The Raving Atheist, with a little help from Dawn Eden, goes after the evil pro-choice women of the Haven Coalition. Now, what these women do is pretty awful, so prepare yourselves: They invite low-income women into their homes when these women travel to New York for abortions. They feed them. They give them a place to sleep. They bring them to the clinic the next morning.
Horrifying, isn’t it?
So, full disclosure: I’m a Haven volunteer (although, sadly, I’ve been inactive this semester). I’ve written about vounteering for them before, because I think what the organization does is so important — it’s grassroots, it’s hands-on, and it helps women on an individual level. Women come to New York from all over to get second-trimester abortions. They’re often poor, and often very much victims of circumstance: Working one or two minimum-wage jobs with no health insurance; living in states where medicaid doesn’t cover birth control or abortion; unable to save up enough money for an earlier procedure; then scrambling to get the thousands of dollars necessary to pay for a second-trimester abortion and transportation to New York City. Often, these women are already mothers, so coming to New York means not only taking time off work (and losing much-needed money), but finding reliable childcare.
They show up in New York early in the morning, and wait at the clinic all day. In their first hours there, a social worker often works with them to exhaust ever possible funding option — friends, relatives, the New York Abortion Access Fund (donate if you can). Then they go through the first half of the two-day procedure.
These women show up knowing no one. Sometimes they bring a friend or a relative — the first girl I met through Haven was 14, and came with her mother — but usually they’re alone. They have no money, and no accomodations for the night. Before Haven, they were sleeping on park benches or in the bus station. What we do is simple: We pick them up from the clinic, bring them to our homes, feed them, and give them a place to sleep. Then we bring them back to the clinic the next day.
It makes me deeply angry that these women have to leave their kids, leave their homes, and rely on strangers just to access a legal medical procedure. It makes me angrier when people who have never met these women, who have no clue about their lives, respond with simplicities like, “They could put their baby up for adoption” or argue that Haven volunteers are somehow reprehensible, and should be “counselling” these women about giving birth instead. By the time someone travels out of state, spends every penny she has, shows up to the clinic and has the first part of the procedure completed, she’s probably made up her mind. It’s the worst kind of arrogance to assume that maybe she just hasn’t thought about raising a child or giving it up for adoption, and that if I just talk to her about it she’ll decide that I probably know what’s better for her than she does.
The Raving Atheist and the commenters over at Dawn Eden’s take specific issue with the way that Haven was presented by one volunteer who wrote an article about it for New York Magazine. And that’s fine if they don’t like her take on it — her feelings aren’t universal, and she was simply representing one perspective. RA writes, “Nothing about this procedure is so disturbing, serious or hardcore, however, that Haven’s helpers would ever consider discouraging Adeena from undergoing it.” And he’s right. My big question is, “So what?”
I’m not there to project my personal morality onto these women — although, to be clear, I find it far more offensive that they’re forced to jump through all these hoops in the first place, and my moral belief is that when it comes to reproduction, women themselves know what’s best for their bodies and their lives. Haven volunteers are there to make things just a little easier on women who already have more than their fair share of burdens. We aren’t there to tell them what’s right or wrong for them, and that’s the point — we don’t tell pregnant women that they should or shouldn’t make a particular choice, we trust them to know what’s best for themselves. And that’s the key difference between the pro- and anti-choice perspectives: Anti-choicers like RA and Dawn believe that women should only have one choice when it comes to pregnancy, that this choice is always the best choice for every single person, and that anyone who doesn’t push women in the direction of this choice is morally wrong. It’s insulting, frankly. Commenters at Dawn’s offered suggestions about homes where these women could live for a year if they decided to give birth, because “Although I do believe you are doing this out of compassion, perhaps helping them in a positive way instead of feeding in to their desperation and having them live with the fact that they terminated a late term pregnancy instead of giving them the help they need to have their children (who they obviously did not want to abort if they waited so long) seems like a better way to help them.”
The vast majority of these women have homes. They have families, and friends, and jobs, and kids, and social networks. Many of them are in school. They’ve established their lives, and it’s not a “solution” to say, “Leave everything you have and come live for free at this shelter for a year while you have a kid!” If that’s what they want to do, then that’s great. But pushing them in that direction when they clearly want something else is insulting.
The fundamental disagreement between people like Dawn and people like me, of course, comes down to issues of bodily autonomy and, according to them, “life.” I generally do try and give anti-choicers the benefit of the doubt; many of them, particularly those who have been raised with no other information and no experience with sex or reproduction, really do believe that it’s all about saving babies. But of course, it’s not, and the savvier anti-choicers realize that as much as I do. If a fertilized egg was the equivalent of a life — of Dawn’s life, or RA’s life — you can bet that the truest pro-lifers would be launching a massive campaign for scientific research to make sure that every single fertilized egg implanted in the uterus. As it stands, almost half of all fertilized eggs just naturally don’t implant, and are flushed out — pregnancy never even occurs. If these are really human lives, then we’ve got a big fat problem. But I haven’t seen any pro-life campaign to save all of these babies. Have you?
Similarly, if an embryo or a fetus is the exact same thing as a born child, then abortion is murder, plain and simple, and women who abort are murderers. The anti-choice platform, then, should include the necessary punishment, right? I mean, we can’t just excuse murderers. And yet many anti-choicers claim that they don’t believe that these women should go to jail, or should get the death penalty. Why not? Would they hold the same belief for a person who killed a 7-year-old?
Now, I know that most anti-choicers think embryos and fetuses are forms of life — heck, lots of pro-choicers believe that too. But I’m not sure that the majority of anti-choicers truly believe that a fertilized is the moral and actual equivalent of a born human being, as they claim. If that was the case, their belief system would not have such inconsistencies.
But I digress. My point, basically, is that Haven helps women how they need it, when they need it. We address a need that isn’t being filled. Women will have a abortions whether we’re there or not; the women we help wouldn’t be doing anything differently if we didn’t exist. They’d just be sleeping outside or in their cars. How do I know? Because that’s what they were doing before us, and that’s what they still come planning to do. People don’t take those extreme steps and make those kinds of sacrifices to have a stranger lecture them about how they should be making a different choice. I don’t think it’s helpful to women to treat them like children or idiots. I don’t think that women should be punished for their choices by being forced to sleep outside while they undergo a medical procedure. I think it’s abhorrent enough that because of anti-choice politics, they can’t be in their own beds.
So RA, Dawn and I will just have to disagree about this one. But I wonder how many “pro-life” people actually back things that will prevent abortions, and that will make it easier for pregnant women to have children? How many pro-life groups support available and affordable contraception access? Universal healthcare? Welfare benefits to low-income women and their children? These are the things that actually give women the choice to have children, when and if they want to. But all I’m seeing over at Dawn’s are complaints about Planned Parenthood, which actually gives women the tools to prevent unintended pregnancies. So you’ll excuse me if I find it a little ridiculous that anti-choice armchair activists are spending their days complaining about a group of women who get off our butts and actually help other women; and that the major complaint from the anti-choice faction is that we don’t bend to their arrogant and punishing vision of morality in our grassroots activism.
I’ll leave you with two comments left on Dawn’s site, one from Havener Mara, who was the woman who interviewed me for the coalition, and one from Haven founder Catherine Megill. Mara:
I spent 3 years as a Haven volunteer. The NY Mag article was one article, written by one person, about her experience of being an older, educated, white Jewish woman hosting women who are very different from herself. It’s true that most of the women Haven helps are black and Latina, but that most is more like 60-70% than the 99% people seem to be inferring.
What these women all have in common is poverty. We don’t need to ask these women why they’ve waited so long. It’s because 87% of US counties do not have an abortion provider (97% in rural areas), the cost is prohibitive to these women, many of whom are mothers with children and were using birth control that failed. Many had to wait while they painstakingly tried to raise the money for a procedure that can cost up to $2000 dollars. Many did not know of the pregnancy until the second trimester (thank you, Depo Prevera and Seasonal), or learned of a fetal abnormality, or needed time to seek guidance and advice from a combination of family, friends, priests and ministers. The middle and upper middle class women getting abortions are able to do so in their hometowns, without having to take time off work, arrange for childcare, travel hundreds of miles and be put in the mutually awkward position of sleeping in a strangers house and sharing what may be one of the hardest and most private decisions these women make in their lives.
Haven patients come from all over the East coast. Some have been referred by a clinic in their area, others by a friend, and others simply use the yellow pages. Some know that they will have “a place” to stay when they arrive, but others are so desperate they arrive with sleeping bags and extra layers of clothes, expecting to sleep outside or in their cars. Many of these women have never been to NYC, know it only from television, and believe someone gets murdered there every single day, just like on Law & Order.
No, Haven volunteers are not passive. Some speak for hours to the women we host. Usually, Haven volunteers meet these women the first night of the procedure. Sometimes patients are met the night before the procedure, or when the patient arrives and has to wait to begin the procedure until funding has been procured. All of Haven’s patients receive counseling – in their home town clinics, at the New York clinic – or both, that gives them all their options – termination, parenting, adoption. This includes information about resource centers. Occasionally Haven patients change their minds. Volunteers do not try and stop them. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.
I have a lot of respect for the writer of the NY Magazine article, but also feel that a lot of what appeared in the article was left on the floor of the editing room. For a broader look at the Haven Coalition, let me refer you to the following articles:
http://www.villagevoice.com/ news…ck,36211,1.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/fea…n/ index_np.html
My work with Haven was not about whether abortion is right or wrong. It was about my outrage at the fact that women (and almost only poor women) have to face ridiculous obstacles to obtain a medical procedure that is our right by law, a procedure that should be between a woman, her doctor, and, where applicable, her partner and her god. It’s not my place to make that decision for anyone but myself. But for three years I am proud to say it was my place to give shelter to women who needed it.
And from Haven founder Catherine Megill:
First of all, it’s great to see that Haven hosts are speaking up in this forum. I especially want to show appreciation for Mara who is one of the most dedicated people I have ever met – and my dear, you are not a “former” Havener, you are forever. Everything you wrote was brilliant.
Now then.
If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. But don’t assume that you know what’s best for someone else. No Haven host (or pro-choice person worthy of the name) EVER tries to influence somebody one way or another about HER pregnancy. Obviously, Haven hosts believe that abortion is just as valid a choice as its alternative, childbirth; and that women know what is best for them in their own particular circumstances. If you don’t believe this, there is no point in even getting into it with you. In the end, it doesn’t matter whether you or I agree or disagree with the morality of abortion; what matters is that some women need abortions. How do I know they need them? Because they say they need them, and I TRUST WOMEN, as moral agents, to know what is best for their uteri and their lives. I would never tell a woman that she “should” have an abortion any more than I would tell her that she “should” have a baby. Where do some people get off doing that? (Please note that you can be against abortion and still be pro-choice. You just have to be willing to refuse to impose your views on others.)
Every hosting experience is viewed through the lens of the particular host. I can assure you that the vast majority of our hosts do not judge patients in the way that “Atheist” seems to fear we do, and indeed these kinds of judgments go against what we stand for. Of course, each host will interpret her guest’s actions in her own way, but if anyone does find these women “mystifying”, it probably reflects their own limited capacity for empathy and imagination, rather than the actual situation or character of the patient. (Also, the best way to answer the questions you have inside is to ask them, and I have rarely seen a Haven patient that is not willing to share and discuss when approached with an open mind and warm heart). As the Salon article says, “Haven’s emphasis from early on was that you are not this person’s savior, you are not better than her; you’re helping her, but you are helping her because you are sisters.”
If you don’t understand why and how Haven hosts do what they do, that’s fine. You’re not Haven hosts; you don’t have to. For those who had an abortion and feel bad about it now; that isn’t the fault of abortion providers and it in no way means that everyone does or will feel as you do. Check out imnotsorry.net if you don’t believe me. For those who love the discussion and the hand-wringing and the moral outrage as a way of feeling smarter and better than others, I give to you a quote from Elbert Hubbard: “There was one who thought himself above me, and he was above me until he had that thought”. So keep on outraging and hand-wringing and posting snide or long or heartfelt statements on how you know better than pregnant women what they should do with their bodies – I’m sure you don’t have a lot to contribute in other ways anyhow. In the meantime, Haven will be continuing its wonderful work, and hundreds of women will return home thanking their lucky stars that someone cared.
I’ve got a better idea.
Catherine Megill’s comments are great but let’s just switch abortion for infanticide and see if her logic could be used to support infanticide.
“If you don’t agree with infanticide, don’t kill your infant. But don’t assume that you know what’s best for someone else. No Haven host (or pro-infanticide person worthy of the name) EVER tries to influence somebody one way or another about HER infant. Obviously, Haven hosts believe that infanticide is just as valid a choice as its alternative, childrearing; and that women know what is best for them in their own particular circumstances. If you don’t believe this, there is no point in even getting into it with you. In the end, it doesn’t matter whether you or I agree or disagree with the morality of infanticide; what matters is that some women need infanticide. How do I know they need them? Because they say they need infanticide, and I TRUST WOMEN, as moral agents, to know what is best for their infants and their lives. I would never tell a woman that she “should” kill her infant any more than I would tell her that she “should” not kill her infant. Where do some people get off doing that?”
Ohhh good point. Here I wanna play.
I like to play soccer.
Now let’s switch play soccer to murder people.
I like to murder people.
Spooky
Robert, not such a good idea.
