer get along, or it was just a one-night stand. Suppose the condom broke, or she was a psycho who saved up cum from the rubber. I don't want to live with a loony! Suppose she doesn't treat ME well. My point is that you would NEVER tell a woman, "Stay with him and treat him well. Then you will get your pain's worth."

I think that MY sperm are MINE. If I wish to get a fuckin' vasectomy, it's my goddamned right to do so!

Oh, I get it.
What's mine is mine, but what's your's is our's.
Good logical argument.
No emotion involved in that statement, then.
Sheesh.

You want it all ways, it seems.
I'm out of here.

Oh, and by the way, you guys do realise, don't you, that research has proved that male sperm is NOT necessary to create a foetus?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, I get it.
What's mine is mine, but what's your's is our's.
Good logical argument.
No emotion involved in that statement, then.
Sheesh.

You want it all ways, it seems.
I'm out of here.

Oh, and by the way, you guys do realise, don't you, that research has proved that male sperm is NOT necessary to create a foetus?

I don't know where you got THAT from my statement, but I was just pointing out that, if you can choose to terminate another human being's life, I can CERTAINLY choose what to do with my OWN!

And that other thing sounds fishy.

 

[Norajane]

He has to deal with the reality. He has no say, so what is he going to do about it?

If she doesn't want to be a mother, he could offer to raise the child without her involvement, if that's what she wants.

If she doesn't want to give birth, then he has to face reality and support her decision. He could keep trying to convince her, I suppose, but you as the author would better know what might influence your character.

 

[BlackSnake]

If she doesn't want to be a mother, he could offer to raise the child without her involvement, if that's what she wants.

If she doesn't want to give birth, then he has to face reality and support her decision. He could keep trying to convince her, I suppose, but you as the author would better know what might influence your character.

What I would say from SEVERUSMAX's statement is that it is the man's sperm inside of her. Shouldn't he have a say. He should try to get her to at least hear him. It is her decision, but why shouldn't he be a part of the decision process? He is essential.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That WOULD be a good way to interpret my position, under the current reality of Roe vs. Wade. I tend to want to at least be consulted about things that affect me. I suppose that is why states try to pass spousal notification laws (note that most don't require spousal CONSENT, just notification, and the single men are out of luck).

This DOES give me a good idea for an Erotic Horror story- something about the ghost of a fetus somehow becoming an adult male and taking revenge on the woman who aborted him...

 

[Norajane]

What I would say from SEVERUSMAX's statement is that it is the man's sperm inside of her. Shouldn't he have a say. He should try to get her to at least hear him. It is her decision, but why shouldn't he be a part of the decision process? He is essential.

That's a conversation they should have had before the fucking commenced.

But seeing as it didn't, sure, he should try to get her to understand his views. He should also try to understand her views. If he addresses her specific concerns, he has a better chance of convincing her than if he tries the 'it's MY sperm' approach.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Depending on the woman, you may have a point about being persuasive. Incidentally, the passage of such laws makes me think about something else. If people tend to assume that most abortions happen OUT of wedlock, why focus so much on the married state? Is it perhaps a subconscious admission that marriage is a more fragile, less secure, and less practical system than people claim, particularly in light of the divorce rate?

 

[Purple Sage]

I don't know where you got THAT from my statement, but I was just pointing out that, if you can choose to terminate another human being's life, I can CERTAINLY choose what to do with my OWN!

And that other thing sounds fishy.

I'm with you on choosing what to do with your own sperm- I'd be curious to know where a man can't get a vasectomy when he wants one.
As to the 'other thing', it iis fishy- it's called 'parthenogenesis' and some fish can do it naturally, as well as some amphibians. In theory it can happen in mammals, but it pretty much doesn't. It's been done in the lab- it involves stimulating an unfertilized ovum to begin cell division. The result is a clone of the mother, genetically identical. Only girls can be born this way. Dolly the sheep is, if I recall, an example of this. In theory the same thing can be done with males using stem cells, but I don't believe anyone has pulled it off yet.

 

[Weird Harold]

And, I would say that abortion is very different from self-defense in many respects, mostly having to do with social and implied contracts. Some people legitimately believe that human life should always be preserved; some people believe that the act of sexual intercourse is an implied contract to carry any pregnancy that results to term; some people believe that there is never any obligation for a woman to carry a pregnancy to term; and some people think that at some point in a pregnancy after conception, an implied contract arises according to which the mother agrees to carry the pregnancy to term. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this positions; the only issue is that in American society, only the last seems to be the general consensus. And if you want to benefit from the orderliness of American society, you ought to abide by this standard, even as you rail against it.

I'm not sure what the first 90% of your post has to do with the concepts of Abortion as self-defense.

This last rambling paragraph ignores the point that I'm not talking about what is currently used to justify resrictions on abortion, but what SHOULD BE the standard for determining whether an abortion is justifiable.

"Abortion as self-defense" is essentially the same as my first post in this thread -- abortion is justifiable only to prevent irreparable harm and when it is the least horrible option.

A judgement of self-defense is justifiable when an action was taken to prevent irreparable harm and no other option to prevent that harm was viable.