Abortion is one of the issues I have trouble taking a strong stance on. Here is why...
First of all, there is no question that what's developing in the womb is a life. It's alive much in the same manner any of your cells are alive. The real problem is figuring out when to bestow personhood upon the unborn.
Are these globs of cells a person?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/HumanEmbryogenesis.svg
What about this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/9-Week_Human_Embryo_from_Ectopic_Pregnancy.jpg
Regardless, there is no dispute that what's developing in the womb will be a person someday. Should this fact garnish legal protection for the unborn? Probably not, but it should demonstrate the gravity of the situation. This is not the same as scratching off some skin cells. An abortion is the destruction of something that will someday be like you and I.
However...
Forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term is a form of oppression. It doesn't really matter if this is the intention of the Pro-Life movement or not. They are still responsible for the unintended consequences of the policies they support, and this one should be a blatantly obvious consequence. The anti-abortionists wish to garnish control of a woman's reproductive rights, her sexual liberty, HER BODY.
Making abortion illegal will not end the practice. All it will do is drive an otherwise safe medical procedure underground. Those women who won't get abortions will opt out due to fear; either fear of the law or fear for their health.
One of the best means of fighting poverty is to empower women. Naturally, this entails giving women equal rights and opportunities to men. When women are given the option to get an advanced education and take on a rewarding career, and, when they're not subjected to the wills of their husbands, are able to make their own sexual and reproductive choices, we find a situation where children are not being senselessly brought into the world (which, incidentally, is beneficial to the Pro-Lifers because it will ultimately reduce the necessity for abortions in the first place because women will be making smarter sexual choices). What do we see in countries where women are denied their sexual and reproductive rights? Quite simply we see women reduced to being baby-making factories, and the more kids these women have the less likely it is they'll be able to lift themselves above the poverty line. The last thing the United States needs is to head down the path of third world nations.
So, what are the unintended consequences of making abortion illegal? Well, it creates a state of oppressive fearmongering that increases poverty. Worst of all is that these consequences should be fairly obvious. Anyone with even a modicum amount of critical thinking skills should be able to work out these conclusions.
The original purpose of this blog was to point out that both sides of the abortion debate have some validity to them, but as I've laid out the problems with the Pro-Life position I can't help but to side with the Pro-Choice struggle. Why should I support oppression, fearmongering, and poverty for the sake of something that we can't even determine the point of personhood for?
Nevertheless, I still feel as though the best solution to this problem is to adopt preventative measures. What does this mean? We need to educate people (preferably young people) about sex and provide them with means of preventing pregnancy as well as STIs. Abstinence-only sex education is not effective at helping kids make smart decisions about sex. Furthermore, it favors one specific lifestyle and keeps kids ignorant about how to protect themselves if they fall pray to the "biological imperative."
Do you want to decrease the need for abortion? Support comprehensive sex education. Make condoms and birth control easily available.
First, I'm glad, but of course not surprised, that you've taken the intellectually honest position that what is in the womb, is a life, even though your position is that ending that life is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteYour idea that making it illegal won't end the practice is true. The illegalization of all crimes fail to end crime. Downloading music, and murder, are both illegal, but both continue.
Clearly, these aren't parallel issues exactly. Downloading music deprives corporations of dollars, murder robs someone of life, but even in this situation, it's not as clear cut.
I have, not surprisingly, a massive disagreement with your position. A life is a life from conception to natural death.
I DO however recognize the difficulty of this position. What you call the oppression of women, I call the protection of the unborn. You've determined that the life of a possible mother is superior to that of her unborn child, but I say they're equal.
The woman has to deal with being pregnant for sure, but with the exception of extreme cases, this is not an unprovoked cause. Sex is the No. 1 cause of pregnancy, and sex is a choice entered into freely (usually) by an adult.
Also of note, her sexual liberty is her own. But the consequences of that are also her own.
Birth control isn't the solution either, though if I were the one grading the morality of sins (and I'm not) I'd say it's a step down from abortion.
It's not the solution because it seeks to remove a part of human nature from us, and not a bad one. Sex leads to life, much of the time.
That's how it should be. But of course we don't want a billion babies without people to care for them do we? No.
But the human response here should be to modify our behavior, not our nature. And we did that.
Whether you believe it was God or man, the concept of long term, two-person monogamy was established, and hence, the family unit.
This is our nature. To reproduce. Yes sex is fun, yes it's also something we do for the expression of love, lust or entertainment. But the reason behind that urge, is reproduction.
Sure sex ed and condoms will lower abortion rates. And I believe in sex ed, I believe in the availability of condoms (not in all situations, but many). Governments must govern what WILL happen, not what should. I get that.
But governments also have an obligation to protect their citizen's rights.
Yes. It is an imposition to tell a woman she should have to carry a child to term against her will. But, with the exception of few cases, she entered consensually into the activity that caused another person to be alive. She, and the father, have a responsibility for that life now.
They don't even have to keep the child, but it's wrong to kill the baby.
The question that needs answering is, is that imposition worth taking the life of another human being?
I say no.
Abortion is O.K. as long as it occurs before Ensoulment. Before that, it's clearly not a person (like that little bug-thing in the wikimedia photo - YUK! LOLOLOL).
ReplyDelete"First, I'm glad, but of course not surprised, that you've taken the intellectually honest position that what is in the womb, is a life, even though your position is that ending that life is acceptable."
ReplyDeleteOf course it is alive, but don't mistake what I mean by that. It's alive much in the same manner that a plant is alive. The question is when does that unborn baby deserve the distinction of being a person with human rights. Why should those cells in the first wikimedia picture receive the same rights as you and I? However, while the point of personhood is debatable, there are some very real and severe consequences to making abortion illegal.
"What you call the oppression of women, I call the protection of the unborn."
