|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion?
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Corgigreta, that wasn't particularly what I was thinking about, though it might lead into it.
Many cultures use some variant of the term "with child" for pregnancy, compare especially NT. We now use specific terms for scientific clarity, but that is a modern convention. I don't object to the term foetus, as it has its uses. But there is no linguistic imperative to regard it as the "correct" term. Since abortion came to the forefront of our political dialogue there has been some pressure to use the term "baby" only for children already born, but this is quite new. I don't know how old you are, but apparently the redefinition has succeeded with you.
As to libel and slander, your use of the terms in that context corresponds to no accepted definition of either. We can tell that you mean to say "that's an unfair accusation," but that's not quite the same thing.
I was thinking of two overlapping strains of language use. The most common complaint that conservatives have I am sure you have heard: the use of terms like "jihad," "assault," and "Taliban" to describe prolifers. This is not very different than other parts of our political dialogue, but still, it does seem hyperbolic.
But the part which troubles me, which I have not seen anyone reference before, is the language of sexual assault that prochoice people direct against prolifers. Keep your hands off my body, get government out of our bedrooms (you will note that the bedroom is not where an abortion takes place -- not a mere technicality), women will be forced to have back-alley abortions, forcing a woman to bear a child, an assault on women (note that the phrase is on "women," not on "the rights of women"), intruding on the bodies of women . The cumulative effect is quite clear. You are raping us. You are groping us. You are in our wombs. You are peeping through our windows. You are dragging us into dirty, secret places and assaulting us.
This type of language is not merely slanted, but remarkably sexual. That the men who are anti-abortion are much more often mentioned only heightens this effect.
Once such language has been accepted it would of course be expected that women would respond with outrage, believing they had not merely been disagreed with, but violated in some way. And it is this type of rhetoric I think muddles rather than clarifies the discussion.
Paddy, I'm begging you. Please read other's comments closely before writing.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Logician,
I think the term 'murder'should be confined to its legal definition and not used in situations where it is inapplicable. For this reason I am likewise driven to distraction by people who claim that capital punishment is state-sponsored murder.
If abortion is murder, those who perform it are murderers. The classic form of defamation is a false imputation of criminality, a fortiori if the crime is capital.
I had no idea that mention of libel and slander would be such a hot-button matter.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
This type of language is not merely slanted, but remarkably sexual. That the men who are anti-abortion are much more often mentioned only heightens this effect.
Being forced to be pregnant when the means exist to stop being pregnant might feel like being sexually violated. Just because I've not experienced this I certainly can't say it doesn't fel like that for other people.
It's also important to bear in mind that the people saying these things probably do not perceive the foetus as a person and in this they are backed up by the legal definitions of viability.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think the term 'murder'should be confined to its legal definition and not used in situations where it is inapplicable. For this reason I am likewise driven to distraction by people who claim that capital punishment is state-sponsored murder.
But there are plenty of instances of perfectly legal, state-sanctioned killing that most of us would think constitutes "murder" (i.e. wrongful killing). To avoid Godwin's law, I won't mention the Holocaust, but we can think of Stalin's Gulag or Pol Pot's Killing Fields instead. Both of these were "legal" according to the State that carried them out. But I think that both would be accepted as examples of "wrongful killing" by most people.
To identify "murder" as "illegal killing" rather than "wrongful killing" seems to me to embrace an unfortunate legal positivism. It reflects a view which hold, to quote Rev. Lovejoy, "If it's legal, it must be moral."
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
A question I have on the use of language is; If a foetus is called "an unborn baby", why isn't a living person called "an undead corpse?".
This isn't an entirely flippant question as I think the ways we use language is important and often a reflection of what we think.
For example; I am pro-choice, you are pro-abortion.
I am prolife, you are antiabortion.
Huia - to borrow someone else's sig "Thinking out loud."
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I'll jump on the dog-pile and make a point about "zero risk of intentional killing of innocent life." Some have tacitly conceded that perhaps a zygote, embryo, or very early fetus (first trimester) is not fully human. However, they have said that because a clock and calendar time cannot be established for for 'fully human' but a clock and calendar time can be established for conception, then a zero-risk policy must be employed so that protection begins from conception.
I say this leads to some logical absurdities and would welcome arguments to the contrary.
1. Test tube abortions, where a scientist fertilizes and egg, allows it to divide to the point of producing stem cells, and stops the division, is a "murderer."
