Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
"Safe, legal - and rare" sounds excellent to me. While I have no wish to see abortion made illegal, I am concerned about the number that happen in the UK, 196,000 in 2011.

---

quote:

---

They show, for instance that under half of abortions (49%) were to women with partners while 26% were to single women and 16% of abortions occurred within marriage. The numbers of abortions to girls under 16 are down too, 3,258 in 2011, down from 3,718 the previous year.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
*raises hand*

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Once a colleague of mine had an abortion, I think it was a case of contraception failure. She was rather upset about it, in fact she stayed away from work for two weeks. I don't know, I can imagine that the health consequences of an abortion make you bedridden for a couple of days, but in her case it was definitely the psychological consequences also.

I tried to support her in my limited way (like in the Norah Jones song, I tried some tea and sympathy), but I also thought: maybe it is good in some sense that she felt bad about this for some time. This isn't something that should be taken lightly, and feeling bad about it isn't only natural, but also reflects the moral complexity of the situation.

Am I strange in thinking this?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I had a relative who got pregnant because she thought breastfeeding would prevent conception.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Interesting, given the low percentage failure rates for contraception I wonder how many abortions they think there would be without it. Absolute numbers seem high - but out of how many sexual encounters for how many people.

I do wonder if sterilisation ought to be pushed a bit harder though. As in: have you completed your family ? Consider the benefits of a simple operation ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Jade Constable: But why shouldn't it be taken lightly? Why is it morally complex?

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: I would certainly take it fairly lightly.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Thus far I am not sure I know anyone else who holds this position.

At least in the US, it seems to be a standard dichotomy: either one believes that abortion is morally acceptable, and that it should be legal, or one believes that abortion is morally wrong, and that it should be illegal.

Does anyone hold the position that abortion is morally wrong but that making it illegal will do more harm than good, and that reducing the number of abortions by focusing on things like the social safety net, education, the adoption process, and new medical techniques would be the best way to approach the matter?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why shouldn't it be taken lightly? Why is it morally complex? As I said upthread, to me it is no more negative or morally complex than cataract removal. It's simply a medical procedure to remove some unwanted cells. If I got pregnant it would be rather a bother but I wouldn't feel bad about an abortion or even think about it that much. I would certainly take it fairly lightly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's a fairly common pro-choice position. I'm a little confused as to how you see yourself as outside what you call the "standard dichotomy" since you regard abortion as "morally acceptable" (insofar as you indicate your willingness to accept it) and oppose criminalizing the procedure.

---

I must have not explained myself.

There are two axises (axes?) here.

(1) Is abortion a morally wrong act?

and

(2) Should abortion be legal?

What I have seen exclusively, at least here in the US, is either

(A) Abortion is morally wrong, and therefore it should be illegal

or

(B) Abortion is morally right, and therefore it should be legal.

(I think we can eliminate the position that abortion is morally right but should be illegal; I don't think I've ever encountered that one.)

I'm talking about a position C which would hold that abortion is morally wrong, but that making it illegal will cause more harm than good.

It is even a position which can hold that abortion is indeed taking a human life--yes, a kind of infanticide--but that, again, making it illegal causes more harm than good.

I never, ever, ever heard anyone advocate this position, at least not in the US.

When people argue that abortion should be legal, they almost always seem to focus on the reason for it being that a fetus is "merely" an array of cells, or part of the woman's body, not a human being, and that it is part of a woman's civil rights to be able to abort the fetus.

When people argue that abortion is taking a life, they almost always seem to focus on making abortion illegal, or as hard to legally obtain as possible. (In the latter case, we've had some situations in the US recently in which states have passed or tried to pass laws which are ostensibly about other things (requiring doctors who perform abortions to be connected to certain hospitals, etc.) but are not even subtly but openly, when the lawmakers talk in interviews, about eliminating abortion from the state.)

In, again, the US, abortion laws have become a very hot-button issue, in some cases the only issue, for some people. (I've literally known people--in this case on the "anti-abortion" side--who have told me that that's the main litmus test they use in voting for someone.) Among many religious people, it's one of the most critical issues they're focused on when considering voting for a candidate, and so I think it's also become a very convenient thing for candidates to say they're against--even when it has nothing to do with the issues the candidate will be dealing with. But that's another matter, and perhaps more relevant to the "Can the US Republican Party be Saved?" thread in Purgatory.)

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
always remembering that pro-life* indicates "offer expires at birth"
since the pro-lifers have such a high proportion of people who don't actually care about the woman in question in the first place.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why shouldn't it be taken lightly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Why is it morally complex? As I said upthread, to me it is no more negative or morally complex than cataract removal.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
May I suggest that as we have other threads on abortion itself, that this one stay focused on this particular "not quite A or B" position (or other similar positions that are not quite A or B)? (he said, hopefully...)

---

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Jade Constable: But why shouldn't it be taken lightly? Why is it morally complex?

---

I don't know, biology can do strange things sometimes.

quote:

---

Jade Constable: I would certainly take it fairly lightly.

---

Can you be sure about this? I'm going to assume that you haven't been in this situation yet. I have the feeling that you can only know how you'll react to this after you've been through it.

---

I have the feeling that I'd rather not be patronised by you, and that I might like to have my own feelings respected as valid.

And how on Earth can you assume anything about my reproductive history??

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why shouldn't it be taken lightly? Why is it morally complex? As I said upthread, to me it is no more negative or morally complex than cataract removal. It's simply a medical procedure to remove some unwanted cells. If I got pregnant it would be rather a bother but I wouldn't feel bad about an abortion or even think about it that much. I would certainly take it fairly lightly.