Yes, I know what your intentions are, but that doesn't mean you are not responsible for the unintended consequences, especially when they're as obvious as the ones I've listed. Your position degrades the status of women, subjecting them to the will of a single viewpoint. This is a great leap backwards, not a step forward towards a more humanitarian world. Abortion can and should be addressed in ways which do not turn women into 2nd class citizens.
"Birth control isn't the solution either..."
Yes it is. It's a wonderful solution. It greatly reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancy. In turn, it reduces the need for abortion.
"It's not the solution because it seeks to remove a part of human nature from us, and not a bad one. Sex leads to life, much of the time."
Humanity has transgressed this singular purpose to sex. What else can I say? Get over it and learn to adapt?
"This is our nature. To reproduce. Yes sex is fun, yes it's also something we do for the expression of love, lust or entertainment. But the reason behind that urge, is reproduction."
Yes, reproduction has been reduced to only one of the purposes behind sex. I am reluctant to use the word reduced because we are certainly not the only animals to use sex for recreational reasons. Nevertheless, I fail to see why the "natural" function of sex should take precedence over everything else. Progress? Sexual rights? Meh, those don't matter. People shouldn't be using birth control and women should be having babies just because it's the natural way. Just because...that's what this argument boils down to. Just because...
"Sure sex ed and condoms will lower abortion rates. And I believe in sex ed, I believe in the availability of condoms (not in all situations, but many). Governments must govern what WILL happen, not what should. I get that.
But governments also have an obligation to protect their citizen's rights."
I agree, but why does a glob of cells deserve human rights? Why does a fetus deserve human rights? I think we should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, but not at the expense of the woman.
"They don't even have to keep the child..."
Adoption is certainly a viable option, but only if the woman decides she wants to bring the pregnancy to term. Even if you make abortion illegal under the pretense that the mother has no legal responsibility to the born child, the unintended consequences still exist.
Who is going to foot the bill for these orphans, anyway? Perhaps I'm just generalizing too much, but it seems that the politicians who oppose abortion are the same people who are not particularly fond of government welfare.
What about countries that are too poor to take care of their citizens? Should these people continue to wallow in poverty? Would be really be so horrible to encourage measures to help pull these countries out of their high level of need?
"The question is when does that unborn baby deserve the distinction of being a person with human rights."
ReplyDeleteI have an answer to that, but I know it's not to your satisfaction. So how about this. Since there isn't an answer you'll buy at this time, isn't the prudent thing to err on the side of caution and not risk mass murder?
Next, my statement on birth control wasn't clear. It's A solution, not THE solution. It leads to an abortion culture. If you're alright with that, so be it I guess.
But the consequences of sex shouldn't be removed entirely. While yes, sex isn't had just for reproduction, I think we're supposed to be open the possibility, at least to a degree. However, I'll forgo this point as well, as my reasons for it are entirely based in Church teaching, and that's not going to hold any water here.
"but why does a glob of cells deserve human rights? Why does a fetus deserve human rights? I think we should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, but not at the expense of the woman. "
First as you know, abortions are not only done in the first month or two. While most states have some restriction, Roe v. Wade and the companion case have it federally legal up until the moment the baby's head it out.
I was born at six and a half months. Many babies are viable even earlier. But once you say you can kill the child at one stage, who's to say you can't kill them at any stage.
We should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, which makes them equal to the woman. Her rights must be respected, but so must the child's.
Why should it have human rights? Because it's a human. You're choosing the woman's convenience over the child's life. That's insane to me.
"Next, my statement on birth control wasn't clear. It's A solution, not THE solution. It leads to an abortion culture."
ReplyDeleteI don't see how it leads to abortion culture, at all. You need to expand on that.
"Why should it have human rights? Because it's a human." That is not agreed on. Matt (and I) don't necessarily feel at that the very early stage fetus qualifies as a human being (a full-fledged human - a person). It carries the possibility of developing into a human, which other life forms don't, but it doesn't have a human mind.
To say this is primarily an issue of convenience is to simplify the problem. There are real-world consequences to making abortion illegal. It creates an atmosphere where women have to be fearful of sex and their own body. Men, of course, get to continue with their sexual escapades with little or no consequence. I don’t see how someone could not view this as a form of oppression directed against women - and all for the sake of a zygote.
ReplyDeletePoverty, poverty, poverty. I cannot stress this enough. If you want to handle the issue of poverty you have to be willing to empower women; a key factor of which is to give women a say in their ability to reproduce. Professional, educated women make smarter reproductive choices leading to fewer (addressing the issue of overpopulation) and healthier children (because the parents can afford to take better care of them). Quality vs. quantity might make for an interesting debate when it comes to products like food and household supplies, but not when it comes to human life. Why should we support measures that promote human suffering?
“It leads to an abortion culture.”
Measures meant to prevent the need for abortion help create an abortion culture? What happened to being concerned about what WILL happen instead of being focused on policy that is idealistic and impractical?
I am sympathetic towards your side, John. I want to greatly reduce the need for women to seek abortions. However, draconian policies will not fix this problem. Like I said before, abortion can and should be addressed in ways which do not turn women into 2nd class citizens.
Umm….work, work, work, busy, busy,busy…
On Dungy's comment:
ReplyDeleteIt creates an abortion culture by creating a false sense of dominion over reproduction. It creates in people's minds that they can have all the sex they want and never have to worry about a child. But sometimes, albeit no so often, the contraception fails -- then people have the excuse (in their minds) that it's ok to abort since they didn't want it anyway. That same situation occurs when people meant to use a condom or pill, but forget, or just don't or something. They think, "I didn't want to get pregnant/get her pregnant, so it's ok for me to kill the result."
Contraception is a false security blanket, and when it fails, either by poor design or irresponsibility, it leads to more abortions.