2. Children should not be allowed to ride in automobiles because their lives are at risk and they cannot choose on their own to take the risk of riding in a car. Although no parent intends to kill their child in a car, it is inevitable that some parents will kill their children and it should be outlawed.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
There’s one aspect of the issue which I rarely see addressed, & that’s the aspect of “personhood” vis-à-vis the “person’s” relationships to others.
My grandmother (in the 1920s, in San Francisco) had her life threatened by her first pregnancy. She was a devout Roman Catholic, & so was her doctor. The issue had to be discussed, of possibly terminating the pregnancy to save her life. Her RC doctor refused to consider the option, & I believe my grandmother would have accepted that.
My grandpa,on the other hand, was Protestant, & felt he had a right to choose his wife over their unborn child, & fired the doctor – hiring the best (& non-doctrinaire) doctor he could find.
I always felt my Grandpa made the correct, & perfectly morally defensible choice.
Nowaday, we have come far enough (thank God) that if there is an actual choice to be made, no-one (that I’m aware of) would choose an unborn foetus over the fully alive mother.
?Isn’t part of the reason that the mother has other people who would mourn her loss, while the foetus will be mourned by the mother (& possibly the father) but otherwise –though it’s hard to admit this- no-one – except in principle????
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I disagreed with the writer, and was a little chilled, but I really understood for the first time where the other side is coming from, and why we really can't even talk about the issue without it devolving quickly.
Abortion: A Failure to Communicate
Fascinating article, many thanks for the link.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
I did invite someone who works for SPUC Evangelicals but they were unable to register on the boards. I thought you might be able to relate to him better since he would have been of a similar persuasion.
Furthermore I can come across as being patronising/authoritative (although i dont mean to be) because of my frank personality.
However he did ask me if I could post this message. I hope it doesn't constitute advertising:
"What I was going to post was my offer to "come and speak on this
difficult
and emotive issue with a sensitive, multimedia presentation. Mr Thorne
speaks and takes part in debates in schools, universities and churches
throughout the UK. Contact him at ajthorne2@hotmail.com"
He's supposed to be very good so if you run any society or club which might benefit then do get in contact with him. He lives in Kent so might be hard for those further up north wishing to see him but you can but ask.
I'll reply to other posts a little later. Apologies but just been a little busier over the last few days.
Paddy
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I don't think anyone here is pro -abortion. It is something, I would hope never undertaken ligthly or with anything but a heavey heart. I think some of what we are discussing is under what circumstances it may happen.
...
P
As someone who made a strong statement early in this thread, I feel I should add my full endorsement of this post.
There's no doubt in my mind that abortion kills. But, anyone who remembers before legal abortion (or researches it) will know that modern medical abortions rarely kill the mother. That alone is a major item. Try a web search on "death rate illegal abortion" on Google. I was surprised that this is still a major issue today.
Unbiased statistics seem hard to come by, although pro-life sources agree with some of the numbers in this page from the US National Organization of Women In the US, illegal abortions used to kill at least 160 women a year.
So, there's also a few other ramifications. Clearly, when abortion was both illegal and dangerous, it happened anyway. The legal status of abortion doesn't necessarily change the number of abortions.
BTW, the legal status of abortion in Canada is interesting: we have no law, because the courts struck down the old law, and the Parliament did nothing. Also, Dr. Henry Morgenthaler, who operates abortion clinics, was found not guilty by several juries; not on the facts, but on the jury's view of natural justice.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy Leahy:
...
Condoms are only 86% successful when worn properly.
...[/QB]
Paddy,
Please provide a source for this amazing statistic, and some definitions.
BTW, for a significant chunk of the eighteen years I've been married, condoms plus foam were the birth control we used, with 100% success. (No children)
If "86%" means a 0.14 probability of conception, we would expect in 18 years of moderate activity the probability of no pregnancies is (.86)**(18*52) pregnancies, which evaluates to 5 times 10 to the negative 62 power...
If your 86% means relative to the normal estimate of .33 prob of conception (Wilcox and Weinberg, 1995 see New England Journal of Medicine ) then the resultant probability is around 4%, and the probability of my marriage having 0 pregnancies is then (.96)**18*52 or 2.5
times 10 to the negative 17 power.