I’m pro-choice. But I’ve got to tell you, as a nurse with years of experience on an urban OB unit, that elective abortion is an abused procedure. I take care of women, young women, who have had 3,4, or 5 elective abortions (first trimester abortions) in five year spans. They have access to contraception. And they have the ability to abstain from unprotected sex with multiple partners. I believe that to terminate a pregnancy is often in the mother’s best interest and should be supported. But for God’s sake, I’ve had women who have had an elective abortion and then gotten pregnant again a month later. Many women.
Major difference: Catherine Megill was talking about the rights of women to make decisions about their own reproductive organs. An infant is a separate entity, not a physical part of her over which she both morally and legally has ownership.
By the way, it’s not a very good argument to say, “Let’s take this person’s statement, then substitute in something that they weren’t talking about, and then gather that because that second thing is wrong, the first is wrong too!”
Blogpimping and derailing are ALWAYS better ideas.
i am hoping that this is relevant as it relates to reproductive freedom. Here in New Zealand the ‘abortion pill’, RU 486, is legally available but there has recently been discussion about Australian women travelling here to get it, as it’s not available there due a belligerent Health Minister. A story published this week:
Doctors deny pill leads to abortion
Dec 15, 2005
Doctors deny women will have more terminations if they have access to the abortion pill RU486.
The controversial drug is effectively banned in Australia, with Health Minister Tony Abbott having the final word on whether it should be available.
A Senate inquiry today began looking into a private members’ bill which would strip the health minister of his power of veto and give it to medical experts at the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
The inquiry comes ahead of a conscience vote in federal parliament next year on ending the ban on the drug.
It is certain to be a highly-charged debate, with some of that emotion evident during the hearing on Thursday.
Anti-abortion senators, including the Nationals’ Barnaby Joyce, questioned the morality of abortion.
Responding to comments by the Women’s Electoral Lobby that a woman had a right to choose what she did to her body, Joyce asked why a foetus had no legal rights until it was born.
“If I shoot a woman and don’t kill her but kill the baby, I haven’t actually committed a crime?,” Joyce said.
WEL ACT spokeswoman Roslyn Dundas responded that shooting a woman was still committing a crime.
Family First senator Steve Fielding said his party was extremely concerned that women who take RU486 at home would give birth to their own foetuses.
“Women would then have to dispose of their own foetuses,” he said after questioning Christine Tippett, from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, on how women would dispose of the foetus it was expelled from their body at home.
Tippett said Australian women were being denied a choice available to women around the world. She rejected claims women would rush to terminate pregnancies if the pill was freely available.
“There is no evidence to support that at all,” Tippett said. “Women do not choose lightly to have terminations.”
The Australian Medical Association cited UK data to back the statement that terminations were unlikely to rise due to RU486.
AMA president Mukesh Haikerwal said in the UK, where RU486 was introduced in 1991, the abortion rate did not return to pre-RU486 levels until 1996.
Despite support for the pill from a significant section of the medical community, one group of doctors is against the widespread use of the drug.
David van Gend, from the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, said abortion-inducing drugs were unique in that they were designed to end human life.
“Therefore their use demands a unique level of public scrutiny and accountability,” he said.
The Australian Reproductive Health Alliance backed an arms-length process for deciding whether the drugbbott accepts bureaucrats have better information on which to base any decision.
“They have a better idea of the scientific arguments but in the end it’s not just the science that should determine our decision on these matters,” he said.
“There’s a whole range of ethical and social considerations which are important here.”
any thoughts?
It’s fun, though.
“Let’s substitute ‘strangle’ for ‘trap-neuter-release.’”
“Let’s substitute ‘burning bag of dogshit’ for ‘Holiday fruitcake.’”
“Let’s substitute ‘Burn in Hell, Christ-killing miscreants!’ for ‘Happy Hannukah.’”
“Let’s substitute ‘Grandma’ for ‘pork tenderloin.’”
“Let’s substitute ‘the poor’ for ‘terminally ill pets.’”
“Let’s substitute ‘Dakota Fanning’ for ‘Heath Ledger.’”
I love this game!
Jill,
I was attempting to show how poor Ms. Mebill reasoning was. The “Don’t like abortion, don’t have one” line has to be the lamest pro-choice bumper sticker argument out there. Replacing infanticide with abortion merely shows that her lack of reasoning could also be used in favor of killing born children.
You say, “Major difference: Catherine Megill was talking about the rights of women to make decisions about their own reproductive organs. An infant is a separate entity, not a physical part of her over which she both morally and legally has ownership. ”
Then the real issue isn’t about “imposing views” or “assuming one’s knows best” or “trusting women” as Ms. Megill would argue but “are the unborn deserving of similar rights as the recently born?”
Do you have anything to back up your belief that the unborn is a physical part of a woman’s body? A completely distinct genetic code and the ability to direct his/her own development would seem to indicate that while the unborn are currently residing in and connected to their mother they are about as much a physical part of her as a tapeworm is a part of me.
All right, it’s not part of her body. If that’s the case, what’s the problem with removing it?
No. The issue is still about imposing views — as in, quit imposing your views over whether or not women should be able to decide what happens within their own uteruses. Trust women to decide what happens with their own organs.
What, by engaging in poor reasoning yourself?
All your little sleight-of-rhetoric showed was that an argument that works for one thing–like, say, a relationship between Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger–does not work for something else–like, say, a relationship between Jake Gyllenhaal and Jonathan Lipnicki. Why? Well, they’re two different things, with different repercussions. Sodomy and pedophilia cannot be equated, so privacy-right arguments cannot be extrapolated from the former to the latter. The argument does not work with infanticide because infanticide is not equivalent to abortion.
Off of the debating Haven topic, kind of: any idea of similar organizations in other areas of the country? I’m in Chicago, and it seems like it might be likely that women in other midwestern states might be looking to Chicago for safe access to abortion as well. Tried googling, but didn’t find anything.
Jivin J:
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!
Oh. You CAN’T!
Why are you even in this conversation?
It’s cruel to throw someone’s disability in his face.
I have my moments…
“A completely distinct genetic code and the ability to direct his/her own development”
A cancer has both those things too. Does that make it a person? If you’re over 20 or so, you’re no longer developing, therefore, no longer directing your own development. Does that make you not a person?
“If I shoot a woman and don’t kill her but kill the baby, I haven’t actually committed a crime?,” Joyce said.
WEL ACT spokeswoman Roslyn Dundas responded that shooting a woman was still committing a crime.
I just wanted to point that one out again. She seems to have let slip that the woman doesn’t matter so much, just the fetus.
Isn’t there some way to remove an MP that is so obviously ignorant of the law? Not knowing intimate details of, say, tax law would be one thing, but not knowing that assault with a deadly weapon is a crime, even if it’s just a woman? Good grief.
Also, I’d like to echo Rabbit’s question, but nationwide. Does anyone know of other groups and/or offshoots of Haven in other major urban areas? Especially in redredred states like mine (Texas)? It seems that Fort Worth/Dallas or Houston would be good areas for one of these programs; likewise Atlanta, Charleston, SC, etc.
I don’t know of any other Haven-like programs in other cities. Haven exists here primarily because NYC has particularly permissive abortion laws, and allows abortions later than most other states nearby. But if anyone else is familiar with similar groups, please share.
And that Australian article was indeed telling. I personally thought that this part was profoundly ignorant:
RU-486 can only be taken very early in pregnancy (within the first 9 weeks). The “fetus” is no more than half an inch long (and until about the eighth week, it’s still an embryo). When it’s expelled, it’ll look like a blood clot, if it’s noticed at all. Disposal really isn’t an issue.
Come on, Jill. Don’t you know that we can’t have women having abortions in the privacy of their own homes, where the protesters don’t know where to find them?
I’ve always described myself as a “reluctant pro-choicer”. I believe in the heirarchy first described in Roe v Wade (which is, regardless of purpose, plain bad law… 35 years of intercine cultural welfare is clear testiment to that) … ie that an adult woman has the right to seek an abortion without government interference in the first trimester. Most abortions done at this stage are immoral, but should not be illegal.
But elective abortion done at 24+weeks gestation? You are now dealing with a fully developed human baby who is only now using the last 16 weeks to gain weight and for the enzyme that matures the lungs to kick in. Abortion done this late should ONLY be done to save the life of the mother or because the baby is so flawed as to be incompatible with life outside the womb.
This just saddens me no end. The refrain that runs through my head is broken baby bodies, broken baby bodies, broken baby bodies.
My heart hurts.
To be clear, elective abortion isn’t legal past 24 weeks in New York. It’s legal up to 24 weeks, but not after.
Jill
The article focuses on a woman who is already 24 weeks, and talks later about women obtaining abortions well into their “fifth and sixth month”
I don’t the women who would rather their baby dead than with someone else are too fussy about dates.
i noticed that the athiest and others are throwing around the phrase “late term” to refer to 2nd trimester abortion, knowing their readers will think they’re 3rd trim.cute
It’s not like the anti abortion folks give a shit if other peoples babies live or die. After they are born, I mean. They are not prepared to adopt these babies, but of course they are quite sure someone out there will. It’s not like they want their tax dollars spent on feeding these babies, that would be welfare and that would be bad. They don’t care if these babies get medical care or an education or fuck all that they need after they are born. They are quite willing to pony up for prisons to put them in if they don’t somehow magically grow up into productive middle class american Xtians.
I just read about a church where the pastor encouraged his flock to go beyond picketing clinics and sign up to actually adopt some of the babies that are waiting to be adopted. Show a little concern for the born rather than only for the unborn. While he had no trouble getting them to sign up for picketing duty not one of them was willing to put their money where their mouth is and adopt. Just another phony ass argument down the tubes.
This whole crappy argument has always been about control of the underclasses by the uber class. I blame the patriarchy.
Um, yeah. Because like Jill said, in New York, abortion is legal up until 24 weeks. There are 4 weeks in a month. The fifth month would be 20 weeks, and the very end of the sixth month would be 24 weeks, the cutoff. At no point in the article did anyone mention abortion at “24+” weeks. Because that would be illegal. That bad, bad law Roe vs. Wade set up the trimester framework whereby the state has the right to weigh the rights of the fetus and restrict non medical abortions after viability, designated as the third trimester, or after 24 weeks. The article also states that “1 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks, late into the second trimester.”
And while we all know that women are evil selfish worthless whores who would like nothing more that to wake up the day before their due date and squeeze in an abortion after the manicure and before the bonbons, they kind of have to be “fussy” about the dates because well, um, see, if you’re not going the coat hanger route, the doctors kind of are. Did you read the part where the girl and her mother had four days to get to New York or they were out of luck? Not a lot of room for fudging. There are a lot of pretty strict regulations doctors and clinics have to follow and performing illegal procedures could kind of get them into a tiny bit of trouble. “How far along are you?” is kind of the first thing to be established.
Unfortunately, the woman who wrote the New York article did the same thing, people are going to read late term and translate it to third trimester, and there’s already too much confusion about that. Now that the right wing have gotten people to start reflexively using the “partial birth” bs, they’re going to start up with “second trimester=late term.” Do everything you can to prevent women from getting the care they need in the first term, make it too expensive, close down clinics outside of large cities so they have to travel, then start demonizing second trimester procedures. Gee, where is this all headed? I found this quote on lifeandlibertyforwomen.org:
“She seems to have let slip that the woman doesn’t matter so much, just the fetus.”
Senator Joyce is a he. And he’s a nutjob. His first speech in Parliament was to talk about how abortion is the slavery of our time. Not forced prgnancy/ women as incubators, but abortion.
And that Stephen Fielding guy is one of 16 children…He keeps referring to RU-486 as a “do it yourself” abortion. No, Senator Fielding, that would be a coat-hanger.
But for God’s sake, I’ve had women who have had an elective abortion and then gotten pregnant again a month later
Do you think that these women ought to instead be having babies?
I don’t get why, if you’re OK with abortion, you freak at the idea of women having multiple abortions.
Cue Barbie: Math is hard!
24 weeks is the end of the sixth month. A woman “well into her fifth month” could be as little as 17 weeks pregnant, which by my reckoning is not exactly viable.
I don’t get why, if you’re OK with abortion, you freak at the idea of women having multiple abortions.
One might not freak, but might think that a woman who is having abortion after abortion after abortion has some type of problem, and needs help.
I recognize that you (for perfectly reasonable reasons) favor abortion on demand and (if I recall correctly) you also think abortion is morally unimportant. (My apologies if that’s an incorrect recollection.) I don’t think you’re isolated in that position, but you are in a distinct minority.
My undersanding of the polling indicates that most people who are pro-choice to any extent also believe abortion to be morally wrong – but a moral wrong that can be lived with, excused, understood, thought necessary, or what have you. When someone is committing multiple moral wrongs of an identical type, though, we all start to wonder. Most of us spread our sins around a little more.
Could you at least make your stance coherent before you jump into the fray? If it’s murder, it’s murder, and being a victim of rape doesn’t excuse it.
Occasionally I am tempted to put on my hip waders and venture into Dawn Eden’s idyllic paradise of a site, btu then I remember how a commenter referred to her as “a shank between the ribs” of abortion providers, and she blushed at the compliment.
I recommend avoiding Dawn, for the sake of your mental health.
Why is this immoral. You do realize women’s bodies are self aborting pregnancies all the time right? There’s a reason very few trisomy children born. They’re typically autosomal trisomies of 21, 13, and 18, or Down’s, Patau’s, and Edwards syndromes. Trisomy of other chromosomes is even more rare, and basically non existent in the larger chromosomes. It’s because the body self aborts the pregnancy.
So what’s so immoral about aborting a first trimester pregnancy? What about fetuses with birth defects? Should we revere those defects that happen to sneak under the radar?
Not exactly. A lot of brain development goes on in the last 16 weeks of gestation.
