Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AugustWest]

Because I don't think there are any circumstances under which anyone would call me pro-choice.

Are there any circumstances when you believe abortion is justified?

If so, who gets to decide when that is?

If you believe that the woman involved should have the ability to make the decision, then you're pro-choice, at least to an extent.

I think the problem with the abortion debate in this country is that it confuses a moral issue with a political issue.  One side is talking about the morality of the act of abortion, the other is talking about the role of government in our lives.

I think it's entirely possible to be both stringently anti-abortion and stringently pro-choice.  You can believe that it's morally wrong to have an abortion.  You can also consistently believe that it's not the role of the government to make that sort of moral decision for its citizens.

[Victoria Waterfield]

You know, sometimes I really miss having that funny cartoon about the talking cats to discuss.

Why not combine the two?

http://achewood.com/index.php?date=05172007

[jay-ell]

Are there any circumstances when you believe abortion is justified?

If so, who gets to decide when that is?

If you believe that the woman involved should have the ability to make the decision, then you're pro-choice, at least to an extent.

I think if a woman is raped, she should be allowed to have an abortion because she did not willfully engage in unprotected sex -- it's not her fault. I believe that if circumstances arise after conception that would cause the mother's life to be endangered by carrying the child to term, she and her doctor should consider carefully whether it's worth the risk to try. I do not think women should be allowed to have an abortion because she forgot to take a couple of pills, or because her boyfriend doesn't like the way condoms feel. Does that make me pro-choice? I don't think most of the staff at Planned Parenthood would think so.

I think the problem with the abortion debate in this country is that it confuses a moral issue with a political issue.  One side is talking about the morality of the act of abortion, the other is talking about the role of government in our lives.

I think it's entirely possible to be both stringently anti-abortion and stringently pro-choice.  You can believe that it's morally wrong to have an abortion.  You can also consistently believe that it's not the role of the government to make that sort of moral decision for its citizens.

But the government *does* act as a moral agent at times. We as a society have decided that it's not OK for civilians to kill people. When a guy came into my grandparents house and killed them, we didn't say, "well, that was his moral choice." We said, "He's a bad person who can't be trusted in society, let's lock him up for the rest of his life."

Ending the life of an unborn child is, to me, as morally reprehensible as murdering an elderly person. Just because the child can't protest, fight back, or scream in terror doesn't mean that life has less value than anyone else's -- including his mother's. If a woman bears a child, takes him home, cares for him for two weeks, and then intentionally drowns him in the bathtub, will she not be prosecuted? It's her own child, after all, and her choice to decide if she wants to raise him. So it's a victimless crime, right?

We've decided as a nation that it's OK to kill certain people in certain circumstances, like during wartime and in self-defense. I'm OK with this gray area, and abortion certainly has some gray area itself. (This is why I would make exceptions for rape and endangerment of the mother's life.) Our government is still arguing about some of the other gray areas, but I'm opposed to killing people even in situations where others might say it's OK -- like capital punishment. If I'm opposed to letting the state kill the guy who murdered my grandmother, it stands to reason that I would not want women to be allowed to put their own children to death.

But unlike a lot of hard-right pro-choicers, I'm not naive enough to believe that I can enforce all my morals on others. Abortion is wrong, but the best remedy for that is to eliminate unintended pregnancies to the greatest extent possible. We can't keep people from having sex; we can't force women not to terminate their pregnancies if they are really determined to do so. The best we can do is make it so easy for women to not get unexpectedly pregnant that they never have to choose.

But I think that there are a few moral absolutes. Murder is wrong, and we as a nation have agreed on that and put into practice laws that punish people who ignore our agreed-upon moral code.

What we can't agree on is the exact definition of "murder" in all situations, and that's where we get into trouble with the abortion issue. I think it's murder, most pro-choicers don't; after that, we don't seem to have much to say to one another.

[pmcd9]

All I have to say on this issue is that my views are far outside the norm.

[Carlos del Vaca]

I am probably not contributing that hasn't already been said, but...

Yeah, there are people who legitimately care about the unborn and the moral implications of abortion.  There are also people who use it as an excuse to be a cock to strangers and to try to punish and control women.  I read a piece a while back where some rabid anti-abortion protester (male, natch) said "As soon as I saw these pictures [of aborted fetuses], I knew this was something I had to devote my life to."  And I thought, "No, you found a way you could go scream at random women in the street and not get arrested for it."  Yeah, I know, I shouldn't claim to read his mind, but it seemed that way to me.

I always come back to this article on women who picket the clinic one day only to be in it the next.  It's easy to assume other people make bad choices and should have to live with them, but how does your mind change when you're the one with the problem?

[jay-ell]

Hypocrisy is rampant, of course. I've never been in the position to have to choose between an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion. (Not that my daughter was planned, but she definitely was wanted once we knew she was on her way.) If I were to find out that I were somehow pregnant today, it would be a nightmare. There is a very high probability that any other kids we would have would also be autistic, and I can barely handle the two I have. I know that if I were to have any more children, it would break me.