If it means something else, you'd best provide a definition. Although, it's only marginally on-topic.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Paddy : I'm honestly not sure what help another anti-abortion campaigner from an evangelical, rather than RC perspective would be. Surely he would say much the same things using a different theological reasoning ?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Wasn't there a bunch of people in USA who were shooting abortion doctors or nurses at one point?
And in Canada.
Dr. Barnett Slepian was killed in Ocotber 1998. One James Kopp has confessed to the crime. Kopp is linked by DNA evidence to the attempted murder of Dr. Hugh Short, an abortion provider in Hamilton, Ontario.
A good source at the moment is to use news.google.com with any of these keywords.
(I better go post somewhere else, or I'll be a one-trick pony myself...)
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
part of an earlier post by Paddy:
jlg:
"I've been seeing those "horror" pictures for roughly 30 years now. They didn't stop me from having my abortions, and they don't cause me any emotional grief now. Contrary to pro-life rhetoric, having an abortion does not automatically lead to "psychological trauma"."
I'm sorry to hear you felt abortion was the only solution to your problem. May I ask why you think the pictures don't have any affect? I'm interested to learn your views.
Why are you feeling sorry for me? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough the first time. I have no regrets.
I never said that I thought abortion was the only solution (I knew every time that I had other options), and I never stated that my pregnancies were "problems". Why are you putting words in my mouth?
And when you ask "...why [I] think the pictures don't have any affect?" you are again putting words in my mouth. I stated (please note that I didnt "think") that the pictures didn't affect my decisions in the past nor my current lack of regret.
You say you are "...interested to learn my views", but somehow I get the feeling you are just interested in trying to get me to say something that you can latch onto and exclaim "Ah, she just doesn't realize yet that she has been traumatized by these abortions!"
Here's my view: I made my decisions and I am still at peace with myself about those decisions 25 years later. What does irritate me is people who keep insisting that they know more about me than I do about myself and tell me that I made the wrong decisions and my life would be better if I hadn't had the abortions.
I'm still waiting for a response, Paddy. Or perhaps you didn't really mean it when you stated that you were interested to learn my views.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
posted by DorotheaLydgate on 05 Jan:
<snip>
Abortion is not a pleasant way to die. (neither incidentally is it a necessary or desirable procedure for women. Going into hospitals and undergoing an operation is not something I am willing to do and in no way feels liberating.
<snip>
Having experienced first trimester abortion, second trimester abortion (16 wks), one hospital-assisted childbirth (no pain medication), and one home-birth, I can vouch that it is six of one, half dozen of the other. Once one is pregnant, one is going to experience rather intense uterine contractions, no matter how or when the pregnancy ends. Talk to women who have had a "normal" miscarriage; in my experience they are more likely to have suffered from the pain and regret of the experience than women who have chosen to have abortions.
As with my previous questions to Paddy, my main point is that it is presumptuous to argue about how "women feel" when they have abortions. There are a lot of us out here, and our feelings and reactions and physical experiences run just as full a range as those of the women who made other choices.
[fixed UBB for quote]
[ 06. January 2003, 21:48: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
And don't get me started on my two c-sections.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
I find it interesting that James Kopp is defined as "a bunch of people."
Because I am fully enmeshed in the "prochoicers don't fight fair," side of this, let me reiterate that I am not fully convinced that life begins at conception.
Greta, you are assuming a definition of murder and then concluding that definition. I am unconvinced that the lines you are drawing are better than someone else's.
It was just obvious to some people in 1840 that black people weren't fully human, and they really resented all those religious fanatics coming in and telling them they were wrong. The abortion and slavery justifications are in fact chillingly similar.
To the thread in general. I don't draw conclusions from silence for at least a few days. But I will eventually start.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Laura's link was the most insightful self-criticism from a "pro-life" writer that I have ever seen. Thank you Laura and I highly recommend the entire article to "pro-lifers" who seriously want to make a difference. The basic thesis is that the mother is operating from a mindset that an unwanted pregnancy has so threatened her welfare that in some sense to complete it would be "the end of her life." The "pro-life" message often comes across in this context as "you must kill yourself in order to avoid murder."