And to Matt on this issue, I'm still saying I understand the government's need to have this stuff available. I'll even go so far as to say between now and a time when we've successfully brought people to a better sexual morality (through cultural, not legislative change), it's not such a bad thing.
Don't take my meaning wrong, cultural change is something we want on a great many issues, but legislative change is needed on abortion itself to stop the killings. And hopefully the culture catches up.
To Matt's other point:
I'm all for laws that force the father of children to do their part, and I don't believe that monetary support is necessarily enough. That's another thing that needs to change.
If you're trying to say in a world without legal abortions in most cases that women aren't empowered to have a say in their reproduction, you're wrong, as long as we're talking about a free society. In a nation like ours, the only women who don't have a say are victims rape, and I've said for a long time I'm not fighting that fight. A legal avenue can stay open for them.
We can't make it so a man carries a baby for nine months, but we can make it so a man has to be equally responsible after that for any child he has. That's how we empower the women in this case, by making men take equal responsibility. Then, people will be more responsible about sex, and hopefully, it brings things closer to the marriage model.
If you want to handle poverty, you're method isn't a bad idea. If there are less mouths to feed, and the kids will be better cared for.
But why stop at abortion then? And I'm not really kidding. Why is a baby at 6 months less of a baby at 9 months and one day? In fact why is a baby at 9 months but still in the womb less of a person that a baby born at 8 months?
Why is a baby born and 2 months old any different than a baby in the womb at 8.5 months?
Infanticide is the next step here. I'm not going all silly slippery slope here, it's an obvious next step to me.
You ask why we should support measures that promote human suffering. We shouldn't. We shouldn't continue to allow the most vulnerable of our species to continue to be killed in grisly ways just to preserve the false notion that sex lacks consequence.
Excellent rebuttal. I'll let Matt respond, heh.
ReplyDelete"It creates an abortion culture by creating a false sense of dominion over reproduction. It creates in people's minds that they can have all the sex they want and never have to worry about a child. But sometimes, albeit no so often, the contraception fails -- then people have the excuse (in their minds) that it's ok to abort since they didn't want it anyway. That same situation occurs when people meant to use a condom or pill, but forget, or just don't or something. They think, "I didn't want to get pregnant/get her pregnant, so it's ok for me to kill the result.'"
ReplyDeleteFirst, I assume your statement about us having a false sense of dominion over reproduction stems from your faith. Speaking from a practical sense we have complete dominion over reproduction. We have the medicine and tools capable of safely ending a pregnancy at any point during gestation. We can bring a quick and efficient end to both sexes ability to reproduce, and, in the case of the male, even restore this function afterwards. Complete, one-hundred percent pure and unadulterated dominion over reproduction.
Why should we not take advantage of our technological superiority over reproduction?
"It goes against nature!" Weak argument. One of the primary motives behind civilization and technological/scientific advancement is to supersede nature. It's natural to suffer from polio and smallpox (did you know this was one of the arguments used by early opponents of vaccination? "It's not natural!" "It goes against God's will!" How utterly disturbing). It's natural to go out and hunt/gather your food instead of stuffing portioned packages of meat and vegetables into an artificial cooling apparatus.
"My church says God does not approve!" Yep, the same God who, in his love and wisdom, allows for miscarriages. Good job watching out for those precious little gifts of life, God.
Hey! If we're supposed to be Christ-like, and if Jesus Christ and God are the same, and if God likes to abort babies, well, we should be aborting babies too! This is sarcasm, of course, but you know very well I would not take a plea to religion very seriously.
"It is a full person with human rights." This is a strong argument; one which cuts across all creeds except, perhaps, for the strongest of nihilists. Nevertheless, the problem of determining personhood is still pertinent. Is a zygote, embryo, or early fetus a person?
Second (yeah, I'm still on that first quote form John's response), would you dare to say the alternative to promoting birth control is any better, John? Telling people to remain abstinent until marriage is a failed policy. This is one area in which we have great trouble superseding nature, and quite frankly, the deck is stacked strongly against us. Sex is fun - it feels good. It's one of the strongest stimulators of the limbic system outside of psychoactive drugs. A rush of dopamine in the brain causing an overwhelming sense of euphoria and pleasure. This is the result of millions of years of evolution favoring chemical responses that promote copulation. Do you really think the, as I like to call it, biological imperative is going to be beaten out by a pledge card (I don't know if schools required to teach abstinence-only sex ed actually hand out pledge cards, but I wouldn't be surprised. Of course, some religious organizations use pledge cards or something akin to them)? NO!
Kids and adults alike are going to stimulate their sex organs. What we can do for them is teach them safe sex practices. Abstinence-only forgoes this step. So what are we left with? Well, the kids are still horny, but they are blissfully unaware of how to protect themselves or they have to rely on ignorant myths on how to prevent pregnancy or STIs. These bad practices carry into their young adult/adult years and, low and behold, they get pregnant. And guess what else? Abortions still happen! Only now we have a situation where the frequency of unintended pregnancies are higher, which serves to increase the demand for abortions. An "abortion culture" will exist as long as sex exists.
ReplyDelete"Contraception is a false security blanket, and when it fails, either by poor design or irresponsibility, it leads to more abortions."
So, to reiterate, more unintended pregnancies lead to higher rates of abortion. Which approach is more effective at lowering unintended pregnancies? I shouldn't have to tell you. African Americans have the highest abortion rates in the country. Do you know what else they have? The highest unintended pregnancy rates.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/08/13/index.html
"I'm all for laws that force the father of children to do their part, and I don't believe that monetary support is necessarily enough. That's another thing that needs to change."
Even if the father is required to provide monetary support (I wonder how many fathers actually end up paying child support? Something to look up later), he still isn't hindered in the same manner as the woman. Also, I find your statement about monetary support not being enough to be interesting. We certainly can't force a man into playing the role of a parent - not a good parent, anyway.