---

There were periods during my fertile years when I would certainly have had an abortion if I had gotten pregnant, but there's a big difference between "unwanted cells" that could grow into a human being that would have a whole life of her or her own and fingernail clippings.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why shouldn't it be taken lightly?

---

First, even from a totally detached POV as you claim, it is ridiculous to consider surgery as a prophylactic.
Second, there are physiological reasons many women who have abortions do not feel as you describe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Why is it morally complex? As I said upthread, to me it is no more negative or morally complex than cataract removal.

---

This is a strange claim. At some point, that lump of cells becomes a human. I think it safe to say this is generally regarded as true. The argument is when. All legally acceptable times are arbitrary, even those that go as far as birth. The labia are not magical doors which confer a soul and person-hood, there is little real difference between a child 8.5 months in the womb and one 3 minutes out. So, yes, it is a moral dilemma for many.
That you do not see it as such is certainly valid for you, but to not see why it as so for others is a very strange POV.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Jade Constable: And how on Earth can you assume anything about my reproductive history??

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: I have the feeling that I'd rather not be patronised by you, and that I might like to have my own feelings respected as valid.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
It is even a position which can hold that abortion is indeed taking a human life--yes, a kind of infanticide--but that, again, making it illegal causes more harm than good.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's a fairly common pro-choice position. I'm a little confused as to how you see yourself as outside what you call the "standard dichotomy" since you regard abortion as "morally acceptable" (insofar as you indicate your willingness to accept it) and oppose criminalizing the procedure.

---

I must have not explained myself.

There are two axises (axes?) here.

(1) Is abortion a morally wrong act?

and

(2) Should abortion be legal?

What I have seen exclusively, at least here in the US, is either

(A) Abortion is morally wrong, and therefore it should be illegal

or

(B) Abortion is morally right, and therefore it should be legal.

(I think we can eliminate the position that abortion is morally right but should be illegal; I don't think I've ever encountered that one.)

I'm talking about a position C which would hold that abortion is morally wrong, but that making it illegal will cause more harm than good.

It is even a position which can hold that abortion is indeed taking a human life--yes, a kind of infanticide--but that, again, making it illegal causes more harm than good.

I never, ever, ever heard anyone advocate this position, at least not in the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
When people argue that abortion should be legal, they almost always seem to focus on the reason for it being that a fetus is "merely" an array of cells, or part of the woman's body, not a human being, and that it is part of a woman's civil rights to be able to abort the fetus.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]If I got pregnant it would be rather a bother but I wouldn't feel bad about an abortion or even think about it that much. I would certainly take it fairly lightly.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The Abortion Act in the UK was passed allowing abortion in specific circumstances only - it was not an open doors policy shift. We have had no Roe v Wade moment here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
There is also the aggressively pro-choice position (occasionally argued for here) that even if abortion is murder it's still up to the mother to do it or not. Sometimes it's said that because the foetus is 'parasitic' upon the mother, it has no right to an independent existence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'll rephrase it more generally then. I have the feeling that what a person will feel about having an abortion is something she will only really know after she has been through it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If I got pregnant it would be rather a bother but I wouldn't feel bad about an abortion or even think about it that much. I would certainly take it fairly lightly.

---

That's how you sincerely believe you'd feel .... if it did happen the reality might well be different.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Crœsos: This is, of course, patronizing in multiple senses of the term. The underlying idea is that women are emotionally-driven idiots who need to have (typically male) representatives of the state limit their choices for their own good.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
My position (and I think this maybe the official Anglican position, if such a thing exists) is that the foetus is a potential human. Therefore it should be treated with the utmost care and respect, but getting rid of it is not the same as murder (it isn't human), and it isn't as important as an existing human life (particularly if continued pregnancy threatened the life of the mother).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Going back to the original question:

I personally consider abortion to be morally wrong in all but exceptional circumstances, but have no desire to see it made illegal.

There are pragmatic reasons, apart from anything else. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop women from aborting. It just makes them do it in more dangerous and unregulated ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You've obviously never come across William Saletan's various droppings on the subject at Slate (some analysis here).

---

quote:

---

I'm guessing that part of the reason that position is rarely stated so boldly is the self-centeredness involved. The basic premise seems to be that the most important factor in discussing abortion is that everyone knows that you personally find other people's abortions immoral and icky (and that the women who have them are irresponsible sluts). While I'm sure it may dismay a few women to know that they've lost your personal stamp of moral approval, I doubt any of them will decide to adopt that as the fixed star of their reproductive choices.

---

quote:

---

These are, of course, two separate questions. Even if it were conceded that a fœtus is a person with legal rights, it does not necessarily follow that those rights include unrestricted use of someone else's internal organs.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Abortions for congenital defects are already exempted from the 24 week limit in the UK, if memory serves. That presumably wouldn't change if the limit were lowered to 20 weeks.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I was going to be all coy and passive-aggressive about it but decided to just cut to the chase--please knock off personally attacking me and my motives for trying to come up with a coherent approach to what is arguably one of the more thorny issues of our present day. I'll assume you hold your positions as a rational and caring person, and I'd appreciate the same. Deal?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
These are, of course, two separate questions. Even if it were conceded that a fœtus is a person with legal rights, it does not necessarily follow that those rights include unrestricted use of someone else's internal organs.

---

That's technically true, though I don't think we'd generally approve of, say, someone cutting off someone's electrical supply for their oxygen machine on those grounds.

---