Please don't jump on my summary, which is highly simplistic. If you are interested, please read the article and comment on the author's real words. I thought it deserved a summary for those who are too busy to read the whole thing. It is excellent in my opinion and in fact describes in good measure why I backed off from a hard "protect from conception" position several years ago. As the article points out, the mother will make the final decision: legal, not legal, "right" or "wrong." Effective arguments must be pitched to her in a way that she will find convincing.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grizzy
Shipmate
# 3286
|
Posted
Other people here have expressed far more eloquent opinions on the subject of the morality of abortion than I could hope to, especially at 2 in the morning. Everything that I would have said has already been said by at least one other person. But having just read the thread from beginning to end, I am curious about a particular statistic that Paddy Leahy quoted back on page 1 of this thread:
"Furthermore, research carried out on behalf of the government of Finland found that women who have abortions are seven times more likely to commit suicide then women who do not have any."
That certainly is dramatic, but it leads me to wonder a few things. Was there any distinction made between women who did not have abortions because they simply had not become pregnant in the first place, women who had become unintentionally pregnant but decided against abortion, and women who had chosen to become pregnant and carried the child to term?
Did they control for (or at least consider) other possible factors that might correlate with both abortions and suicide? For example, and I'm just pulling this out of thin air, not saying it's the case, what if it turned out that depression was a significant factor causing both, by making the woman both less likely to feel capable of dealing with a child, and more likely to consider taking her own life?
-Grizzy
Posts: 74 | From: Mobile Alabama | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
There's lies, damn lies and statistics ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
An article from CNN about the study which was published in the BMJ in 1996 and commissioned by The National Research & Development for Welfare and Health
The BMJ article states that:
quote:
Social class has also been found to be associated with all mental disorders after an abortion. Data from the abortion register showed that women in the lowest social class were highly over-represented among women who committed suicide
and
quote:
The proportion of divorced women who commit suicide was more than double after an abortion and eight-fold after a birth, which suggests that low social support is associated with suicide. ... The relation between suicide, mental disorders, life events, social class, and social support is a complex one. Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully.
The only articles I could find that made the explict connection between abortion and an increased suicide rate, but ignored the woman's other circumstances (marital, social, previous mental health) were ones published on prolife sites
Tubbs
PS Paddy (and others) if you are going to cite statistics it would help if you provided the original source of the statistics and independent links. Ta v m
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893
|
Posted
To those who believe that abortion is a choice, do you believe that abortion can sometimes be the wrong choice? Are you opposed to abortion at any stage, or if the following cases apply?
(a) when a woman does not want to have an abortion but feels pressurised by lack of money, lack of support, or career/academic pressure, all of which should be overcome if abortion is not coerced
(b) when a woman wishes that the pregnancy had been continued at a later date but it is too late
(c) when a woman makes a decision to have an abortion without knowing a lot about abortion (eg. fetal development, how abortions are carried out, fetal pain, and possible psychological and physical afteraffects, what former abortionists themselves say about abortion)
(d) because the baby's rights at some point or in some cases outweigh the mothers?
Is the baby's life worthy of any protection at all?
How much information should women have in order to make an informed choice? and who provides this information? How adequate is this information when pro-abortion groups deal exclusively in euphemisms?
Many of the posts have implied that prolifers could be doing more to help women. In fact prolife pregnancy counselling organisations here were set up shortly after abortion was legalised. Abortion clinics by contrast do not offer any other choice but abortion. The largest UK abortion provider, BPAS, isn't actually about pregnancy advice (as stated in its name), but only about selling abortion. It goes as far to say on its website that it makes better economic sense to abort babies with taxpayers' money rather than help disadvantaged mothers. I couldn't believe this when I read it.
A recent Marie Stopes report actually cited a student who they "helped" to have an abortion who said that she did not want one and that she believed abortion is murder but that she felt she had no other choice.
I wasn't by the way implying that women always suffer from an abortion, but from what I have read it is difficult to tell what women will suffer negative effects
Can't there be a better way?
Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I do draw a distinction between a full term foetus and a zygote. Life does not begin at conception; life is continuous. There is no line you can draw. But what you do have through pregnancy is the development of a potential human into a real one. It follows, therefore, that the "wrongness" of terminating that pregnancy also increases from "not wrong at all" (barrier contraception) to "totally wrong" - abortion of what is indistinguishable from a newborn.
Life is messy.
Without wishing to offend anyone of any persuasion, and conscious that any such statement is a gross generalisation:
Perhaps Anglicans are less committed to anti-abortion action because they are more likely to take the view so well outlined by Karl ( ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ) - that life is complex and that there are arguments on both sides - than the view that full human rights should automatically apply from the instant of conception.