So my husband had a vasectomy. Before his vasectomy, we used two forms of birth control just to be sure. (Technically, we're still using 2 forms of birth control, but I'll be going off the pill soon.) I know that I could not have an abortion, no matter how badly another pregnancy would destroy my life. So I do everything I can to make sure I don't get pregnant again.

How hard is that? I mean, assuming you have good insurance and access to a doctor and know your options. It's called being a responsible adult.

[wombat]

I mean, assuming you have good insurance and access to a doctor and know your options.

Big assumptions.

[AugustWest]

But the government *does* act as a moral agent at times.

Very true.  In a sense, all government is coercion.  The question is "When is it OK for government to exercise that power of coercion?"  In my opinion, where there is a genuine, legitimate divide over the morality of an action, a government of a society which professes to be free has an obligation to butt out.

JL, what about where the parties tried to take proper precautions, but the precautions failed, e.g. the rubber broke?

[side_show]

So my husband had a vasectomy. Before his vasectomy, we used two forms of birth control just to be sure. (Technically, we're still using 2 forms of birth control, but I'll be going off the pill soon.) I know that I could not have an abortion, no matter how badly another pregnancy would destroy my life. So I do everything I can to make sure I don't get pregnant again.

How hard is that? I mean, assuming you have good insurance and access to a doctor and know your options. It's called being a responsible adult.

It's very hard JL, especially if you are homeless, addicted to something, dealing with chronic medical issues or mental health issues, with a partner who would kill you if you asked him to use a condom and for many other reasons.  All of these things can happen to people who are responsible.  Plus I can't also forget young people start having sex long before they're responsible adults.  I've supported young women in their early 20's who have been lured into the sex trade and are so far from being adults it's astonishing.

[littlefallsmets]

Assuming access and insurance and knowledge is perhaps not such a safe assumption these days.

[jay-ell]

Very true.  In a sense, all government is coercion.  The question is "When is it OK for government to exercise that power of coercion?"  In my opinion, where there is a genuine, legitimate divide over the morality of an action, a government of a society which professes to be free has an obligation to butt out.

JL, what about where the parties tried to take proper precautions, but the precautions failed, e.g. the rubber broke?

That sucks. I know lots and lots of people who have been there.

But the inconvenience of having a kid when you weren't ready for one (or carrying a child for 9 months and then giving it up for adoption) does not outweigh the value of the life you (inadvertently) created. Your right to control what happens to your body ends at the placenta, sorry.

I will say, as I stated above, that I support improved access to emergency contraceptives, like the "morning-after pill." Most pro-lifers oppose them only because they don't understand how they work, mainly because science reporting is horrible in this country. I think that better access to emergency contraception would go further than any other single policy change in this country to reduce the number of abortions that occur, and pro-lifers should do the research, find out what Plan B is really about, and embrace it.

But failing Plan B, if you've done everything you can to avoid getting pregnant and you're still pregnant, well, that sucks. But even if abortion were allowed in those circumstances, too, if we could cut the number of unintended pregnancies down to a statistically insignificant number, I would be satisfied that we'd done all we can. I mean, theft is illegal, we all agree that people shouldn't do it, but a percentage of our citizens continue to steal in spite of our collective morals. Sometimes, you just have to decide that close is close enough.

Smells and LFM: Yes, I agree. Assuming access, insurance, and knowledge is laughable. But that's why my crusade (unlike the kinds of pro-lifers who end up on the news) is not to villify women who seek abortions, but to improve the healthcare system and fight for comprehensive sex ed from an earlier age in the public schools.

That's why I voted for Obama -- by my logic, providing universal health care is more important to the pro-life movement than overturning Roe v. Wade. 

[theinevitable]

JL, you are a smart lady who is explaining things I have been trying to put into words for a long time.

I am pretty "pro-choice," I think. But it does trouble me.

I am 22 years old, and I have trouble remembering to pay my rent every month.

What troubles me is that you can say that our government should "butt out" of issues where there is a clear divide among our citizens as to the morality of an activity, but there have been at least a few historical situations where our government did the opposite of that, and most people agree it was a good thing.

[AugustWest]

Your right to control what happens to your body ends at the placenta, sorry.

Honest and sincerely held opinions differ on that question.  That's the problem.

[AugustWest]

What troubles me is that you can say that our government should "butt out" of issues where there is a clear divide among our citizens as to the morality of an activity, but there have been at least a few historical situations where our government did the opposite of that, and most people agree it was a good thing.

JL didn't say that, I did.

So how does the government decide which side of a moral divide to support?  Arguably those situations are more about society reaching a consensus on a moral issue (slavery for example, wherein we had to reach consensus through the bloodiest war in our history) rather than government resolving the issue by fiat.

[wombat]

Honest and sincerely held opinions differ on that question.  That's the problem.

I think another factor is, some feel that one side is a religious view, and that in this country, religious views aren't supposed to get special precidence over other honest and sincerely held opinions.  So it's not just about what government can and can't butt into, it's about how much religion should butt into goverment.