"If you're trying to say in a world without legal abortions in most cases that women aren't empowered to have a say in their reproduction, you're wrong, as long as we're talking about a free society."
The woman made a choice to have recreational sex, not to get pregnant. Of course, it's certainly important to understand there is a very strong correlation between the two. Nevertheless, we've reached a point were pregnancy no longer has to be a consequence of sexual activity (at least not a serious consequence). Whether or not it should remain a consequence is the name of the little game we're playing here in this blog (which will no doubt influence policymakers for centuries to come).
"We can't make it so a man carries a baby for nine months, but we can make it so a man has to be equally responsible after that for any child he has. That's how we empower the women in this case, by making men take equal responsibility. Then, people will be more responsible about sex, and hopefully, it brings things closer to the marriage model."
Make the man be equally responsible? All I can say is good luck.
"But why stop at abortion then? And I'm not really kidding. Why is a baby at 6 months less of a baby at 9 months and one day? In fact why is a baby at 9 months but still in the womb less of a person that a baby born at 8 months?"
ReplyDeleteI admit this is a moral gray area I find unsettling. While I am fine with questioning the personhood of a zygote, embryo, and early fetus, I find it much harder to justify terminating something capable of surviving outside of the womb.
Well, how about this? Should a woman be required to wait the typical nine months to give birth the natural way when it is feasible to remove the infant several months beforehand? For the first few months the pregnancy is fair game to be terminated, but after a certain point the woman must make the choice of either having a natural birth or having it surgically removed. If my idea is practical, this could be a fair way of preserving both the rights of the woman and the infant.
"Infanticide is the next step here. I'm not going all silly slippery slope here, it's an obvious next step to me."
Legal infanticide? I've got to say I think you've hit silly slippery slope territory. Even diehard Pro-Choicers don't think abortion should be taken lightly. They tend to believe the practice should be safe but rare. Nowhere in the country is there a call to start murdering infants. I really don't see your fear having any strong foundation.
"You ask why we should support measures that promote human suffering. We shouldn't. We shouldn't continue to allow the most vulnerable of our species to continue to be killed in grisly ways just to preserve the false notion that sex lacks consequence."
HA-HA! I knew you would twist my comment about human suffering in such a way as to reflect your own position! I wrote that sentence the other day and thought, "Hmm, John's probably going to make a comment about my use of the term human suffering. He'll probably say something like 'You're right about not supporting human suffering. We need to stop supporting the senseless suffering of millions of aborted babies all over the world.'" Well, I got what I came for. Thank you, John.
I'll try to take this step by step sir.
ReplyDelete"First, I assume your statement about us having a false sense of dominion over reproduction stems from your faith."
Yeah, pretty much. But we don't have this complete dominion. Most people aren't using total sterilization, they're using condoms and the pill. These are effective, they are not 100 percent effective. I'm not saying a lack of effectiveness is the issue, I'm just saying you're wrong. These methods are reliant on the person to be responsible, that doesn't always happen as you know.
""It is a full person with human rights." This is a strong argument; one which cuts across all creeds except, perhaps, for the strongest of nihilists. Nevertheless, the problem of determining personhood is still pertinent. Is a zygote, embryo, or early fetus a person? "
You acknowledge this as a possibility but then you dismiss it. This question is paramount. If it is at any stage a person, it's rights are equal to that of it's mother. We cannot in good conscience say, "Maybe it's a person, but we don't know, so you can kill it."
"Telling people to remain abstinent until marriage is a failed policy. This is one area in which we have great trouble superseding nature, and quite frankly, the deck is stacked strongly against us."
What happened to superceding? We can do this. And I'm not advocating abstinence only education. I'm advocating a cultural change to the point (not any day soon) that people will recognize sex as more than what they see it as now, and as something best preserved for marriage. I don't expect agreement from you on this.
I'm not saying get rid of condoms. I'm not saying get rid of the bill. Right now, I'm saying end abortions. I believe in the short term, that will drive people to use more contraceptives. Over time, I hope, it would lead people to having less extra-, pre-marital sex.
I'm not done, but I have to get back to work, hold off on responding if you will for a few hours.
I don't know if I'll get back to this today, but I will get back to it.
ReplyDeleteI can wait.
DeleteSorry to break the radio silence, but I want to interject a thought.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so quick to discount the moral correctness of infanticide. A newborn is basically a need machine, lacking any understand of, well, anything beyond the feeling of need. Need milk; Need changed; Need warm; Need sleep. There's a visceral reaction on our part, looking at it and saying "this looks like me"; but that's not a legit reason.
I would have no moral compunction against pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo, who also lacked higher brain function. I would also have no moral compunction against slaughtering a pig (although I would prefer the gentlemen at the slaughterhouse do it). What separates a baby from those cases is that it has the possibility, nay probability, of becoming a full-fledged human that thinks and experiences like I do.
But that's also true of a zygote, embryo and fetus. It's also true of my and my wife's genitals when considered together (consider them - you know you want to). All contain the possibility of a human mind. Is it wrong to terminate possibilities? What about probabilities or statistical near certainties?
Where am I going with all of this? I don't know. Oh yeah - Stay outta my booze...
"But that's also true of a zygote, embryo and fetus. It's also true of my and my wife's genitals when considered together (consider them - you know you want to). All contain the possibility of a human mind. Is it wrong to terminate possibilities? What about probabilities or statistical near certainties?"
ReplyDeleteWhat you are not considering is that the zygote, embryo, and earliest stages of the fetus are barely anything more than an extension of the mother's body. Remove them from the womb and see what happens.
Also, I'd rather not consider you and your wife's genitals together. I'd much rather consider your wife's mouth and John's genitals together. OHH! BURN!