I suspect that if the anti-abortionist campaigners were to try to make the case that too many abortions are performed too late (i.e. that the balance is currently wrong) they would gain a wider level of public agreement (expressed in terms of signatures on petitions, for example) amongst people within the Anglican tradition.
But to phrase the argument in those terms would be to abandon (or at least conceal, or distance themselves from) their own view.
And might inspire fewer people to activism.
(& I don't mean that in a cynical sense - that's just how life is.)
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
To answer your points in turn, Dorothea
(a) Not if she doesn't want an abortion, but if she feels that she wouldn't get the support, money, or would lose her job, then I would not oppose her decision
(b) The choice has to be the woman's , though - part of making choices is later saying that you may have been wrong.
(c) Women should have information, but I don't class the propaganda of the anti-abortion movement as information. Why shouldn't those in favour of legal abortion be the ones who provide this - because, as it has been stressed, people who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion - they do not either want or not want women to have abortions, whereas the anti-abortion movement wish to prevent abortion. So the anti-abortion lobby is much more likely to provide biased information.
(d) I don't think thats possible, because I don't believe that a foetus is legally a baby. I start from the position that the person already here must automatically have more rights than that which remains potential and part of the mother until birth.
It is the unwanted pregnancy which should be receiving much more attention. I am afraid that this thread has summed up exactly why I will always come down on the pro-choice side - because of the arguments and tactics of the anti-abortion lobby.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Laura's link was the most insightful self-criticism from a "pro-life" writer that I have ever seen. Thank you Laura and I highly recommend the entire article to "pro-lifers" who seriously want to make a difference. The basic thesis is that the mother is operating from a mindset that an unwanted pregnancy has so threatened her welfare that in some sense to complete it would be "the end of her life." The "pro-life" message often comes across in this context as "you must kill yourself in order to avoid murder."
Thanks for summarizing it better than I did, Jim. I was digging around the First Things archives a year ago and I found that article to be a revelation about the differences in mindset between the sides, and I had to concede (as somone who believes that abortion should be legally available) that the pro-life article writer was completely correct that that is the way most women perceive their situation.
Here's the link again, for those too bored to go back through the last few pages.
Abortion: A Failure to Communicate
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
I am just wondering why, since "it takes two to tango", the entire discussion to date has not dealt with the "opinion" of the "father". Presumably that is because most people think it is the "mother's" choice alone? If so, why is that? Was not the male involved in the creation of the "baby"? Will he not be the father after birth, with all the responsibility associated with that role? Is it assumed that he will not mind if his "child" is aborted?
(Please interpret terms in "" loosely.)
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I simply don't think that any man has the right to dictate to a woman whether she should go through a pregnancy or not. He doesn't have to go through that physical experience, and she does. Of course, ideally, there would be some dialogue, but I don't think that the man's view should out weigh that of the woman.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I have given "father's rights" some thought and come to the conclusion that unless the father was clear in telling the mother that he wanted a child with her, he has no rights to assert. He may have rights to assert if he was clearly trying to have a baby, the woman agreed, and then the woman said, "I've changed my mind and I'm going to get an abortion whether you like it or not." The second case might be worth theoretical discussion, but it seems to me that the typical case is that neither the mother nor the father were intending to have a baby but a pregnancy occurred.
Turning to the father's rights on the condition that he expressed no intent to have a baby with the mother, once conception happens inside of the mother, the mother's rights supercede the father in my view. The father can ask the woman to consider his feelings but he cannot assert legal rights before the State which the State is obligated to protect. Is there a "right to unintentional fatherhood?"
When it comes down to decision time, if the mother says, "I've considered your request that I complete the pregnancy and have decided against it" what legal right would the father have to say "oh no you don't; I have rights too and I'm going to assert them?" On what basis would the State say, "you are right, unintentional father, the mother must complete the pregnancy inside her body?" I've thought a great deal about it, and I can see none.
The situation is potentially different between husband and wife where the wife changes her mind after becoming pregnant. But I have not given that much thought. I doubt it happens very much.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
I don't think it is simple at all.
After birth, the father has as much responsibility related to raising the child as the mother does. Are you assuming that his responsibilities only start after the birth? I don't. If indeed you are not saying this, why, if he has pre-birth responsibilities, does he not have pre-birth rights?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I don't think it is simple at all.