As I said in the earlier post that RA left his trackback in, RA’s site is unconvincing. He mouths all the rhetoric of the athesist but on the subject of abortion spouts all the Christian/right drivel we’ve heard for so long. While he takes delight in tearing down pro-choice people, I couldnt find a clear statement about abortion from him – a solid reason why abortion is wrong from an atheist perspective.
Robert, you know nothing about this so please keep your trap shut – your “treatise” was one of the stupidest things Ive ever read.
I thought this article was written very poorly. Besides the fact that it seems to be impossible for the author to avoid streotypes (note her description of the “spirited black womens” apartment, that is loud, filled with smoke, fox is on tv, etc…fucking ridiculous) and the use of decieving terms such as late term abortions. I must admit that I am still somewhat disgusted at the idea of an abortion so late in the process, but the one thing the author was able to do was make enough points about why these abortions were unavoidable for some (money issues, youth, pressure from family, etc..).
Rose makes a wonderful point about the fact that many pro-lifers are not willing to adopt babies. Still it must be said that the carelessness of some women can be considered immoral, having an abortion and pregnant a month later is disgusting behavior. Still the bottom line is, it is a women’s choice.
What everyone else said. You’re also forgetting the reason that a lot of women travel to New York to get late-term abortions: they can’t afford to get them earlier. Later-term abortions are more expensive, more stressful, and more dangerous. They also require you to remain pregnant longer. Women who want to abort do not typically carry pregnancies into the second trimester just for the hell of it.
gswift – “What about fetuses with birth defects? Should we revere those defects that happen to sneak under the radar?”
That’s kind of offensive when you know and love someone with a “defect”.
diane – “Not exactly. A lot of brain development goes on in the last 16 weeks of gestation.”
Very true. Still, more and more premature births as early as 24 are surviving, albeit with complications and developmental delays. Doesn’t this complicate the argument for when an abortion should be performed? It seems like it would.
Are they? I had the impression that birth outcomes had plateaued, but it sounds like you’re following this more closely than I am. In any case, I’m not sure what the ability of a premature infant of 24+ weeks to survive has to do with abortion in the second trimester, which ends at 24 weeks.
I had the impression that birth outcomes had plateaued
That’s pretty much the case for now. The survival of a 25 weeker, born in a hospital with a level 3 or level 4 NICU, with the best of care immediately after birth, is 50/50. For those born earlier, it’s less than that.
#36 gswift
You cannot be serious with that facetiousness?
I mean, if great-grandpa is not being cared for at Jane’s home in the last years of his life and one night passes in his sleep of natural causes it is not the same thing if Jane decides taking care of him is inconvenient and puts a pillow over his face.
The vast majority of induced abortions are 1st trimester and they are NOT done because problems with the embryo or the health of the mother. They are done for the convenience of the mother. I find that immoral, sad, but should NOT be illegal. The moral choice would be to allow a child to be born than give them up for adoption.
Your mileage may vary.
Spontaneous abortions, aka miscarriages, are due to “natural causes”, as natural as great-grandpa leaving this mortal coil in his sleep.
One of the most clueless, cruel things someone can say to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage is “Hey, don’t be so sad. It’s not like it was a real baby or anything.”
I have no moral problem, either, with women who find that their unborn child is afflicted with a devestating birth defect and consequently choose abortion, even into the 2nd trimester. THAT decision is a true moral struggle. I had 2 first cousins die of cystic fibrosis and it was always lurking in my mind when I was pregnant. Fortunately I never faced that decision.
However, IIRC, I read of a female who, in finding out she was pregnant with triplets, decided to “selectively” reduce it to one…. because she was too hip and chic (a NYer) to be forced to buying in bulk at warehouse stores. I have no problem in judging that female shallow, indecent and her abortion immoral.
BTW
My daughter, pregnant with identical twins, went into early labor at 30 weeks. She was in the hospital for a little over 3 weeks, then the twins were born by C-section (because Nikolas was significantly smaller than Sean..not unknown in identicals). Nikolas was 2 lb 14 oz, but a fiesty little guy. 4 weeks in NICU.
To see them today, at 3 y/o, you’d never know they were premies. They are 90 percentile on height and 50 percentile on weight.
Define “convenience.”
#32 Ama
Gestation is 40 weeks. A calendar month is 4.45 weeks.
6 mo = 26.7 gestation.
Lauren
Top of my head because I have to leave…
Since a woman is rarely restricted from doing just about anything during the majority of pregnancy, then “convenience” would do to the pregnancy being “illtimed”…ie a permanent solution to a temporary situation…
“I can’t miss a semster of college”
“I’d be embarrassed”
“I can’t take the time off from work”
or..as I said above in citing Amy Richards of NYC…all those reasons about body shape, hipness, doesn’t want to be bothered of spending TOO much time raising kids…
And for anyone that knows about adoption, there are far far more parents will to adopt then there are available infants.
She made a flip comment in an article about her selective abortion and people thought she was a monster because she didn’t want to move to Staten Island. Yet her choice — to have one child she could care for rather than three who would have less of her time and would probably have a low birth weight — is no different than the choice that many, many women who undergo IVF make when more embryos than anticipated implant. Yet nobody clutches their pearls about the immorality of it all. In fact, I see very little pearl-clutching about all the embryos thrown out during the IVF process.
And let’s review the writer’s situation. She was unmarried, worked as a freelancer, and lived in a small apartment in the East Village. She was able to fit one child into that life without drastic changes, but not three. She would have had to move to the suburbs or far enough out in an outer borough that she would have had to buy a car (or two, since she would have to marry her boyfriend and he’d need a way to get to work). She would not have been able to work at all, much less on a freelance basis. She would have been completely dependent on her boyfriend for money, stranded in a strange neighborhood without her support network.
But of course, since she made a brittle joke about having to shop in big-box stores, she was a selfish hipster who killed her babies for sport. In the end, many of the people who flipped out about her decision — you included — don’t disagree with her decision to abort, they were just offended that she didn’t show the proper horror/sadness/regret/grief about it.
BTW, Darleen, I’m sure you’re aware that there’s a vast difference in fetal development between 24 weeks and 30 weeks.
Uh… not true. Well, perhaps it is true if potential adoptive parents are only willing to adopt white babies.
For women who work jobs in which there is no security and no materal leave, “taking time off work” means that you don’t get paid. It means that you can’t pay your bills or your rent. It means that you can’t buy groceries for yourself, or for the kids you already have. If you don’t have insurance, it means that you have a pretty difficult time paying for the costs of pre-natal care, and giving birth to that child.
Now, the taking a semester off college one is the one that hits closest to home for me. So here’s what would happen if I got pregnant tomorrow and was forced to give birth: I’d have to drop out of school. Upon dropping out of school, my student loan payments would kick in immediately, and I would have no way to pay them, because I have no job and most employers aren’t going to hire a pregnant woman. Even if I did get a job, I’d have to quit it or take time off in a few months, probably before I qualified for paid leave (assuming that it’s a job that offers paid leave). Without my student loan money, I have no income, and no way to pay my rent. Without being a student, I’m not insured under my school’s insurance plan.
It’s usually about a bit more than “convenience.”
As someone who works for an agency that has a huge placement (foster care, adoption) program let me disabuse you of the notion that there are throngs of people waiting to adopt anything but white, healthy babies.
We have to recruit people to foster black children, children w/ health and developmental problems and older children. We have 5 full-time recruiters for this *and* people get paid to foster these children. It’s not the best situation but unfortunately not many seem interested in adopting them.
I work for a Christian non-profit in the south too. So we have tons of anti-abortion evangelicals running their mouths off about the evils of abortion all around us. Funny how we can’t even get enough people to sponsor all our children for christmas presents much less open their homes to them.
I’d just like to emphasize that this statement
is completely true, and completely tragic. Families who adopt older children, especially children who’ve had traumatic experiences in their birth families and/or foster families, are in a tiny minority. The more I learn about adoption rates, the more amazed I am that my (pro-life) parents chose to adopt a troubled 11-year-old when they already had 3 kids. That’s rare.
J-ha
Healthy babies of ANY color have couples waiting
and the hoops they have to jump through and huge fees they have to pay to get a baby is enourmous…any wonder that people are adopting from overseas? Of the people I know that have/are currently adopting only ONE couple is doing it domestically.
And let’s face it, public agency bureaucracy not only adds redtape, time and expense, but they also frown on interracial adoption.
When #3 daughter was 15 her best friend became pregnant. Her parents urged her to have an abortion but she carried to term gave birth to a healthy baby girl and placed her through a private adoption (she gets notes and letters from the parents of her girl). But it ALMOST didn’t go through because her boyfriend’s parents tried to interfer with the adoption.
This girl did a courageous and wonderful thing. She created a FAMILY. She decided her baby ALIVE was better than dead.
Support?
By the way, was daughter #3′s best friend white?
J-ha, that’s absolutely awful. I have actually looked into adoption, but I don’t know if I would qualify (I’m relatively young, don’t make that much money, have a very old house that needs a lot of work and children of my own)… I so badly want to though. I have actually talked to my husband about adopting as soon as we can do it… I would love to talk to you about it at some point, how one goes about it and all that good stuff, if you wouldn’t mind.
That aside, abortion is a very tough issue for me and one that I try not to talk about too much on here, because I would probably get my ass handed to me. I will say I am personally extremely uncomfortable with abortion. Extremely… not because I believe that unplanned pregnancy=slut, or because I care who/how many people women sleep with, but because I do believe a fetus is a human life. A full human being with the same rights as me? No, and I would be lying if I said I did, but a human life none the less. Now, that aside… I couldn’t be a Haven volunteer… I would cry, I would try to talk the women out of it, I would probably sob when I dropped them off at the clinic. I doubt anyone would find that helpful. However, I don’t think the women that are Haven volunteers are awful, or repulsive or anything like that. I think that probably most of you are very kindhearted women (you have to be to welcome a complete stranger into your home!) who are truly trying to help women in the best way that you can. I have a hard time feeling like you are reprehensible for that. These aren’t women who are likely to change their minds, nor do I see anyone forcing them to go through with it if they don’t want to. Isn’t that part of being pro-choice? I may not agree with their decision but I also don’t feel like they need to be punished by sleeping in the streets or going without food. I mean, come on now guys… is there really any point in this?
This discussion reminds me of the debate in Canada after the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on abortion. Until then, rules and regulations varied tremendously from region to region – even from hospital to hospital. Some places wouldn’t allow a woman to get an abortion until she had made her case before a board. Quite often these boards got on the woman’s case for wanting an abortion for her own convenience. For example, there was middle-aged mother of 5 who didn’t want to go through another pregnancy. The board turned down her request because her five children were all girls – they thought she should try for a boy.
“Convenience” my ass.
“Healthy babies of ANY color have couples waiting” (emphasis mine)
First, that’s not true. It should be, but it’s not. I’m just estimating here but for my agency about 90% of the adopting couples are white. The vast majority only want white children. They’ll wait a year or pay through the nose for a private adoption rather than adopt a healthy non-white infant. That’s not to say that nobody wants to adopt healthy babies of color, just that generally we have to go looking for them. And hey, if the adoption of healthy white babies is expensive it’s only the market at work. The cost to adopt an older (I’m talking 2+ here) child or a child w/ health or developmental problems is somewhere around $2000 *and* most of the time the state will pay for all but $500 of it. This financial help doesn’t even have an income limit. That’s how desperate the situation is for many of these children.
You can tell me all the beautiful stories about teenagers “creating families” you want. For every one ABC Family Event you have, I can give you 20 examples of children desperate to be part of a family and they’re pretty much out of luck b/c they were born addicted to drugs or their mothers didn’t get good pre-natal care and they have physical disabilities and/or developmental problems. Or hell, I can link you to some pictures of kids who dared to become orphans at the non-baby age of 8 or 9 and live in a group home and have their pictures put up on websites begging people to even *foster* them. Adoption can be a wonderful thing, but it mainly works out that way for babies lucky enough to be ‘healthy’ and white.
And just in case anyone’s curious, no, I don’t foster any children nor do I have adopted children. I’m 24. Too young in my state to qualify. I am going Christmas shopping tomorrow for 3 of our kids though since our congregations (62 btw) can never seems to donate enough toys, money or time to give these kids a christmas. Yet, many of them do find the time to picket abortion clinics (they like to brag). How strange.
Julie,
I don’t know where you live, but like I said above, most states have financial assistance to those willing to open their home to these kids. Of course, it won’t cover the whole cost usually, but if you’re really interested I’d start by looking at your state’s DHR/DFACS website(s). Also, fostering children is less expensive since you are paid monthly for it. Again, not a huge amount, but it will offset some costs.
The reality is that there’s genetic defects like Patau’s which are severe enought to cause massive external and internal deformities, but often don’t trigger the body to abort. Only about 5 percent of Patau’s cases survive beyond the first six months.
So abortion is the equivalent of killing an adult. Roger that.
Wait a minute, sounds like a recognition that aborting a fetus and killing an adult are not the same thing.
Why? Isn’t this the same as putting a pillow over Grandpa’s head?
Abort a fetus with cystic fibrosis? Why that sounds a lot like aborting for “convenience.”
Since the topic has come up, it is important to point out that adoption is not a risk free option either. Apart, of course, from the risk of death and injury from the pregnancy itself, adoption is very dangerous to the mother. The vast majority of mothers who give their children up for adoption have severe and long lasting, probably lifelong, trauma from it. See, for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10438084&query_hl=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3945198&query_hl=3
Nor do the children necessarily do well after adoption. They are at increased risk for suicide and other emotional problems, among other things. See, for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11483840&query_hl=3
I’m not, of course, arguing that adoption is a bad thing. I find it an admirable thing if a woman is willing to take these risks in order to help someone else have a family. However, she should know about the risks. But she should know what she is getting into. She should know that she is putting herself at risk for lifelong psychological problems up to and including PTSD and that her child, if she decides to have the child, may have a somewhat harder time than usual as well.