I'll rejoin the fray this weekend. Just wanted to say that I was picturing Matt's mouth and my genitals.....but that would make me one of "the gays" so never mind.
ReplyDeleteYo mama
ReplyDeleteYo mama
Yo mama
Yo mama
Yo mama
Yo mama
Yo mama
Yo mama
INCINERATION!
"Mmm, I can't wait to get John's hard, throbbing cock in my mouth."
ReplyDeleteMatt unfastens John's pants and pulls them down to his knees. Anticipation grips his mind as he tries to picture the unfathomable length and girth of his lover's phallic meat patty. Matt tears off John's boxers with the force of a thousand homosexual bodybuilders only to find disappointment in the results.
"This is a bit of a deal-breaker," Matt says as he examines John's crusty vagina. Its orifice oozed pus and blood as Matt poked its clitoris with a stick.
Wow, how do we return to seriousness?
ReplyDeleteLet the seriousness commence...NOW!
ReplyDeleteYou saw his downstairs mixup.
ReplyDeleteDo you love me? Are you playing your love games with me?
ReplyDeleteYes sir. Thank you sir.
ReplyDelete...Waiting with cat-like readiness...
ReplyDeleteMy normal account is having trouble today, so I'll try this one.
ReplyDeleteI wrote: "Contraception is a false security blanket, and when it fails, either by poor design or irresponsibility, it leads to more abortions."
Your response, that the people with the most unintended pregnancies have the most abortions, doesn't undermine my position. Of course they do.
I was unable to find correlating research on who is having the most unmarried sex, but I imagine that group would be among the highest in abortion rates too.
You wrote: "Even if the father is required to provide monetary support (I wonder how many fathers actually end up paying child support? Something to look up later), he still isn't hindered in the same manner as the woman. Also, I find your statement about monetary support not being enough to be interesting. We certainly can't force a man into playing the role of a parent - not a good parent, anyway."
I dunno how many pay, that's not really the point though here. We need to make them. Be it garnishments or whatever. And you're right, even if they do all the financially should, it might not be a good idea for that man to attempt to parent, but that's not really the issue either. He is the parent, and he's stuck, same as the woman, unless they decide to give the child up for adoption.
But let's say they do that, decided early too. The woman is stuck with a baby in her belly for nine months while dad's off doing whatever. Part of this, is nature. We don't have to carry babies. But, and I'm spitballing here, say we make it so if a man isn't doing his part, he can be incarcerated for the duration of gestation. Also, child support should include maternity costs.
Again, I'm not sure how we fix it, but we need to fix it.
---
Sorry to be so slow with this, but Matt's response was long...more to come.
You wrote: "I admit this is a moral gray area I find unsettling. While I am fine with questioning the personhood of a zygote, embryo, and early fetus, I find it much harder to justify terminating something capable of surviving outside of the womb..."
ReplyDeleteThere are some that say a baby is viable (admittedly rare) at 20 weeks. Most agree that at 5 months, we're dealing with viability. I myself was born at 6.5 months.
If I understand, you suggest that a woman can have the child surgically removed at the point of viability instead of having an abortion.
I find this better than abortion, despite it's massive logistical issues. If the child survives, I think it might even be entitled to sue for damages incurred by it's premature expulsion, but again, it probably beats killing the child.
"Nowhere in the country is there a call to start murdering infants. I really don't see your fear having any strong foundation."
I don't see that either Matt, but it's precedent that needs to be considered. Science can tell us that a baby at 6.5 months can survive outside the womb with a little help, but as long as it's in the womb, we can kill it under current law.
So consider the reasons for abortions. The bulk of them happen, if 2002 stats can be believed, because of the affect having a child will have on the woman's lifestyle.
I argue that a newborn has just as much, if not more of an effect. If you can kill it the month before it's born, why not the month after? We shouldn't start down that road.
"Thank you, John."
You're welcome Matt. Glad to amuse.
That's all there is folks.
Sorry to interject again. I'm trying to stay out and spectate, but I'm weak.
ReplyDeleteJohn, the opportunity existed to support (either through direct vote, or by proxy through a politician) legislation that makes abortion after 5 months illegal - do you think the Catholic Church would support it? Or allow it to be supported? Would Catholics in general support it? Would you?
I'm interested in knowing if such a compromise would be viewed as a step forward, or whether the act of supporting it at all would be seen as supporting or legitimizing abortion? I suspect the latter.
I think I and the mentioned parties would likely support it.
ReplyDeleteI can see the Church raising a tizzy about it, but I think it's more likely they would be split on the issue even within. And if the Church did oppose it, unless there was a definitive ruling on the matter, I'd probably go against them on it.
I cite support for parental consent laws among most pro-life advocates. These laws still allow for abortion, but they throw a little obstacle in the way...and we support their doing so.
As such, I believe I'd support it as a step forward. Especially consider that as technology improves, so will viability as more premature babies can be saved with technological assistance.
I must pull a John and say I will respond as soon as I can.
ReplyDeleteI want to "pull a John", but that would make me one of the gays. Ba-Zing!
ReplyDelete"Yeah, pretty much. But we don't have this complete dominion. Most people aren't using total sterilization, they're using condoms and the pill. These are effective, they are not 100 percent effective. I'm not saying a lack of effectiveness is the issue, I'm just saying you're wrong. These methods are reliant on the person to be responsible, that doesn't always happen as you know."
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point. We have complete dominion over reproduction because we can terminate the results of a pregnancy and, if desired, bring an end to our ability to reproduce. We as a society have the ability to negate reproduction, much in the same manner that we have the ability to build nuclear bombs - but not EVERYBODY does it.
"You acknowledge this as a possibility but then you dismiss it. This question is paramount. If it is at any stage a person, it's rights are equal to that of it's mother. We cannot in good conscience say, 'Maybe it's a person, but we don't know, so you can kill it.'"