After birth, the father has as much responsibility related to raising the child as the mother does. Are you assuming that his responsibilities only start after the birth? I don't. If indeed you are not saying this, why, if he has pre-birth responsibilities, does he not have pre-birth rights?
Legally, his responsibilities only start after birth. So, there the argument collapses. I'd say birth is where any control begins. I agree that the involved partner has or ought to have an ethical say in the outcome. But as a legal matter it is entirely unworkable to allow the father an official say in the decision. If abortion is legal, then you can't deny it to some women on the basis of another person's say so.
I'm also not impressed with arguing (as some have done) that if he has legal responsibilities after the birth, he ought to have a say beforehand. If he really feels he cannot support a child, he should keep his trousers zipped. If he feels strongly that he would want to see any pregnancy carried to term, he should choose his partners more wisely. On what basis can he object to the abortion? It's legal, so he can't say "I must prevent her from killing my child." People don't have property interests in children or women anymore, so he has no claim on that score. What would the legal basis be?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Fathers' Rights. Well, here's a sticky wicket.
Logician: This is one of my verbal pet peeves: attaching the word rights to everything/anything under the sun, but I digress.
JimT has done some good legwork. However, let's not so easily discount the gravity a potential new life might have on even the most unintentional of fathers-to-be. Are there no circumstances by which a hopeful father might be permitted the birth of his wanted child by a woman with no intentions of pursuing motherhood? I'm not asking from a legal standpoint. (Dare I?!) I believe intentions are at the heart of this matter, as JimT stated.
Sharkshooter: Fathers equally responsible after birth? I should hope so, but I would submit that the overwhelming majority of infant/early childhood hands-on care is still predominantly a maternal realm. Do you disagree?
Ship: Regarding the "When does life begin?" issue, I must first thank many of you for your helpful insights/information. My question: Haven't those who have murdered pregnant women sometimes been charged/convicted with double-murder? How do we rationalize that in lieu of the abortion issue -- whether or not the fetus was known to have been "wanted" at the time of it's death?
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
Sharkshooter: Fathers equally responsible after birth? I should hope so, but I would submit that the overwhelming majority of infant/early childhood hands-on care is still predominantly a maternal realm. Do you disagree?
Yes. As in all things, the responsibility is shared. But that, I think digresses too much.
JimT: While I respect your, obviously, well thought-out argument, I cannot agree that the only opinion that matters is the mother's. While this may be true, as you say, on a legal basis, I think it is wrong.
Laura: Your comments also relate to the legal basis. I was not considering just legalities, but moral issues.
Sorry if I took this too far afield.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Laura, you said: quote:
If he really feels he cannot support a child, he should keep his trousers zipped. If he feels strongly that he would want to see any pregnancy carried to term, he should choose his partners more wisely.
(Invoking devil's advocacy): Would you not also say that a woman ought to keep her skirt down if a pregnancy isn't going to be carried to term? With primary rights, the sole physical burden, and potentially difficult aftermath regardless of abortion or delivery, who really needs to be more choice conscious: a sexually consenting man, or woman?
On a personal note, I must say how distasteful I find the word "parasitic" to be in reference to a fetus. Technically it may be true, but it seems pretty frigid.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
Sharkshooter: Before you bail on the topic, let me say that I understand what you're driving at, and from a moral perspective I agree with your take. However, when children are conceived apart from a mutually supportive and sacrificially inspired marriage, one can hardly hope for mutually respectful rights and/or equally apportioned responsibilities.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I hope I am not introducing a tangent, but I tink we all agree that in an ideal world there would be no abortions; all preganacies would be intentional and would remain so until birth.
Putting aside situations of rape or danger to the life of the pregnant woman, how can the above ideal be achieved? Are there statistics on the reasons for unintended pregnancies? To what extend is ignorance of contraceptive techniques a factor? Can such ignorance be overcome, and if so how?
How many unwanted pregancies occur due to inavaliablity of effective contraceptives? How is this best remedied?
To what extent do cultural and individual notions about sex and love work against taking the unromantic efforts to prevent accidnetal conception? Can these be overcome?
Which societal institutions are in a position to effectively deal with the problem? What are the obstacles in the way of their doing so? Is the Church a help or a hindrance in this effort?
Is it possible that the pro-life/pro-choice groups are both obsessed with the wrong end of things?
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think we all agree that in an ideal world there would be no abortions; all preganacies would be intentional and would remain so until birth... Is it possible that the pro-life/pro-choice groups are both obsessed with the wrong end of things?