For the sake of argument, suppose they are.
A newborn infant has no right to live in its mother’s body. A newborn infant has no right to require its parent to donate blood to it. A newborn infant can be separated from its mother if she wants nothing more to do with it (with infants, this is adoption).
Therefore, if a fetus or embryo had the same rights as a born child, then removing it from the mother’s body is not an infringement of the fetus’s rights.
Try “rather the fetus dead than in them.” Actually, I’d imagine women who have abortions wouldn’t mind a bit if the 24-week-old fetus was given to someone else; the key point is now, not twelve or fourteen weeks in the future while it keeps putting more and more of a burden on her.
Is it still disgusting behavior if she’s aborted an ectopic pregnancy or one where the fetus had a fatal birth defect, and is now trying to have a healthy baby? Is it still disgusting behavior if she was raped, or if a condom broke, or her birth control failed? It stands to reason that with around 300 ovulations in one’s lifetime, a 99%-effective contraceptive would have around three failures, and as each time around the chances of failure are mutually exclusive of all the other times’ chances of failure, it is just as possible to have those failures twice in a row, as to have any other failure pattern.
And not a one of us will question your right to demand that the tapeworm be removed from your body.
My opinion (although I make no claim to consist of a majority):
Babies don’t grow themselves, or pop into existance at the behest of God. Women make babies. Women spend a lot of time making babies, at significant physical demand to themselves. Therefore, women get to decide whether or not to make a baby. When a pregnancy happens in spite of her decision that she doesn’t want to make a baby, that pregnancy has happened against her wishes, and she has the right to remove herself from the equation.
Preferably she does this early, so as to avoid the potential moral conundrum of offering a home to a soul and then revoking it after said soul may have gotten to some degree established in said home, however, if the laws and other roadblocks prevent an early abortion, naturally she has the right to a later one, and the moral blame incurred by the delay goes to the anti-choicers who made her wait, for sort of leading the potential baby on, leading it to believe it has a safe home where it doesn’t.
This is the equivalent of, say, putting cracked corn all over your neighbor’s yard to enice the geese over, on the grounds of doing the geese a favor by feeding them, when you know full well that your neighbor has a shotgun and hates geese on his lawn, because you want to dissuade him from shooting geese by making it harder for him to successfully keep the geese off his lawn by shooting them.
As for multiple abortions, that is the fault of either the woman’s body for insistently being fertile when she doesn’t want it to be, or of the birth control and her body for not cooperating.
I think the only way it complicates the argument is that it might support a potential requirement that abortions around 24 weeks not be fatal to the fetus. I.e. induced labor, then an attempt to keep it alive in a preemie ward.
The idea that “It can survive out of the womb, therefore it has to remain inside the womb” is not all that logical.
When a pregnancy happens in spite of her decision that she doesn’t want to make a baby, that pregnancy has happened against her wishes, and she has the right to remove herself from the equation.
You know, I agree with this.
Can you explain how “decision that she doesn’t want to make a baby” and “decision to have vaginal intercourse” are compatible? (If you believe that they are, of course.)
Positive: adj. Mistaken at the top of one’s voice. —Ambrose Bierce.
They are done because the mother, as is her right, decides not to put large amounts of effort into making a baby. You want to call that “convenience”, go ahead. But in no other situation is any human being forced to inconvenience themselves in ways that interfere with their bodies, for another person’s medical health. Do you call not giving blood or donating bone marrow as immoral as having an elective abortion? Either of these procedures can save a life, and they’re not as “inconvenienct” as pregnancy.
You’re blissfully ignoring the fact that to “allow a child to be born” requires another six to eight months of pregnancy, with all the assorted physical demands, stresses, and limitations thereof, and then either painful childbirth or being cut open by a surgeon. Such a simple thing, you make it sound like. Not so, in practice. Certainly some people find it worth it. But many, for obvious reasons, don’t.
The decision to have vaginal intercourse may be made because of a desire to have fun, share intimate pleasure with one’s partner(s), or for other more or less secondary reasons (ie a woman who is financially or emotionally dependent on her partner may have sex with him to ensure that he won’t leave her; a person may have sex to prove their desirability, etc). There’s also such a thing as rape. None of these situations is necessarily incompatible with a desire for a child, but none automatically require a desire for reproduction.
Sure, Dianne, I understand all of those things that are nice or useful about vaginal reproduction. But you didn’t answer my question.
If you have decided that you don’t want to make a baby, then how is that compatible with also deciding to do the one sexual act which actually makes a baby?
Maybe we should get Jeff over here to argue on behalf of intentionalism.
If you don’t want to be in an auto accident, how is that compatible with engaging in the one act (driving) that makes auto accidents possible?
If you don’t want to get fat, how is that compatible with engaging in the one act (eating) that makes fat?
Robert: I forgot to mention earlier: I thought your blog post (referred to in the first comment) was interesting and full of both good and bad points. Unfortunately, I don’t have a blog so can’t comment there, but one question I would like to ask*: You said that you would be for maintaining legal abortion in cases where the mother’s life or health is in danger? How much danger? Every pregnancy is dangerous, ie can result in death or disability. Presumably you mean higher than average risk. How much higher? Twice normal? 10X? Greater then 50% chance of dying?
*Jill: If you don’t want this discussion to go on here, tell me and I’ll shut up. Or just delete this post.
Kyra,
That was exactly why I had my abortion. I didn’t want to be pregnant. I couldn’t have handled it, physically, financially, or emotionally. At that point I was a freshman college student living in a dorm room off easy mac and ramen to pay my tuition, sleeping maybe 5 hours a night with work, and the child was with someone that I should not have been sleeping with in retrospect because our relationship was hellish and drama filled and I was too young and stupid not to know that creepy power games did not mean he loved me.
I didn’t want to give over my body to be an incubating tube for 9 months, I didn’t think that I could properly nourish the darn thing if I did, I couldn’t have afforded maternity clothes, lofted beds are a bitch to get into with a giant tummy, and I didn’t want to tie together my and my ex’s life that much. It really was a complicated decision that was half economic and half because it was not what I wanted to be doing with my body.
I’m confused by people who want to equate all sex with reproduction ala “you shouldn’t have sex unless you’re willing to get knocked up”. We have things like contraceptives and abortion in our society so people can have sex without being knocked up, so why should I not utilize these availible resources if I want?
Amanda pointed me over this way, and I was really surprised to read about Haven. I’m both heartened that such a group exists, and saddened that it’s necessary, that safe abortions are so difficult to come by.
I’m reminded a bit of the book I read about the Jane Collective, The Story of Jane, by Laura Kaplan. It mentioned a number of groups that helped women obtain abortions in the years before Roe v. Wade. Given how rare and poorly supported women’s health clinics are, I can see why it’s still necessary.
I agree with Mythago, by the way. I don’t see any reason why a woman should be criticized for having multiple abortions. One doctor told me that abortions are less harmful to a woman’s health than hormonal contraceptives — a claim I can’t assess, but can’t dismiss either. But the fundamental point is that a person should have the right to say what happens to her own body.
If every act of vaginal intercourse automatically resulted in pregnancy, or if it had an extremely high probability of resulting in pregnancy, I could see where you’re coming from. However, the odds are generally low enough to conclude that vaginal sex is a separate act from conception. Granted, it sometimes leads to conception, but you can say “I’m going to have sex tonight” with a lot more certainty than you can say “I’m going to get myself pregnant tonight.” Despite the fact that it is technically a risk factor, it is not a sure enough thing that the two always go hand in hand.
It is, in any case, a fun, healthy, and very fulfilling act which generally contributes a great deal toward making a couple’s sex life fulfilling. Abstinence requires that you spend all your time, every minute of every day, not having sex, and this is a great inconvenience to a couple who enjoys having sex. Having to forego one act (and kind of the star act, generally) casts a dampener over things, really degrades the experience, and puts this inescapeable limiting factor on what is supposed to be an unencumbered sex life. And it stays there, full-time. People should not have to rewrite a very positive aspect of their lives around avoiding a very negative one.
Birth control reduces the time and energy one must devote to avoiding pregnancy down to the time it takes to swallow a pill every morning. Abortion reduces it to a couple days and a medical procedure. Both of these are much more efficient, and less demanding, than abstinence, which reminds me of a protection racket: you pay and pay and pay to maintain the status quo, and if you don’t, you suffer.
I don’t think it’s right, in light of these other options, to demand that someone take the most inconvenient route, and undergo one great inconvenience (abstinence) to avoid another, different one (pregnancy).
I’m saddened by the posts from the “nurse” that pointlessly criticized her former patients for having had the temerity to get pregnant after having an abortion–to get pregnant a month after having had an abortion!! In credible.
As a married woman with two children I can honestly say there are plenty of times I’m too tired to have sex. After giving birth I was too tired to have sex for a few months after. I seriously doubt that women who have abortions are uniformly up and at ‘em sexually voluntarily. So lets say that a woman who has an abortion (and where was this again? Do obgyn nurses routinely handle abortions when most abortions take place in clinics?) was raped after her abortion? Should she be forced to have that pregnancy because she exhausted her “Free” card on the first one?
Or lets say that the woman who had the abortion is in a committed relationship with someone–even married (gasp!) and her partner/husband still finds her sexually attractive after her abortion and they use birth control but it doesn’t work? Does she have to carry that pregnancy to term?
Or lets say that the woman who had the abortion has just begun a new relationship that she hopes will be permanent, lead to marriage, whatever, but the contraception doesn’t work. Does she have to carry *that* pregnancy to term?
Lets just say that its an upper class white woman who has lots of pregnancies for whatever reason and can pay for them. We *know* she doesn’t have to explain herself, or excuse herself, to any judgemental nurses any more than the patient who can’t diet has to apologize for having stomach stapling surgery.
People make mistakes, people have bad luck. why on earth would you think that adults who have sex are immune from having accidental pregnancies? Who is this “nurse” to judge them?
aimai
It would be so much cheaper for society if we just gave all teenage males a vasectomy. If they want to have kids later they can pay to get it reversed – hell, let the state pay. If reversal doesn’t work, well, too bad, so sad.
Or you know what would be even more awesome? Some sort of penile IUD. It would stay in there, wedged into some sort of duct, and zap all the sperm that go past it. Woot! Just a minor surgical procedure that may cause you some occasional discomfort and carries some health risks including later infertility. It makes complete sense!
For the people who were interested in groups like Haven, I would suggest looking into the various abortion access funds around the country. Now, they are all different and have different needs–they always need money, of course–but I read an interview with the women who founded the Central Ohio Abortion Access Fund and they said that they were also in the business of giving women transportation, childcare, and a place to stay. If you don’t have money, but you want to donate time or a place to stay, contact one off that map I linked to. I’m sure they can hook you up.
Kyra:
If every act of vaginal intercourse automatically resulted in pregnancy, or if it had an extremely high probability of resulting in pregnancy, I could see where you’re coming from. However, the odds are generally low enough to conclude that vaginal sex is a separate act from conception.
This is highly illogical.
There is one sexual act, and only one sexual act, that leads to conception. That conception does not occur does nothing to break this known causal relationship.
People should not have to rewrite a very positive aspect of their lives around avoiding a very negative one.
The continuance of the human species is a negative aspect of life?
Birth control reduces the time and energy one must devote to avoiding pregnancy down to the time it takes to swallow a pill every morning. Abortion reduces it to a couple days and a medical procedure…
And the death of an innocent. Minor detail, there.
Sarah:
That was exactly why I had my abortion. I didn’t want to be pregnant. I couldn’t have handled it, physically, financially, or emotionally.
So why did you have sex?
There is one sexual act, and only one sexual act, that leads to conception
All that is required for pregnancy is for the sperm to get to the egg. Vaginal intercourse is generally the most effective delivery mechanism. It’s not the only one.
And the death of an innocent.
Not according to St. Augustine.
So why did you have sex?
If you didn’t want to break your leg, why did you go skiing? If you didn’t want to be a quadriplegic, why did you get behind the wheel of a car and drive on the highway at rush hour? If you didn’t want to be raped, why did you allow yourself to go out after dark alone?
Wrong questions, Mythago.
If not breaking your leg was really incredibly important to you, why did you go skiing?
Robert,
Because I wanted to have sex (duh).
And our society has a medical process in place for people who want to have sex but don’t want to be pregnant but are.
Its called abortion.
Hence people can utilize this medical proceedure to have sex when then want to and not have to be pregnant.
So I did and have continued to have sex ever since.
“If not breaking your leg was really incredibly important to you, why did you go skiing?”
Again you miss the point. Not breaking your leg isn’t important to this person…. or to just throw out this whole metaphor, people who have sex weigh the potential consequences and make decisions based on what they consider important or unimportant consequences. If a person is having sex, it means that they have come to the conclusion that the potential for pregnancy is not a strong enough deterrant to prevent them from having sex, just like a skiier has made the decision that the potential for breaking their leg is not a strong enough deterrant to stop them from skiing.
There are people who don’t ski for those reason. There are people who don’t have sex for those reasons. I personally both ski and have sex because I know that should the worst happen, I can go to a doctor and get the problem fixed so I can get back out there and ski or have sex again.
I can go to a doctor and get the problem fixed
“The problem” is human.