I'm not dismissing it. Surely by now you know my stance on the issue? It is its own person when it can survive independently of the mother. Now, I know this takes us into some tricky territory. If an infant can survive outside the womb at five or six months with the assistance of modern technology, then at what point is it appropriate to call it its own person? Would it be morally wrong to kill a child removed from the womb if it otherwise would not be able to survive without assistance? These are tough questions (not for you, of course), but does the mere existence of these questions mean I must view the issue of abortion as either being all black or all white? I don't think so, especially since the rights of women must also be plugged into the equation.
"What happened to superceding? We can do this. And I'm not advocating abstinence only education. I'm advocating a cultural change to the point (not any day soon) that people will recognize sex as more than what they see it as now, and as something best preserved for marriage. I don't expect agreement from you on this."
ReplyDeleteFreedom of choice. Not everyone has to have the exact same values as you. Additionally, you really seem to be underestimating the human sex drive....BUT YOU SHOULDN'T! Even you, for how strong your convictions are, gave into the desire to have your genitals stimulated by another human being. Granted, you managed to hold out until marriage for sexual intercourse, but can you really blame others for failing to do so?
"Your response, that the people with the most unintended pregnancies have the most abortions, doesn't undermine my position. Of course they do."
Yes, it does undermine your position. You quite clearly said that relying on birth control, a "false security blanket," leads to MORE abortions. This is not true. The situation which leads to more unintended pregnancies leads to MORE abortions. So, which line of thinking leads to more unintended pregnancies? Is it the one which promotes the proper use of birth control or the one that allows adolescents to stumble around in the dark about the topic of sex while the Christian Right crosses its fingers and hopes OH SO VERY VERY hard that it works? I shouldn't have to tell you.
I feel like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You give some kudos to birth control, but then you turn around and attack it. All the while you're wishing people would remain abstinent until marriage, even though you know damn well (or at least you should know) this is not realistic and utterly fails to arm young adults with the knowledge needed to prevent unintended pregnancies after they ignore the message of this uncompromising idealism. I would love to know what a sex ed class designed by Mr. Stegeman would look like.
"I dunno how many pay, that's not really the point though here. We need to make them. Be it garnishments or whatever. And you're right, even if they do all the financially should, it might not be a good idea for that man to attempt to parent, but that's not really the issue either. He is the parent, and he's stuck, same as the woman, unless they decide to give the child up for adoption."
I should clarify that my original point was strictly psychological. Women bare the burden of pregnancy. As such, legislation meant to restrict reproductive choice falls specifically on her. It is she who must become distrustful of sex. It is she who must be fearful of her body betraying her hopes and dreams by becoming pregnant. Men, on the other hand, will not have to worry about this. They will not have the same psychological barriers forced upon them. Unless, of course, we go down your path and force them to be more supportive both financially and physically. However, it becomes quite obvious that you are a TOTALITARIAN NAZI COMMIE SOCIALIST FREEMASON! YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY AN ENEMY OF LIBERTY AND A MISANTHROPIC ZIONIST CONSPIRATOR!
"If I understand, you suggest that a woman can have the child surgically removed at the point of viability instead of having an abortion.I find this better than abortion, despite it's massive logistical issues. If the child survives, I think it might even be entitled to sue for damages incurred by it's premature expulsion, but again, it probably beats killing the child."
ReplyDeleteI have no idea how viable my plan actually is. It was just a thought. Perhaps sometime soon artificial wombs will go from being primarily science fiction to science fact? When this happens there will be no need to terminate a pregnancy.
In the meantime, I suppose there is a need for a "statute of limitations" in regard to abortion. The majority of states already have this in place, anyway.
"I don't see that either Matt, but it's precedent that needs to be considered. Science can tell us that a baby at 6.5 months can survive outside the womb with a little help, but as long as it's in the womb, we can kill it under current law. So consider the reasons for abortions. The bulk of them happen, if 2002 stats can be believed, because of the affect having a child will have on the woman's lifestyle. I argue that a newborn has just as much, if not more of an effect. If you can kill it the month before it's born, why not the month after? We shouldn't start down that road."
There is no precedent for legalized infanticide. A newborn need not affect the lifestyle of the parent(s). Why? Because the state will take care of it if you really don't want it. Why would foster care and adoption be superseded by legal infanticide?
Ok, I know the below text doesn't cover everything, but it's all I've got. Respond to this stuff, maybe I get to the rest, maybe I don't
ReplyDelete----------------
We have complete dominion because we can kill the child within, yes. Same as you could say we have complete dominion over all life because we can kill, but not everybody does it. I'm not sure what the point is here.
And so to be clear, you oppose abortion at the point of viability? Would you support federal legislation toward that end? Because state regulation aside, federal law still allows for abortion at just about anytime.
And it's not black and white. Abortion is wrong, period, yes. But neither me nor any pro-lifer finds the rights of the woman irrelevant. What I am saying, is that outside of cases of rape, once conception occurs, the woman is not suffering from a disease or condition. She has a new person within her. That is a result, outside of rape, of her decisions.
Because of that, she does not have the right to take the life for her own convenience.
I'm not underestimating the human sex drive. I sin. Others sin. People will always sin. But because people will commit sin a doesn't mean we should encourage sin b. A baby is not a problem, in the true sense, it's a gift. Whether an expected gift or not is irrelevant. Sorry you might have to deal with nine months of pregnancy.
If you told someone, you're going to be paralyzed for nine months, or we'll murder a complete stranger and you won't have to deal with it. On top of that, say you're paralyzed because you jumped off a cliff.
The moral choice here, in this magic world, is to accept the consequence of your actions, rather than to murder someone else.
I don't think abortion is much different.