I certainly would agree that in an ideal world there would be no abortions. Until very recently I wouldn't have been able to imagine myself understanding someone who decided to have an abortion and I would probably have tried to persuade them not to whatever the circumstances, in my extreme youth even in the case of rape, because I believe in the sanctity of human life.
However, not long before this thread started, I found myself in exactly that position - understanding a friend who felt that she could not continue with her pregnancy. She did not take having an abortion lightly but felt unable to continue in spite of help offered to her by friends and church. At the time she had an 18 month old baby who had never slept through a night and woke several times each night, along with a precarious financial position and several other problems. Even if her own life wasn't at risk, that of her already-born baby may have been.
Now I don't know, but maybe there are situations where abortion may be the lesser of two (or more!) evils.
Gracie
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Russ, I'm not sure you can give Anglicans credit for realizing that life is complicated and recognizing there are arguments on both sides. You can certainly find individual Aglicans who would meet those criteria.
Tangent Alert!
As to church actions as a whole, however, the CofE has insisted it has something to offer in the discussion of other political issues, such as economics and more recently, military interventions. There has not been any much regarding that there are arguments on all sides there.
Paddy's statistic about condom effectiveness has an inordinately flexible meaning. It matters greatly whether that number means 86% of couples who rely on condoms for 30 years don't get pregnant, or 86% of couples who rely on condoms for 30 minutes don't get pregnant.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Thinking about the father's responsibilities, I'd agree with Laura that the father's potential responsibility after birth does not give him a basis to override the mother's freedom of action and compel her to deliver the child. However, I would say that he should be able to ask for release of responsibility after birth if she completes the pregnancy against his wishes. She has options open such as finding a willing father, applying for public assistance, or giving the child up so in my mind she should not be allowed to force the potential father into becoming a real one. Remember, I'm talking only about first trimester and taking as given that the child is a "potential human." Therefore, we have only "potential mother" and "potential father."
I am aware that blacks were not considered "human" in the 19th century and were denied legal rights on that basis. That is repugnant. However, I am not revulsed by a zygote, embryo, or fetus without a fully formed human brain being fully human. I am a bit disturbed by it, but the whole issue of abortion is disturbing.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DorotheaLydgate
Apprentice
# 3893
|
Posted
I met a leading abortionist in this country the other week, and she explained to me that she agreed that the unborn baby is a baby, what she said she disagreed with prolifers about is that it mattered.
I said to her, but that isn't for you to decide. It isn't up to me either for that matter. The only person who has a legitimate right to make a decision about an abortion is the baby his or herself.
None of us assume that pregnancy is easy, but killing cannot be an option, otherwise if it was just down to how parents feel about their children, why should the killing of any child after birth matter at all?
To return to my original post, why pit mother against child, why not accept the whole Christ and help both?
Even if the ideal seems a little far off, surely the vast majority of people would agree that 200,000 abortions a year in this country is a little much.
I'd also be glad if someone could fix a day when the baby is fully human and then explain to me how a moment before makes any significant difference.
Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship Dorothea,
you said:
quote:
I met a leading abortionist in this country the other week, and she explained to me that she agreed that the unborn baby is a baby, what she said she disagreed with prolifers about is that it mattered.
I said to her, but that isn't for you to decide.The only person who has a legitimate right to make a decision about an abortion is the baby his or herself.
Her opinion, like yours, is simply that, an opinion. I do agree that 200,000 (in the U.K.) is an aweful lot and that does bother me. It also bothers me that fathers have no say in the matter. But the abortion debate really hinges on one thing IMHO:
We do not KNOW when a baby is a baby, we have opinions.
Therefore, IMHO, it is simply a matter of freedom. In this case the Mother's freedom. And that is where your statement "The only person who has a legitimate right to make a decision about an abortion is the baby his or herself" has problems.
The government often decides on the behalf of children AND parents what they can or cannot do with said children. The government has that decision, right or wrong, and has evidently chosen to err on the side of the freedom of the mother.
I cannot say I fault them on that.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
With regard to a developing fetus, the exact instant of "fully human" can be seen as legally arbitrary, just like "fully drunk" is legally arbitrary in some jurisdictions. At 0.079% you are "perfectly sober and not in the least bit a danger to anyone if you drive." At 0.080% you are "a murderous threat to humanity who must be forcibly removed from the roads." If that's the way you want to see it.