You are treating a human as a thing.
What are the implications of that philosophical act, do you suppose?
So why did you have sex?
Because the vagina dentata can’t bit off the penises of unsuspecting men who just want to innocently knock me up otherwise.
Oh wait, you weren’t asking me. I’m sure Sarah has kinder motivations.
Robert,
To you it is a human, to me it is a medical problem. Thats what the abortion debate boils down to in this country. To me a fetus is no more a human then it is a cantelope. You seem to disagree. That is why I had an abortion and would have another one again in heartbeat if in that situation, and would sleep the happy sleep of doing the right thing that night. Thats why you wont be having an abortion anytime soon (that and the part where I think you’re male).
Philosophically, doctors remove unwanted living tissue from people all the time, so I don’t see why abortion is any different…. but you’re free to argue that every cancerous cell or failing liver should be left in a person because those are people too. Thats your right. I’m free to think you’re making a mountain out of a very silly and insignificant molehill. And I think there is a term for that in philosophical debate (my philo 101 vocab is failing me…), where one side wants to talk about something but the other side simply thinks it is incorrect or irrelevent and hence debate stops.
The majority of abortions happen in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. During that time, the embryo hasn’t even developed stationary neurons yet, muchless axons, dendrites, brain architecture, and a cerebral cortex. I know of no evidence that an 8 week embryo has any conciousness. By what possible definition is this (literally) brainless parasite a human?
If the continuance of the human species is dependent on my conceiving every time I have intercourse then brace for extinction everyone, ’cause it’s not happening…Fortunately, there are enough people out there who want to have children that there’s no real risk of humans going extinct, even if unwanted pregnancies were to suddenly cease to occur.
Amanda
That made me laugh so hard I spit soda on my keyboard. Thanks.
As an ironic side note to this entire conversation, I’m bisexual and have pretty much been living in the land of the labia for the last two years and haven’t done anything with a penis that could get me pregnant in almost 3…. so it makes me laugh on the inside that I am leading the heterosexual sex pride parade in this thread.
Now I need to find some Q tips so I can clean in between the keys….
If it isn’t human, then what is it?
I’ve always tried to argue that pregnancy is an STD. I can’t say that too loudly anymore. Little ears, you know. ;)
“If it isn’t human, then what is it?”
Metastasizing tissue.
Could be a tumor.
It’s not a tumor!
Sarah, you are also “metastasizing tissue”. Can I kill you, if it makes my life better?
When I attach myself biologically to you and feed off your body for my sustinance because I can’t live any other way, causing many unwanted and costly physical and psychological changes to your body, then sure, knock yourself out. In fact, I’ll hand you weapon of choice. I vote for a life size replica of the scythe from the 7th season of Buffy if I get a choice, that thing is badass….
“Now, I’ve noticed a tendency for this debate to get rather silly. Now I do my best to keep things moving along, but I’m not having things getting silly. Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do… except perhaps my wife and some of her friends… oh yes and Captain Johnston. Come to think of it most people likes a good laugh more than I do. But that’s beside the point.”
When I attach myself biologically to you and feed off your body…
Originally you said that a fetus was no more a human than it is a cantaloupe; I asked you to tell me what it was, then, if it was not human. You responded that it was metastasizing tissue. I responded that you, also, are metastasizing tissue.
Now you’re talking about the behavioral characteristics of the fetus as a justification for why it can be killed. OK, that’s fine, but you’re avoiding the question:
if it isn’t human, then what is it? The answer isn’t “metastasizing tissue” – humans are that, too. So what is this thing?
Like a spermatozoa or an ovum before they unite, the embryo is a potential human.
Before a certain stage of foetal development, I feel it is not yet human. Like the ancients, I go with the symptom of “quickening” i.e. discernible independent movements.
As far as I am concerned, abortion before the foetus quickens is not killing a human. Like using spermicide or anti-implantation drugs, it is the termination of cells with the potential to become a human.
After the foetus quickens I personally feel that it is a human life, but that is an emotional reaction and not a scientifically justified opinion. Even though I feel it is now human, that doesn’t mean that a woman should not have the right to abort that foetus if, in her considered evaluation of her individual circumstances, now is not the right time for her to complete a pregnancy.
No-one has the right to demand that a woman enslave her body to benefit another person, even if that person shares her DNA. This is the case whether the other person is inside her body or not.
After the foetus quickens I personally feel that it is a human life, but that is an emotional reaction and not a scientifically justified opinion.
All right. When, then, is it scientifically a human life?
Maybe you should check a textbook. But I recommend more than one, indeed you will need a broad selection, because there is no formal scientific consensus on that question.
This may be a hint that the answer simply is not as black/white as some would like it to be.
Well, tigtog, I gotta tell you, I’m confused.
There’s no scientific consensus on the question of when it’s a human.
But you’re sure that at the beginning, it’s not a human.
Except that at a certain point, when it starts moving around on its own, you’re personally pretty sure that now it’s human.
But that doesn’t matter because the woman should be able to kill it whenever she wants, even if it is fully human at this point.
You can’t or won’t personally draw a line between human-can’t-kill-it and human-can-kill-it.
Except that at some point after it becomes a human, you think, the woman can’t kill it, like if it’s left her womb, or something. (This one, I’m assuming you think.)
I personally wouldn’t kill a microbe if my understanding of what I was doing was as incoherent as this, but that’s just my $0.02.
Let me go back to something you said: you think that the fetus is potential life, just like the sperm and the egg were before they fused.
Do you believe that anything morally relevant occurs when they do fuse?
No, it happens all the time and usually with no result. Really it’s miraculous that women give birth at all considering the statistics of failed implantations.
OK then, Lauren. At what point does the moral status of the fetus change?
My coherent position on abortion is that so long as it is legal for a father to refuse to donate his bone marrow to save his child dying of leukaemia, then it should be legal for a woman to refuse to continue a pregnancy. That is a separate question from the more nebulous one of when does an embryo/foetus change status from a potential human to an actual human, which was a question you introduced.
Lauren nailed that one.
OK, tigtog. I’ll support legislation to require a father to donate marrow, and you become pro-life. Glad we could reach an agreement.
Why, at whatever point you say it changes. You are clearly the arbiter of morality here.
As someone who had an abortion at sixteen and gave birth at eighteen, I’ll say this: the moral status of my two unplanned pregnancies changed as the status of my ability to parent changed. At least at eighteen I had a high school diploma, where at sixteen I was a recovering prescription drug addict who had likely ingested a ton of drugs during the first few formative weeks. I borrowed money, crossed state lines, had the abortion and I have zero regrets, just as I have zero regrets to become a mother five months after graduating from high school. If that makes me a moral failure, so be it, but I have the rest of my life and the rest of my good works to my benefit. We all make decisions, some good, some bad, and some morally ambiguous, but it is hardly useful to ask people why they chose to have sex after the fact. It is wholly unproductive and ultimately a question intended to induce shame. What’s done is done.
Why, at whatever point you say it changes. You are clearly the arbiter of morality here.
OK. Let’s get the good people on the left, bad people on the right…no, Amanda, you have a special line on the waaaaay far right…
You’re quite right that the past is past; let the dead bury their dead. But surely there are lessons to be drawn. Your tragic story from when you were 16 isn’t so much a story of a girl who needed to get an abortion as it is a story of a girl who needed not to be having reproductive sex.
I’m not intending to judge; I wasn’t there, and even if I had been, judging isn’t my department.
But the consequences of sex are known. The existence of abortion on demand appears to have made women’s lives better and easier. A lot of the “easier” seems to be coming from changing a decision about sex that used to have to be made on grownup grounds to one that now gets made on little kid grounds.
Again, the uselessness of hindsight. Looking back, I think it’s clear I made the right decision for my age and my situation. I trust that other women do the same within their abilities.
Maturationally or figuratively?
Get the legislation actually passed, including other medical tissue donation procedures, then we’ll have an agreement. There’s no credit in you saying you support such legislation if you know there’s no way it will ever get passed.
Because where will it stop? Will a parent who signed away his/her parental rights for adoption be able to be tracked down and legally coerced? Will a grandfather be able to demand that his 17 year old grandson donate a healthy kidney to keep him alive another ten years?
Once you start medically enslaving people for the benefit of others, where do you draw the line?
Maturationally or figuratively?
Figuratively.
Once you start medically enslaving people for the benefit of others, where do you draw the line?
Wherever ethics and philosophy cohere.
And where would that be?
Lay it down, Robert. What forms of medical slavery beyond enforced completion of pregnancy do you support?
Personally, I’m against medical slavery of any kind. Sure, some folks are morally persuaded to sacrifice their autonomy for the sake of others, and that is admirable. I just don’t think coercion is justifiable or desirable.
And where would that be?
People can be medically enslaved to the degree and to the extent that their enslavement is necessary for the completion of responsibilities they have voluntarily assumed, either explicitly or as an implicit outcome of informed choices they have made.
So if a woman uses contraception during intercourse, she has performed an explicit act which implicitly denies the ssumption of responsibility for any conceptus that results.
And you’re obviously fine with the abortion of any conceptus resulting from rape.
So where’s the completion of responsibility come into the equation for medical enslavement? When the child is 18?
How far does completion of responsibility really extend? Is any parent to be medically enslaved for whatever it takes to save the life of the child? Even if that level of tissue donation is fatal or severely disabling for the parent?
What if more than one child needs parental donor tissue and there isn’t enough to go around? Who gets first chop?
At which point indentured servitude is okay as well. Great.
Lauren: How so?
Tigtog: No, the use of contraception is merely a (reasonable) attempt at dodging the bullet. Pulling the trigger was still a voluntary act. And yes, a woman should not be or feel obliged to bear a child resulting from rape; heroic if she does, but by no means part of what should be expected of any citizen.
As for all the specific questions, we’ll leave that for the courts and the legislatures to decide.
The litmus test for me is always the rape scenario. When an alleged “pro-lifer” makes an exception for rape and incest, I know their objection to abortion stems from disapproval of the woman’s sexual behavior. When no such exception is made, I’ll grant the possibility that the person is coming from a standpoint of reverence for life. Of course, that is conditional upon the person upholding a consistent life ethic across a range of other issues such as war or the death penalty. And then I let them know what a collosal asshat they are for thinking rape and incest victims should bear a child. Pro-Choice IS Pro-Life and that’s all there is to it.
Robert, for all the blather about socialism and collective responsiblity in your proposal, and the lip service about holding the male partner responsible, you are naught but a garden variety forced birther. A playa-hater who views pregnancy as the fitting punishment for sluts who shamelessly spread their legs for every guy (but you). Your dodge-y argument about “completion of responsibilities voluntarily assumed” is only valid if everyone agrees a responsibility is assumed. But we don’t, as you can see. That’s why contraception and abortion exist, Robert. Because lots of people DON’T think that sex should always entail assuming responsibility for offspring.
Oh yeah, and when I leave my shift at 6 am, I’m going to crawl into bed with my b/f and screw his brains out. Sorry to disappoint you Robert but I got a tubal ligation a while back so I could fornicate to my childless harlot self’s content and not have to worry about the growing menace of the Cult of Fetus Worship.
At what point does the moral status of the fetus change?
You’re never going to have a realistic debate about this until you can get away from asking hypotheticals that require this sort of black-or-white answer. Life is not like that. Human relationships are not like that. Biology – especially the bizarre and precarious biology of pregnancy – is not like that. You are in an area where biology, emotions, ethics and culture all interact with huge and often frightening force. Trying to reduce that to an artificially simple linguistic/moral dilemma might satisfy some rootless debating instinct, but it doesn’t get anybody any nearer to a solution that works in the real world.
First off, a disclaimer: The following isn’t the pro-choice view, it isn’t the medical or scientific view, it is simply my view. Of course, I think I’m right.
I consider the beginning of a human life to be dependent on the beginning of a functional human brain. Specifically, cortical function and conciousness/self-awareness. Therefore, I have no problem with saying that an embryo is not a person. Nor is a 12 week old fetus, which has essentially no cortex, a person. A 24 week fetus is starting to become more ambiguous: it has cortex and with some evidence of function. On the other hand, myelination is not complete even in the brainstem until the 7th gestational month and it is questionable whether conciousness can appear in the low oxygen environment of the uterus. Very few people would have any problems withdrawing life support from a person who had brain damage and as little residual brain function as a 24 week fetus. Therefore, I’d say it’s not time to consider it a person yet. A fetus in the third trimester has signifcant brain development (although more at 40 weeks than 30 weeks, of course). Actually, it’s probably not aware yet, but I’m a cautious person and would rather not take the risk.
So, I have no problem with abortion in the first trimester for any reason whatsoever. Convenience, sexual selection, bad hair day, life threatening illness, it’s all ok with me. On the other hand, third trimester abortion should, in my opinion, be undertaken only for medical reasons. Second trimester abortion should be given some thought, but ultimately, there’s really only one person to consider.
Robert: Do you think something morally significant happens at conception? If so, why? And what point in conception is the morally significant one: fusion of the cell membranes, fusion of the pronuclei, or some other point altogether?
Donna, having your tubes tied is the responsible decision of someone who doesn’t want any (more) children. Why would that disappoint me?
You are welcome to view my opinions as being the outcome of my sexual frustration that all the sexy ladies won’t sleep with me, but anyone familiar with my personal history would know that not to be the case.
As for the consistency-of-life argument: I consider all life special and worthy of protection. A woman who bears a child after rape is heroic – she is assuming a responsibility not chosen by her. But I can’t condemn women for not feeling able to be heroic under particular circumstances. In the case of rape, the calculus of rights spits out a different answer than in the case of voluntary sexuality. Sorry that this nuance is not visible in your worldview.