The part about having complete dominion over reproduction is a moot point. It's of no real significance to the discussion. You said in one of your earlier posts that we are under the illusion of having complete dominance over reproduction. I assumed this statement stemmed from your faith because we quite clearly do have complete control over reproduction (even though you think God will stamp the sin card in our permanent record if we choose to exercise our control).
ReplyDelete"And so to be clear, you oppose abortion at the point of viability? Would you support federal legislation toward that end? Because state regulation aside, federal law still allows for abortion at just about anytime."
Yes to both. You're not going to say this makes me a hypocrite are you?
"She has a new person within her."
Why should a zygote, embryo, or the earliest stages of a fetus be considered a person?
"But because people will commit sin a doesn't mean we should encourage sin b."
Is sin b abortion or birth control? If it is abortion, then that's not the point at all. I support educating people about birth control, and its proper use, because I want for there to be fewer unintended pregnancies (and you know what these lead to). It's the most practical solution to the problem.
"The moral choice here, in this magic world, is to accept the consequence of your actions, rather than to murder someone else."
Yes, the moral choice would be to accept the consequences instead of killing a person. Now, a zygote, embryo, and early fetus should be considered a person because...?
No that doesn't make you a hypocrite, and I'm happy we can be co-belligerents in that cause.
ReplyDeleteSin b is abortion or birth control. Both are a sin.
Why is a zygote/embryo a person?
The zygote is simply the youngest state of a human being. It is genetically distinct from both its parents and already on the path that will lead eventually to it's birth and continued aging and development.
Obviously the earliest zygote, it's hard to make a lot of comparisons to us, except it that it will be like us if not interrupted. It has the same number of chromosomes as you and I.
As for the embryo stage, it starts to look like a person around what, four weeks? It has brain activity around week six. Hair starts to grow at this point. Less than two months in.
It's no where near viable at this stage, but it looks like a person. It moves. It consumes.
It is not viable on its own, but it will be. And soon. It's just at a state in it's development where it needs to be in the womb.
It should be considered a person because it is one.
"It should be considered a person because it is one."
ReplyDeleteA dozen or so cells arranged in a circle? I'm sorry but that's absurd on it's face.
I have a hard time with this issue because part of me is very sympathetic to the side that says "It must be given the benefit of the doubt as far as when it becomes human", and it makes me very cautious about supporting the act of abortion, because it may very well be wrong. If this were purely about abortion, then... But it's not. It's not really about abortion, it's about what is catholic docrine and the multitude of positions that exist outside and otherwise.
You are saying, in effect, that using a hormonal reaction to expel a dozen or so cells which are arranged in a circle is EXACTLY as wrong as me taking my hands of the keyboard, going upstairs, getting my gun, walking next door, ringing my neighbor's doorbell and when he opens the door, blowing a hole in his head right in front of his wife.
Believe that if you want to, but don't act surprised that most of the world finds that ludicrous.
I'll be honest here. I don't know if on the face of it those two things SEEM equally wrong to me either.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, the Church has always taught that abortion is a grave sin but it's in more recent years they've equated it to murder.
I however submit to the authority of the Church, and, I can see their point too.
But Church position aside, you should be willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Fuck my reasons, if you believe that we should err on the side of life, then you should support that, even if that makes you co-belligerent's with crazy ass Christians like me.
Good answer, I dig the honesty.
ReplyDeleteI'm an advocate of giving the benefit of the doubt (or erring on the side of caution - pick your aphorism), but I hesitate before deciding who gets the benefit.
Not every abortion is about a 16 year old princess who wants to go to party at College, sans child. There's a lot to weigh - the potential life of the child, the life of the mother, the likelihood of adoption, societal concerns.
While those might not be persuasive to you, they give me pause. Choosing to support a fertilized embryo over all of that is not necessarily a slam dunk for me.
I buy the life of the mother argument, I can see that. I'll even say I understand where if they child is likely to die, some might find it acceptable, though I'd disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe others? No they're not an issue for me. Likelihood of adoption? Societal concerns? Admittedly I'm not so sure on the latter but as to the former, who cares?
Life in "the system" might be shit for some people, but some come out of it just fine. Who are we to say the kid shouldn't have a chance? I don't think I need doctrine to see that's not right.
But I'm off topic a little. I understand how some of it could give pause. I do.
Those issues don't matter to you because their not tangible enough to be cut-and-dry, and once the kid's born, they're off your plate anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt matters to me whether I'm forcing a shit-life in the system, polluting the world with more kids, or ruining a perfectly viable adult life with the burden of another kid. I don't have definate answers to those concerns, but it doesn't negate the fact that are valid concerns.
Agree to disagree, I suppose.
In future, we should refer to this discussion as the "Great Abortion War of 2012".
ReplyDeleteYour last Feb. 13 comment makes it seem as if you are valuing the system over the life of the pre-born. Is that correct?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you're saying that ruining a perfectly viable adult life with the burden of a kid is an issue for you. That's hardcore. That's saying to the unborn (metaphorically) that "Mommy's life will be easier if you she kills you now."
That's a viewpoint you're entitled too, but that's what it is.
I'd argue more but we'll just be circling at this point I think. I agree with your name for this event.
Well... yeah. These things are issues for me, so I guess I'm hardcore.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens to the kid after it is born matters to me. Whether "some make it out of the system fine" doesn't change that concern. The other day I was watching this video about orphanages for disabled children in Bulgaria. Long story short, they're basically hell on earth. I have no doubt that aborting that child in the first trimester would be a mercy.
The interests of society as a whole are a concern too. It's not everything, but it's something, yes. It impacts the question of rightness and wrongness.
Ditto for the mother's quality of life. I don't know whether it matters more than the rights of the child, but it does matter, to some extent.
"Mommy's life will be easier if you she kills you now."