The reason for the exception for rape/incest derives from the set of responsibilities surrounding the conception, not a desire to see women go through life sexless. Women are crabby enough as it is; why in God’s name would I want to add sexual frustration to the list?
Your dodge-y argument about “completion of responsibilities voluntarily assumed” is only valid if everyone agrees a responsibility is assumed.
No. The argument is valid whether you agree the responsibility is assumed or not. The responsibility is assumed whether you agree or not. Responsibility is empirical, not subjective.
Dianne:Do you think something morally significant happens at conception? If so, why?
Yes. At conception a new human life is begun. I’m not a fetal anatomist; I do not know the precise instant at which this occurs, but I do know that it is at or near the time when the sperm meets the egg.
As for why that’s morally significant, human life is special and should be protected. “Potential” human life is not unworthy of consideration but it’s an order of magnitude less significant. Once potential turns to real and the clock starts, it’s a different ballgame.
Howso? You start with two cells, neither of which you consider to be a person. They fuse and suddenly it is a person? Elaborate, if you would. Can you give a self-consistent definition of “human life”? When do you consider a human life to have ended? Do you consider monozygotic twins to be one person because they came from one fertilized egg and have identical DNA?
Dianne:
Scientifically, a human life, broadly speaking, is a hominid entity possessing its own genetic material (IE, DNA not identical to either of its progenitors) and metabolizing. This definition is undoubtedly imperfect.
I would consider a human life to end when the soul leaves the body.
Quite. For one thing, it does not include embryos prior to the development of limbs (I think, sometime in the fifth week of pregnancy, though I don’t remember for sure, certainly not before the second week), which is a problem for your definition of a human life beginning at conception. For another, it includes people who are brain dead, who are still metabolizing and hominids.
How do you know when a soul enters or leaves the body?
Robert,
Maybe we’re ‘crabby’ because people like you seem to run the world: people who use their position of privilege (“I don’t have a uterus, so I get to tell people who do what to do with theirs!” Womb envy?) to dictate their morality to us and treat us like we’re silly irresponsible girls who are too dumb to know what’s best for us and where our responsibilities lie.
I thought “life” was special. Which would mean that in order to be morally consistent you would have to be a vegetarian who refused to take antibiotics. But apparently HUMAN life is special. So why do you ascribe magical OMG SPECIAL value to a particular arrangement of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine (98% of which is identical to chimpanzees–whose hands, by the way, make lovely ashtrays. Kill ‘em all.)? Because frankly there’s nothing inherently special about that particular arrangement of amino acids. Most people seem to agree that what separates homo sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom is complex abstract thought, which is the result of a level cortical development that a zygote/embryo/fetus does not attain until the very end of a pregnancy.
So…where does the specialness come in? Is it the potential for specialness? Because you yourself, Robert, have lots of potential as a corpse, which you will be one of these days. Your corneae will give sight to the blind, your heart life to those suffering from cardiac diseases. Your money could feed the hungry. Your stereo system would fit really well in the corner of my bedroom. Recognizing this potential, how about we treat you as though you ARE a corpse, much like you’re suggesting we treat Z/E/Fs like they’re PEOPLE?
You don’t have to have limbs to be hominid, just the underlying structures. Brain dead people are still humans.
How do you know when a soul enters or leaves the body?
I don’t. Therefore, I suggest that we refrain from killing bodies.
Then unfertilized gametes are people and so are cancer cells. Not to mention cell lines derived from human tissue. All of the above contain hominid DNA. For that matter, there are a number of non-human hominids…well, non-H sapiens hominids. Would an H erectus or neanderthal or australiapithicus be a human in your view? I also forgot about twins. Twins don’t have unique DNA. Are they non-human?
People who are brain dead are considered dead. Therefore, they aren’t living people, they are corpses. And it is considered perfectly moral to harvest their organs for use by living humans. You could, of course, argue for a different definition of “dead” if you like and condemn organ donation, but if you don’t, you still have to explain why one entity without a brain (a zygote) is a living human but another (a brain dead person) isn’t.
To get even wilder: Suppose exploration of far space became practical. You’re vacationing on a distant planet, sitting on the beach watching the waves on a lovely ammonia ocean drift back and forth. Beside you sit an embryo in frozen nitrogen and an alien child who is about the equivalent developmentally of an 18 month old human. Suddenly, the tide goes WAY out and you know that a tsunami is coming. You can only carry one out of danger. Which do you take? I’d take the obviously sentient alien baby, human or not. Would you take the non-sentient but human embryo?
In the interest of full disclosure and explaining non-sequators, I should mention that somehow my brain translated the word “hominid” in Robert’s post to “bipedal”. Hence the discussion of limbs. Sorry for any confusion that moment of aphasia might have caused.
Bridgetjean:
Maybe we’re ‘crabby’ because people like you seem to run the world: people who use their position of privilege to dictate their morality to us…
And yet, despite my privilege and your oppression, it is exactly your preference that has force of law, while mine is nothing but an opinion. How very, very odd. It’s almost as though your view is completely out of touch with reality. But that’s crazy talk – OBVIOUSLY I run the world from my basement office, which is why pretty much every single element of social policy is radically opposite of the way I would structure it.
So why do you ascribe magical OMG SPECIAL value to a particular arrangement of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine
Because it is ensouled.
Recognizing this potential, how about we treat you as though you ARE a corpse…
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were to try. Treating ever-increasing numbers of people as though they were objects appears to be integrally tied into the pro-choice worldview.
Dianne:
People who are brain dead are considered dead. Therefore, they aren’t living people, they are corpses. And it is considered perfectly moral to harvest their organs for use by living humans.
Generally considered; there are still plenty of people who disagree. I’m not one of them, but I don’t support the position by saying “they’re not human so it’s OK to use them”.
On your alien hypothetical, I would save the human.
You made a mistake with “hominid”, and I made a mistake in not mentioning “human”. The human life has to have human DNA, as well. So, no monkey people. You didn’t forget twins; you mentioned them, and I addressed that concern; but I note that my definition would miss clones, which I would have to consider humans. So we’re all mixed up here. I’ll forgive you if you’ll forgive me ;). I also realized that the unique-DNA component of my definition is unnecessary.
Let me try again.
A human life, broadly speaking, is a hominid entity, metabolizing, whose protein structures are/were built by principally human DNA (subject to the natural admixture of things like mitochondria, viral loads, etc.).
Fetus? Check. It’s hominid, it metabolizes, it has human DNA.
Monkey? No. Hominid and metabolizing, but not human DNA.
Terri Schiavo? Yes. Hominid, metabolizing, human DNA.
Clones/identical twins/etc.? Yes. Hom, met, hum.
Corpse of Che Guevara? No. Hom, no met., hum.
Tumor? No. Not hom., met., hum.
OK, seems to cover the basics fairly well.
*sigh*
Maybe Robert just needs to revisit a 9th grade biology textbook.
The whole notion of “life begins at conception” is purely religious. It’s noble that you have a God, Robert, but, and I know this may be a news flash, some of us don’t. And once you take any religious arguments out of the equation, then you don’t have an arguement. The science doesn’t support you, no matter how hard you try. What did science ever do to you that made you hate it so?
And really, do you think those clumps of cells that implant themselves into a woman’s uterus scream when they’re removed? Or that they think, “Hey, wait a minute! What the hell is going on?!” Honestly, they’re just cells. They only have a potential to be a human life. If left alone for 9 months, they may actually turn into a healthy human baby. Or maybe they jettison themselves for whatever reason. Do you also realize that as a fetus grows, a woman’s organs must move around to accomodate it? That the woman has to carry both the her weight and the weight of the fetus, which cause a whole host of problems like high blood pressure? Or that she can get diabetes or back pain, or possibly even die? That you’re arguing that a group of cells trumps the autonomy of the woman? (Who is, incidentally, not in a womb and implanting herself.) Do you realize that some women just don’t want to go through the financial, emotional, and physical stress of a pregnancy? It’s all well and good to talk about the conception and the pregnancy, but what about the next eighteen years that the woman is legally liable for? For some, adoption is a choice. For other women, it’s not, usually by social pressure (friends, family, wack jobs who want the dirty slut punished, etc.).
All right Sporkey. If life doesn’t begin at conception, then when does it begin?
Yeah, but unfortunately, that’s changing. At least in America. Which is why organizations like Haven are needed.
+ You can’t get a first trimester abortion in 91% of U.S. counties.
+ Pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and emergency contraception, sometimes holding them hostage (because referring the patient to another pharmacist is tantamount to being an accessory to murder!) or tearing them up.
+ You have to go to the goddamn Supreme Court to ask why laws restricting abortion access don’t have to make exceptions for women who are in imminent danger of dying.
+ Bullshit crisis pregnancy centers, which aren’t regulated, have no actual medical staff, and are not required to be truthful, get federal funding.
+ Ignorance apparently is what education is all about: sex ed curricula moralize to teenagers about how they shouldn’t be having sex, and then we’re supposed to be shocked and outraged when teenagers DO have sex, end up pregnant because they’re taught that contraceptive measures are immoral or have absurd rates of failure, and aren’t ready to be parents.
+ Doctor-patient conversation has to follow a script of lies made up by legislators who don’t know jackshit about medicine, because women “deserve to know” that Z/E/Fs feel pain, abortion causes breast cancer and infertility, and that they’ll probably be tempted to kill themselves after the procedure. Women are required to be treated like simpletons who need an extra 48 hours to think on whether they really want to kill their baby (nevermind the fact that some of them are across state lines, missing work, and sleeping in their cars with their other children), are forced to have counselling because they might not be aware that adoption and parenting are options when you’re pregnant, and have to watch videos featuring Women Who Regret It And Think Everyone Else Has To Too, or have sonograms shoved in their faces.
+ Parents of minors have to consent in some states, when they don’t for childbirth–a medical situation 11x riskier than abortion. Spousal consent doesn’t appear to be far behind.
And yet this world is just so ridiculously pro-choice. It’s crazy. The other day I got a coupon for an abortion when I got the oil in my car changed: buy one, and if you’re pregnant again within sixty days, get the second one free!
Just out of curiosty, who ya gonna put it in?
The soul is a metaphysical concept for which there is ZERO anatomical or physiological basis. If you want to believe that each carrier of human DNA (even this) has a unique and spiritual energy within that goes to live with Jesus/The Great Buffalo Spirit/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/Jerry Orbach upon death, that’s swell. But it’s ridiculous to try to base laws–especially laws dealing with what goes on inside the bodies of people who may not even agree that there IS such a thing as a soul (people whom you can’t disprove) on that concept.
I think bacteria are endowed with the Mystical Spirit of the Flufflesqueak God. So you aren’t allowed to kill bacteria anymore, Robert. Say goodbye to penicillin and washing your hands after you use the bathroom! Bacteria are ENSOULED, because I say so. Sick? Missing work/school? Oh well.
Sorry about the broken link. The good one.
Anybody that would, given a choice, rescue a human embryo in liquid nitrogen over a developing sentient alien baby of equiv. age 3 is a monster waiting to happen.
I think there is no better argument that sexual orientation is inborn and not a choice than the fact that we straight women keep stupidly fucking men when there’s so many of them out there who think a little semen in a woman’s body is the equivalent of putting down a flag in a new land.
That said, of course, evolutionary psychologists argue that some straight men have developed a survialist strategy called “growing the fuck up”. It’s a genetic anomaly but it’s spreading fast–ordinary, everyday straight men realizing that if they can learn to respect that women are autonomous, they can have way better sex and often more frequently.
We’re not sure how this gene developed, but it must be genetic because people have no social conditioning or anything like that. Okay, most people do, just not straight men, who are auotmans who cannot be held accountable for loving Lolita, Derbyshire-style. Anyway, it must be a gene that’s causing men to say, “You know, if I don’t scream out, ‘Your uterus is mine now, bitch,’ at the moment of orgasm, sometimes women actually come back for second helpings.” The genetic realization is creating a most unfair imbalance of getting laidness that can only be rectified by massive laws banning contraception and abortion.
What? You think the law can’t change nature? Of course it can! The law can only not change nature in those instances when what we are all pretending is nature helps assholes justify their opinions to themselves. Everything else is up for grabs.
OK, Robert. I have a big pile of wood, a load of nails, and some concrete lying around. I want a house.
An architect just drew me up a blueprint – do I have a house yet? No? Well you just described conception. The DNA has been laid down (the blueprint), but not too much has been built.
I just bought the land and cleared it – house yet? There’s your implantation.
Laid the foundation? Put up the rafters? Rigged the electricity? Added a roof? At what point does this thing become a house?
Why is it that most people have no problem saying “The blueprint isn’t a house, the thing you sleep in at the end is, and there’s really no hard line in between,” but can’t handle that idea with human gestation?
It’s a continuum. The fertilized egg is not a baby. The screaming thing that comes out nine months later is. Everything in between is somewhere in between, with denials of human status getting more and more dicey as you get closer to the end point. But claiming that a single cell with unique DNA deserves equal status as a fully functioning human is (to me at least) demeaning to the fully functioning human you’re proposing to indenture to produce it. Building the darn thing is dangerous. I nearly died in my second pregnancy and I’m a young healthy middle-class woman with no health problems. It’s not a trivial issue, this whole pregnancy thing.
Can you explain how “decision that she doesn’t want to make a baby” and “decision to have vaginal intercourse” are compatible? (If you believe that they are, of course.)
Christ, leage it to Robert to not have the balls to just spit it out: “If you don’t wanna get pregnant, don’t fuck, you selfish sluts.”
Sort of like pro-lifers treating a woman (person. I know, crazy, right?) as though she were an incubator (object)?
I’ve said just that, Ginmar, minus your inimitably classy delivery.
I explore it in a few posts on my own blog. Please consider commenting there. However, be advised that I maintain the same type of civility rules as Amp does. You might be forced to coexist with opinions you don’t like.
Sort of like pro-lifers treating a woman (person. I know, crazy, right?) as though she were an incubator (object)?
Pro-lifers – at least, this pro-lifer – treat women as adult humans, with the responsibilities that go with that status.
Adult human women have a unique responsibility: to just suck it up and let their lives be derailed and have their health put in jeopardy, because there is not one soul inside them but two (even though this soul idea has no medical or scientific verification). Not just suck it up, but actively embrace pregnancy and eat right, and take prenatal yoga classes, and go see an obstretician (god help you if you have no health insurance), and find a man to marry, and take folic acid supplements, and not drink or smoke or do drugs or ride in a car, lest they be sued or charged with child abuse/endangerment or even murder (a la Regina McKnight, Stacey Gilligan, Cornelia Whitner, Cynthia Dobson, Lisa Rewega, Brenda Peppers, et al). They can be forcibly operated on so that a fetus can exercise its right to life and autonomy (a la Angela Carder, Ayesha Madyun, Amber Marlowe, et al). Essentially, women forefeit control of their bodies and lives by having sex and them’s the rules.
Charming.
Adult human women have a unique responsibility: to just suck it up and let their lives be derailed and have their health put in jeopardy,
This is a passive framing of the female life. It robs women of power and autonomy. It is of a piece with the idea that sex is something that happens to women, done by men or other women.
I accordingly reject it. Women are adult humans. They are masters of their own souls, captains of their own fate. (Forgive the bad poetry.)
OK, let’s all play a game of don’t feed the tetchy misogynist. It only encourages him, and he’s really not worth arguing with. Besides, crabby people like our “you shouldn’t have sex if you don’t want to have a baby” friend are so unnattractive, don’t you agree?
However…I honestly have a hard time imagining a statement more fundamentally immoral than this, about the frozen fetus vs alien infant scenario.
“On your alien hypothetical, I would save the human.”
In other words, I think that human beings are so damn special that I would leave an infant to die a horrible death, because hey, it’s not really a person if it doesn’t look like me and it hasn’t been sanctified by the Church. After all, it doesn’t have a soul, so clearly its suffering isn’t really worth worrying about.
Disgusting, but an excellent illustration of the lack of genuine morality of our friends on the right.
Me? I’d save the alien baby, even if the frozen fetus was mine, even if I wanted it and desperately wanted to have a baby, and that fetus was my only hope of doing so. Why? Because one of our primary responsibilities as intelligent creatures is to care about the suffering of others and try to alleviate it when possible. It’s the basis of all genuine moral codes, from (real, authentic, non-wingnut) Christianity to Buddhism to secular humanism. Anyone who could leave an infant, any infant, to suffer in order to satisfy some kind of abstract moral code is a person without any genuine compassion.
I may be breaking my own “don’t feed the trolls” rule here, but really, what more proof does anyone need that the fetus fetishists are completely lacking in any kind of genuine morality?
Under Roberts rules my son, who had no problems being born just the actual like, life after birth part, would be entitled to my medical slavery even after birth. Sadly for me, my son does not need bone marrow or a kidney, but a heart.
I should have known (silly slut that I am) that the consequences of my sexual act would be death.
The fact that I would have been required to predict the future 3 times (conception, sucessful gestation, fatal birth defect) is immaterial.
Robert’s morals: Dont have sex unless you have special powers to predict the future
Once again, stellar plan ya got there.
In other words, I think that human beings are so damn special that I would leave an infant to die a horrible death, because hey, it’s not really a person if it doesn’t look like me and it hasn’t been sanctified by the Church. After all, it doesn’t have a soul, so clearly its suffering isn’t really worth worrying about.
You might consider asking the person with the opinion why he holds the opinion, instead of making (absurdly dumb) guesses about his motivation.
That Girl, I am so very sorry to hear about your son. I couldn’t really tell from your post whether he needs a heart now or not, but my thoughts and prayers are with you. However, you haven’t understood my argument or my position.
Jill,
Sorry for the long time it took to respond – I was away from the computer.
Abortion does a little more than removing the child, does it not? If every late term abortion was merely removing the child – that’d be the same as birth, no? If the 24 week children were just “removed” then some of them would survive but before they’re removed they are cut up, dismembered, etc.
How does the fact that an unborn child can’t survive outside the womb prove that the unborn is a part of the mother?
An astronaut can’t survive outside his space suit in space, does that mean he is part of his space suit while he is in space? A newborn infant can’t survive without help from others – please explain or provide some kind of evidence to back up your assertion that the unborn are part of the mother.
If imposing your views on someone else is the real issue, then do you feel that way for those who think infanticide is wrong and should be illegal. Are they imposing their views on those in favor of infanticide?
It doesn’t. It means that the fetus is separate, yet completely dependent upon the mother for survival. If the mother dies, the fetus dies, but not the other way around.
Robert
I will buy the “Don’t have sex if you don’t want to have a baby.” when I see an admission and expectation that married men will have large periods of abstience if they only want 2 or 3 kids.
Mr. Nerd would be looking at a 20+ year drought if we bought into this idea.
Peace,
Nerdchik
Walt Whitman is bad poetry? Uh, yeah, okay.
And second, the fact that adult women ARE captains of their fate is the reason why abortion is and should remain legal. Take away that option, and you are effectively substituting your judgement for theirs.
Nerd Chik –
If the married men aren’t willing to step up to the plate in the event of a contraceptive or timing failure, absolutely.
What do you mean “step up to the plate”, if you are describing an invovled father? What will they do with their other kids? Sell them?
But really, where is the abstience message being sold to men? If the opposition to abortion is really *NOT* about punishing women, WHY are we not hearing more being said about men’s self control?
Peace,
Nerdchik
“Step up to the plate” = be willing to devote the time, emotional energy, and economic resources necessary to raise more kids.
I totally agree that men who are opposed to abortion have a responsibility to limit their sexual activities accordingly.
Zuzu,
But that’s not what Jill argued or seemed to be arguing. Jill orginally claimed that the unborn were part of their mothers. I asked for evidence for this claim. Her response was this: “All right, it’s not part of her body. If that’s the case, what’s the problem with removing it?”
Her argument (she didn’t really make an argument so it’s tough to tell) seems to be that the unborn are part of their mothers because they can’t survive outside them.
Which is it, JJ? Pick and argument and argue it. Or argue against both. Hairsplitting semantics are ridiculous on a thread 155 comments long.
Hi Robert –
You are missing something in your definition. Because as it stands right now, you are arguing that the structures that support the future fetus, for example, the yolk sack and umbilical cord, have the same moral status as a person. They fit your critieria. So does a specific type of mole.
Stacy, the supporting structures of the womb are not entities, are not hominids, and do not metabolize. The mole may or may not metabolize (I couldn’t tell from the description given) but isn’t hominid.
A great many anti-abortion people, particularly the men, don’t know the details of the facts of life, apparently.
A hydatidiform mole is NOT a structure of the uterus. It is derived from a fertilized egg, and is a distorted placenta. (Placentas are an organ of the embryo/fetus, not of the mother). It is a separate entity with a separate set of DNA, either an egg nucleus and two sperm nuclei, or an anucleate egg with all nuclear DNA from two sperm nuclei. This gestation may or may not be associated with an embryo/ fetus (the egg nucleus plus 2 sperm nuclei type can have an embryo / fetus that dies fairly early on, the other type doesn’t develop). Like more normal placentae, moles grow (ie, metabolize), invade the uterus to a smaller or greater extent, secrete (large amounts of) the usual placental hormones.
No substitute has been found for the human uterus. While it is true that viable embryos/fetuses and their placentae, and molar gestations, are genetically different from the mother, all successful gestation to term requires a suitably prepared uterus within a living woman. There is no way to remove the embryo/fetus and the placenta in the first and second trimester and transfer the gestation to another woman’s uterus. That placenta is firmly attached to its implantation site, and any major interruption to that site causes interruption of oxygenation and nutrition/excretion for the embryo/fetus. In the cases where placentae prematurely detach over a large percentage of their surface (technical term is “abruption”), fetal death is quite quick.
Hey, Robert,
A human life, broadly speaking, is a hominid entity, metabolizing, whose protein structures are/were built by principally human DNA (subject to the natural admixture of things like mitochondria, viral loads, etc.).
What about dermoid ovarian cysts? They are hominid, they metabolize, and their DNA is unquestionably human.
Not hominid.
You’ll have to define your terms, then. As far as I can tell, a yolk sac does exist (unless you are attempting to assign it the legal definition of an entity, which would be a circular argument), the yold sack is indeed human, it is not a donkey yolk sac (using “hominid” as a noun is indicating a person, thus making it a circular argument, again), and it does maintain itself.
However, even if they did not, I would still argue that by by elevating the status of the zygote (in which the cells of these structures have not yet differentiated from the cells of the fetus) to a person, you are, in fact, elevating these non-person structures to the same moral status.
In short, I think you are calling it too soon.
I would still argue that by by elevating the status of the zygote (in which the cells of these structures have not yet differentiated from the cells of the fetus) to a person, you are, in fact, elevating these non-person structures to the same moral status.
The cells of the zygote have the ability to, and very likely will, develop into a human being. The yolk sac will never do that.
But you still only have a potential human being there. With an adult woman, you have an actual human being.
Hey, Robert, you’re missing the whole point:
You will never be pregnant. Therefore, you have no opinion.
None.
Robert, why would you save the human embryo rather than the alien infant?
Zuzu:
But you still only have a potential human being there. With an adult woman, you have an actual human being.
Can you please tell me the point at which the potential becomes an actual? I believe that point is conception, and I’ve presented an argument as to why.
Have you an argument to support a different inflection point?
Halfmad:
Hey, Robert, you’re missing the whole point: You will never be pregnant. Therefore, you have no opinion. None.
*BUZZ* Thank you for playing. I have a vote, and I have a voice, and you aren’t privileged to tell me that I don’t have an opinion. I have an opinion, and I am just as entitled as you are to work to establish it.
This profoundly anti-democratic philosophy is also profoundly anti-progressive. When women weren’t allowed to vote, would it have been legitimate to say “you don’t vote, so you’re not entitled to an opinion about ” to a woman? No, it would be shitty and fascist. It’s shitty and fascist to do it now. Don’t be a shitty fascist; live up to your putative ideals.
Misfish:
Robert, why would you save the human embryo rather than the alien infant?
Because barring some extraordinary circumstance (“this infant is the daughter of the Galactic Overlord, who will crush Earth if a human allows her to come to harm”), my primary loyalty is to my own species. The buggly eyed monsters left their kid on the beach and didn’t put ME under any onus to protect it; they should know the consequences of abandoning their kids. (In the presence of a heartless alien, no less.)
This hypothetical is (no offense to the person who came up with it) stupid, for just that reason. Ampersand has a much better one, which is “would you save a trayful of dozens of frozen embryos, or one developed human child”. That one is a bitch. Intellectually, I would save the embryos. But in my heart, I doubt very much that I could walk away from a developed child. I suspect I would end up doing the wrong thing, but from a good motive.
What about a trayful of alien/human hybrid embryos created by a nefarious government agency in cahoots with an evil alien empire to enslave humanity?
Well, now you’re just being silly.
Huh. Interesting assumption. I kind of thought that you were babysitting the alien baby. I’m sure the differences in the way we read the scenario mean something, but I’m not sure what.
Hey, you yourself said the zygote was only likely to become a human being, meaning it isn’t yet. What gives something with only a likelihood of becoming human rights equal to someone who’s been human for years?
And please don’t use ensoulment as an argument.
Robert,
I do understand your position. My point was that your position’s flaws become highlighted when you look at it in terms of my son. Without modern medicine he would have died hours after birth, a slow death of suffocation. Even with todays advance he had a less than 35% chance of living.
His care comsumes even more hours and hours of time and attention than most babies. Just the doctor’s visits alone take about 3 hours every week (not counting the 2 1/2 months he’s spent as a hospital in-patient).
Let’s not even talk about money, or the fact that his dad and I have to keep our jobs in order to keep our insurance.
This is the expected result of unprotected sex?
No one can forsee this kind of thing and the amount of committment and responsibility required to take care of a handicapped child is enormous. There is no way you could force someone to take the level of care he requires.
Chances of this child ever being adopted are non-existant.
And he’s one of the lucky ones.
My friend, not so lucky. Her son had the same thing and received compassionate care after birth.
I dont understand how it is more moral to hold a born, living baby as he slowly suffocates to death than to have a “potential” baby taken out of the womb.
I dont understand how it is more moral to force drug addicts to bear drug-addicted babies who are doomed from birth to fail.
I dont understand how it is moral to force someone to bear a child when historically, it is the child that will pay, in spades, for being an unwanted result of sex.
I think a moral code that requires any of these things is barbaric and far more cruel than any abortion could ever be.
Lauren,
Huh? How is it hair-splitting semantics to aks Jill to actually back up her views with evidence instead of what seems to be sarcasm. Jill made an assertion and has failed to provide any evidence for that assertion. Maybe I’m misreading her but her response (instead of actually making an argument) seemed to a sarcastic response that indicated to me that she still believes the unborn are part of their mother’s because they can’t survive outside the womb.