You constantly reduce this down to the self-centered whore-mom who has the means, but just can't be bothered with a kid. If I were advocating a carte-blanche, abortion-on-demand policy, it would be valid to refer only to the extremes, but I'm not. What I want is a sensible set of rules that take into consideration all the factors. I'm also arguing against your position that it's never permissible in any circumstances, and that any factor other than the life of the fetus after fertilization is irrelevant.
Consider this scenario: A married black couple that are living at or around the poverty line, with 7 children already. No one can blame them for having sex, and they really can't support another kid. The possiblities for a black child in an orphanage or foster situation are not good. It wouldn't be unreasonable to predict that this kid has a difficult life (that is probably going to involve drugs and prison) ahead of him.
Now, you can say that the kid still deserves a chance, and that's perfectly fair. But it's not fair to scold that couple by saying "Yeah, I guess it's more important that you make your life easier, huh?". In that case, yeah, they deserve to make their life easier. Sorry, but yeah.
Random thought: Unless you're a vegetarian, the moralization over squashing the life of a zygote is very silly to me. Every night while I'm sleeping, I probably swallow a form of life with a higher brain capacity. And I definately do it every day when I eat my meatsies for ever meal of the day. You can flay the signing chimpanzees alive in a pool of tobasco, but don't flush the ring of cells away. I don't mean this as an argument, it's just funny. You call me hardcore for considering anything beyond that rights of the zygote, but can simlutaneously giggle at the tree-huggers who can't man up enough to eat a burger.
No, I am considering the other factors. The life of the mother/family do matter. The life of the child matters. Society matters. Lots of things in this scenario matter.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I am not saying cut and dry outlawing abortions will fix the problem. In a perfect world, we make abortion unnecessary. We make it so these kids do have a chance if they are put up for adoption. We make it so a single mom or struggling family doesn't have to choose between paying their bills and having another child.
Yes I'm aiming very very high, and yes in the meantime I want to preserve the life of the unborn.
Who said anything about a whore-mom scenario. In the line I referenced, I didn't say who the mom is. In the scenario you presented, my statement applies there too.
Whether Mommy is a whore, a well-adjusted woman, a broke lady or anything else, that's what who that statement is for.
With the scenario you gave, it is fair to scold that couple if what they've done is end a human life. That's really what this comes down to. There's no reason they can't abstain from the few days a month needed for NFP but that's not the point. Point is, it's a human life or it's not.
If it's not, I'm full of shit. If it is, you're not full of shit, but you're borderline evil.
Their kid does deserve a chance. Adoption isn't a lost cause for kids of any race. But the fact is, they're saying they can't be bothered with a nine-month inconvenience to give their kid a shot at life.
That's what your saying, so say it. You want to call me out all the time to be clear, I'm doing it to you now. Say "My position is that killing the unborn child is acceptable because it's right to live is lesser than it's parents right to not have to bear it."
Since your being silly there's no reason to point out that the things you swallow at night are unlikely to develop into human beings.
I don't call you hardcore for considering things other than the life of the unborn. I call you hard core for considering them, and finding them to have no right to live.
I'd like to oblige, but I don't believe that it should solely rest on the mother's right to not have to bear it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the best decision should be made - period.
"Best" involves not just the interests of the mother and father but the child (who has no choice about the path layed out in front of him).
I WILL admit that all things being equal, I would like to take your way and say that every human life, no matter how undeveloped, has a right to continue to develop. I would like to protect even the circle of cells.
But all things are not equal, and there are some circumstances which would just be wrong to force the child to term. I cannot, in good conscience say that the circle of cells has more moral weight than anything else put together. I don't know at what exact point the scale tips, and I will also admit that it's wishy-washy, and shades-of-grey and unprincipled, but that's how I do business, ethically. I'm after acheiving the best possible, practical, real world good.
To turn it back on you, your reasons are just as arbitrary as mine. You do this, ultimately, because God says, not because of the inherent value of life. God has given you the teaching, you in turn obey. It's not up to you to judge for yourself the rights of a child - that's God's job. It's enough only that you understand the moral command and do it.
Your method applies to broadly. It doesn't need to be all black and white. I appreciate your slight acknowledgement of a right to life, and I can understand your best decision idea. One issue, of many, I have with that, is that I believe life and all the things a child might do and experience and be a part of, is not something that can be so easily dismissed before they are born.
ReplyDeleteOne needs to consider the enormity of a human life. It's a lot bigger than I think you are considering. Any unwanted child can be put up for adoption. That child might stay a ward of the state, or he/she might end up with parents like mine. It's a bit of a crap shoot sure, but I think that dice roll is being more fair than saying "I judge that this life would probably be difficult" and ending it.
And back on me, this is another place where you misunderstand me and my faith and how Catholicism works. While I've admitted that in many ways, I'm a slave, as it were, I am not an unthinking one.
My master gave me my reason to use, but not above His. He's told me that life has inherent value. My reason needlessly confirms this, but still it does. I'm supposed to understand the why behind these things too. And in this case, I think I do.
Fair enough. It still seems arbitrary to me, but I suppose that's my issue to deal with, not yours. At any rate, I won't press the matter.
ReplyDeleteI do consider the enormity of human life. And I understand that my best estimation of the entirety of a child's potential is, at best, meager. I simply don't know. I'm woefully inadequate to the task of understanding the experiences of another life. Granted.
But you are making an assumption about where the burden of proof lies. You are putting the onus on me to prove that a child's life wouldn't be, for lack of a better description, "good". I challenge that assumption.
I feel happy to be alive, but I've been unbelievably lucky. I was born an American, white, male from a middle class family, with no physical or mental handicaps. Before I was even born, I'd basically won the lottery.
For a multitudes of people in the past, and many still today, life means a life of near constant hunger or pain. I'm not rushing to euthanize them, I'd rather make their lives better, but my point is, I don't automatically assume that life is inherently good for those folks.