Does Jill believe that the unborn are part of their mother? Her response seems to indicate that she does. Maybe I’m mistaken. I’d be happy if Jill could enlighten us and provide facts and/or reasoning behind her beliefs.
…Wow. Just, wow. Saving a kid is the wrong thing? You think it’s more moral to save a trayful of frozen hominid shrimp with no consciousness, no sensation, no aspirations, and nobody to miss them, just because they may (or may not) one day develop these things? WHAT ABOUT THE ONE WHO ALREADY HAS THESE THINGS?!
I award you the Lifer of the Year Award, my dear, for the most egregious example of a pro-lifer not giving two shits about the born and subjugating the actual to the potential.
Or a mole. It actually pretty useless to argue your point, as that mole is the trump card in all abortion debates. However, since you can’t formulate an advanced argument on the subject, and instead rely on circular arguments (since it’s a human (noun; person), it’s a human (noun; person), you probably will never get to that point in the argument anyway.
I should also point out that an average of 50% of zygotes never implant, thus never realize their potential. So the comment of “very likely will” is false. The absurdity of it is somewhat amusing; imagine abortion being illegal. We would have to call for the FBI every time a woman is on the rag to investigate whether or not there are zygote fragments in her menstrual blood, and if so, if they are there “legally” or “illegally”.
Now that’s just silly.
Yes, that is my point. This is exactly why it is absurd to give the yolk sac that moral status of a person. If you call it at the stage of the zygote, you are indeed doing this. Unless you can tell me how to differentiate between those “person” cells and “non-person” cells at conception.
I will address two more things you have mentioned, also.
1. The soul. Even if we were to wade into the dangerous waters of religion for the sake of this discussion, it would still follow that the zygote does not have the moral status of a person. In the case of monozygotic (identical) twins, the separation of two distinct entities happens after conception (and sometimes, such in the case of conjoined twins, never does), it can be as late as 12 days after conception. So, if the soul appears right at conception… where does the second soul come from? Does it split, and each twin only gets half of a soul? What about the case of a chimera (where two zygotes combine into one person). What happens to the other soul? Nothing dies, the parts of the second zygote are merely abosrbed into that of the new zygote, but still retain their unique DNA.
2. Rape exception. First, as has already been pointed out, it’s inconsistant. If a zygote is a person, it is a person, no matter what the circumstances of it’s existance is. Rape exception implies that pregnancy is a punishment, that seems a bit inconsistant with anti-choice rhetoric. However, this has been covered. What I would like to throw into the mix is this: Can you even imagine the legal nightmare that would come up if we did make aboriton illegal with a rape exception? Rape cases are very difficult to prove anyway, and if you don’t think the defense is going to jump all over the abortion aspect, you’re mad.
“I swear your honor, my client did not rape the plantiff. The plaintiff just selfishly wants to kill his child.”
This leaves us with two undesirable outcomes: First, that women often suffer intense guilt and shame at their own rape. Add in the charge that they are only claiming to be a victim because they are sadistic baby murderers, and you are really going to do a whack job on their mental state. No rape vicitm deserves that, they have been through enough. Second, and most frightening – what if the defense wins on the “evil baby killer” defense? Not only do we now have a freed rapist, we can expect that he will now gain custody of future child. Just something to think about.
The hypothetical that Robert is discussing I think was originally created by Ronald Bailey from Reason magazine. I don’t think it has any bearing on whether the unborn are human beings or not. How does the question of who would you save prove that the unborn aren’t human?
For example, here’s another scenario: Terrorists kidnap you and one of your loved ones (say your significant other or child or best friend). They give you the decision of saving either the life of your loved one or the lives of 12 people you’ve never met in India. If you save the people from India – you’re loved one will die, if you save your loved one – the people from India will die. Who do you save? If you save your loved one, does that prove that the 12 people in India aren’t human beings?
Are you pregnant? Are you trying to get pregnant? If not, why not?
JJ, your example doesn’t translate. Try this: Terrorists kidnap a child you’ve never met. They give you the decision of saving either the life of that child, or the lives of 12 other children you’ve never met. Who do you save?
The example that Robert gave — 12 embryos vs. 1 born child — doesn’t say that any of them are “loved ones.” Let’s assume you have no personal attachment to any of them. If an embryo is just as human and just as valuable as a born child, wouldn’t it make more sense to save the tray of embryos?
Finally, if a fertilized egg is just as valuable as a born child, why aren’t “pro-life” people embarking on scientific research to figure out how to make sure that more fertilized eggs implant? Because if life begins at conception (before pregnancy), then we’ve got a big problem, considering that about half of these “lives” get flushed out. That would mean that way more than half of all humans die before they’re born. More of these fertilized egg people die before implantation than die from abortion or miscarriage. Isn’t that a problem?
No, it proves that you made a rational choice, given the verification problem. How do you even know those 12 people in India are in danger, and how do you know you can save them by your actions? If you choose them, how can you verify that they were saved? Whereas, if you choose your loved one, you can verify that.
The alien thing comes from the question of what it is to be a “person”, countering the “human DNA” argument (it has human DNA, thus it is a person). “If the alien looks like a person, has emotions like a person, acts like a person, etc, but isn’t human, would you not have conflicted feelings about killing it, and if not, does that indicate that there must be something besides DNA that makes up a person” type argument.
The “saved” argument also comes from what we percieve to be as a person. If a zygote is a person, then it would follow logically that you would save the vial of ten frozen zygotes over the two year old child. However, we find that most people would save the two year old. Instead of concluding that the one that is saved is the person/persons, it instead begs the question of why we value the two-year old’s personhood over the zygote’s potential personhood (and in that sense, if the two year old’s personhood is held in higher regard than the potential persons, why would one argue that the woman’s personhood should not also?). Instead of being a conclusion, it is more of a segway into a deeper part of the debate.
Y’all getting sick of me yet? ;)
Dianne:
I kind of thought that you were babysitting the alien baby. I’m sure the differences in the way we read the scenario mean something, but I’m not sure what.
I went back and reread it; it was presented as simply me, the alien, and the frozen fetus being on the beach, no context. At a guess, you presume that the automatic responsibility of adults for children extends across species barriers, while I don’t. But that’s just a guess.
Zuzu:
What gives something with only a likelihood of becoming human rights equal to someone who’s been human for years?
It doesn’t have equal rights. It has some rights.
That Girl:
This is the expected result of unprotected sex?
No one can forsee this kind of thing…
Apologies, but this is nonsense. ANYONE can foresee that kind of thing. “If we have sex, there is a good chance of a pregnancy. If there is a pregnancy, there’s a small chance of the following bad outcomes…[list bad outcomes].”
If you mean that you can’t specifically predict “this is the pregnancy that will lead to a tragically ill child”, ok…but awareness of possible negative outcomes is readily achievable.
I award you the Lifer of the Year Award, my dear, for the most egregious example of a pro-lifer not giving two shits about the born and subjugating the actual to the potential.
Bridgetjean, do you see the irony of accusing me of not caring about the born, after I’ve just said that the compassion in my heart for the living child would cause me to override my intellectual beliefs and save him or her instead of the fetuses?
Jill:
if a fertilized egg is just as valuable as a born child
A fertilized egg has the same human person status as a born child. However, we have to make decisions that balance people’s rights all the time.
why aren’t “pro-life” people embarking on scientific research to figure out how to make sure that more fertilized eggs implant?
Because it’s a natural phenomenon, part of the human body’s system of regulating its reproduction. Most of those that fail to implant have some problem or defect, or an inhospitable uterine environment, or some other non-human-induced cause.
Since we’re worrying about what humans do, rather than about what nature does, this is pretty much a non sequitur argument.
This has been a lovely discussion and I appreciate the civility and intellectual honesty of most of the participants. I think I’ve said pretty much everything I want to say, however, and I’ll be bowing out unless someone has a direct question for me.
I had quite a few arguments for you, Robert – Post# 174.
I don’t know if you skipped it intentionally or not.
So is cancer. So are all the diseases we’re immunized against. So are all kinds of things that we take active steps to prevent, in the name of preserving life.
And if we’re arguing that “pro-life” people believe that it’s a-ok to let nature take its course with regard to death, I’ve got two words: Terri Schiavo.
Stacy, your arguments seemed off-topic to me, and I didn’t want to open up two big new topics and then walk away from the argument.
Jill, until we have the ability to reprogram nonviable fetal DNA at day 2 to prevent it from dying in the womb, it’s pointless to worry about this question. I can’t convince the fetus not to die; I can possibly convince a woman not to abort her child. We’re not going to put our resources into an unproductive area to satisfy your perception of our intellectual consistency.
If nature had been left to take its course with Terri Schiavio, she would still be alive. She didn’t die; she was killed. You know that, too, and you are arguing in bad faith.
Okay, fair enough. I’ll get ya some other time. ;)
No, technology was keeping her alive via her feeding tube. If they had left it up to nature originally, she would of starved. Taking the feeding tube (technology) out of the equation left it to nature, and she did starve.
We could probably have that ability or at least the ability to save some of the currently non-implanting zygotes in a few years if we researched it seriously enough. But it’d cost. Are you willing to divert all funding from cancer and heart disease research into research into the problem of unsuccessful implantations for the next 50 years or so? Because surely a problem killing 50-70% of one day olds is a more serious than one killing a mere 20-30% of 70+ year olds. So if all concepti are people, shouldn’t finding ways to prevent these early losses be the major national and world public health goal?
BTW: You were right about my assumptions concerning the responsibility of adults for children.
No, technology was keeping her alive via her feeding tube.
Sure, in exactly the same way that technology kept my baby daughter alive via her “bottle”.
Terri Schiavo was a disabled woman who had lost the ability to feed herself. The people who wanted to feed her were prevented from doing so, and she died. Like my daughter, there was no etiological factor that would cause her death; like my daughter, if people were prevented from feeding her, she would die.
If you want to define “nature taking its course” as being absolutely zero technological interference, then I imagine you’d be dead pretty soon after we let nature take its course. Unless you know which food plants in your local area are edible, and have a natural source of fresh water, that is.
Actually, it was the withdrawal of hydration that ended Terri Schiavo’s life.
Are you willing to divert all funding from cancer and heart disease research into research into the problem of unsuccessful implantations for the next 50 years or so?
Not until the women who are the loci of the implantation decide to stop killing them en masse. What would be the point?
Oh, it’s a cabal of women now?
I was under the impression it was individual women making individual decisions. I must have missed the memo inviting us all to the Tuesday Abortion Group.
I’ll forward it to you, zuzu.
Hmm, a still developing infant vs. a grown woman who’s had a large, rather crucial part of her brain completely destroyed. Yep, those are real similar all right.
Thanks. I was concerned that I wasn’t on the distribution list because I was past my Derbyshire-approved sell-by date.
Robert -
Your daughter didn’t need a bottle to be kept alive. She could have been fed by any of the millions of currently lactating women on the planet. She could have been fed with a spoon or a straw or a dozen other things I can think of. So thats not really the same thing as a women who could only live via one kind of feeding tube.
Terri could have been fed by hand. She was fed by tube because there was a risk of aspiration with hand feeding.
I’m basically on your side on the Terri Schiavo issue, but I imagine there’s a very good chance that she would have died of aspiration pneumonia had she not been tube fed. “A risk of aspiration” isn’t an insignificant thing.
Stacy, your comments in 174 seem to me to be much more on-topic than the hypothetical stuff about aliens and “what if we could reprogram 2-day-old DNA”, and additionally more relevant to people’s real lives (albeit in hypothetical situations) than moral pronouncements which seem to be based on “do as I say, not as I [would] do.”
I wonder a lot about the thinking that goes on in the minds of the anti-choicers.
They talk a lot about respecting the ‘life’ but they never stop and think when they are at the dinner table. They never think that they are eating something that was alive before somebody decided to harvest them.
What they really are valuing is the ‘human quality’ of consciousness. Ask them to define consciousness and they never really have a satisfying answer to that question. Ask them whether their definition of conscious living beings would include unborn children and they can never can justify it. So, they go back to saying, “its a living being!!!!” And if you press them hard enough, they would defend themselves with a combination of science and religion. ‘We are after all part of the food chain’. ‘God wills us to eat food and it is a sin to kill’.
I agree that you need to respect life but somehow they seem to value only human life, even though it is unborn and still not conscious. And they forget that there is a fully conscious person bearing that unborn child who would face innumerable and an unfair life…
I think abortion should not be a neccesity for these women to live a normal life, but unless soceity provides a fully functional support system for mothers, abortion should be a choice for all potential mothers.
Yep, her esophagus was partially paralyzed. And using technology eliminated this risk and kept her alive. If she could of survived without the tube, Robert, she’d still be alive. If she could of survived without the tube, we would of never heard of her. There were more than enough people that wished to care for her. Don’t sit here and try to pretend that someone would spend thousands of dollars on unnecessary medical equipment. It makes no sense.
I think you’re on to something there… Hey…. HEY! I call shenanigans! ;)
I can understand Robert not wanting to draw it out on thread that is now getting kind of old, although the points I addressed (definition of person, ensoulment, and rape exception) were all his arguments. Sometimes it’s just easier to cherry-pick the “easy” arguments to address, like alien babies, rather than address an argument that could show that one’s personal philosophies on might… be flawed.
However, by failing to address the problem of arguing on faulty logic, Robert pretty much destroys his whole argument, being that it is based on ideas that he hasn’t bothered to back up, such as:
I think we can all agree that arguing a point based on unproven assumptions renders one’s argument invalid and useless. So, he’s only really hurting his own credibility and shooting himself in the foot. And that’s fine by me.
I’m going to have to steal that line.