At 12 weeks, my assertion is that there is an acceptably low risk that the mother is not killing a human being by terminating her pregnancy if she chooses (thoughtfully!). The risk is to me acceptable given the rights and freedoms of the mother and I have no problem with the day, minute, hour, and second of "fully human" not being exactly determinable.
I would hope that people can see my position as different from "leading abortionists who don't care that they are murdering babies and will admit it right to your face." Anyone who implies that is going to piss me off and will be invited to Hell for further discussion. I really hope no one has done that, and would like some reassurance.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Dorothea:
quote:
I'd also be glad if someone could fix a day when the baby is fully human and then explain to me how a moment before makes any significant difference.
You can't. The process is gradual. Who was the first person to speak Middle English instead of Old English, and why was it so different from the language his father spoke?
That's why my proposal (way up at the top of the thread somewhere) takes this into account.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DorotheaLydgate:
I met a leading abortionist in this country the other week.
What is an 'abortionist?' Do you mean a surgeon who performs abortions in the course of their job or someone actively campaigning in the 'pro-choice' movement?
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian M
Shipmate
# 79
|
Posted
Yeah, I'm with Karl about the continuous progression thing - maybe there is an actual moment, but as Dorothea points out, who can tell where that is? And frankly, to end up equating the morning-after pill with full-term abortion (as many pro-life people do) completely undermines the cause.
If I can give a few thoughts about the OP itself and its rather careless phrasing, it's interesting that Paddy began by implying that 'Anglicans' don't do 'enough' about abortion - clearly signalling the Catholic basis of his stance - and yet later saying that he was strongly anti-abortion even before he found out the church's views.
I read the main UK Catholic papers each week and pro-life adverts and editorial pieces feature very strongly, to the point that one might easily think this *the* issue of our time for Catholics.
To be frank, I suspect falling attendances and lack of vocations are more serious issues within the Catholic church, while if the aim is genuinely to secure overwhelming support for a change in the law, then surely the campaign should focus pragmatically on securing wider support for a reduction in the number of weeks of pregnancy at which abortion can be carried out - say down to 12 weeks rather than 24, except in exceptional cases.
I suspect that's when you might start to get significant support from other churches - including Anglican - as being practicable and reasonable.
Of course, once that aim was achieved, you could begin campaigning to take it a step further etc etc - though at some point I guess it would lose that wider impetus.
At the moment, the 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' positions are so far apart, and the demands of the pro-life campaigners so extreme, that it should surely be obvious they will never garner the necessary public support to change the law, especially not in one fell swoop.
With regard to support for women falling pregnant unintentionally to keep their babies, I accept (and indeed know) that this happens, most often in quiet, unshouted-about ways, which is good for those concerned - but unfortunately pro-life campaigning always seems to come across very judgementally, as seeking to restrict people's choice, rather than present alternatives.
Ian
Posts: 332 | From: Surbiton, Surrey, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
What is an 'abortionist?' Do you mean a surgeon who performs abortions in the course of their job or someone actively campaigning in the 'pro-choice' movement?
In typical US usage, an "abortionist" would be a person who performs abortions. Someone who actively campaigns would usually be described as an "abortion activist."
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Here's the link again, for those too bored to go back through the last few pages.
Abortion: A Failure to Communicate[/QB]
More praise for this article, and thanks for the sharing of it.
To me, the activism on both sides of the issue seems woefully misguided, and doing more harm than good for their respective causes.
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Riv,
I didn't mean to say the woman doesn't share responsibility. We were talking about whether the man in question can demand that she carry it to term, so the focus on the man's choices seems relevant in that context.
In an ethical sense, I do think that if a couple agrees to abort any unplanned pregnancies, and the woman changes her mind, it doesn't *seem* right that the man will have to pay support. But actually, the state doesn't really care, and I see why. If there's a child in being, the state demands that the father pay support, so that the mother and child don't become impoverished and dependent upon welfare for support. So I can see why, from the gov't point of view, the gov't isn't going to let a father off the hook because he wanted her to abort. It isn't the child's fault his father didn't want him.
And again, I think it is incredibly important for people who know each other well enough that they're exchanging bodily fluids to have serious conversations about this before it becomes an issue. Because in the end, if you father or mother a child, there's no going back.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
What is an 'abortionist?' Do you mean a surgeon who performs abortions in the course of their job or someone actively campaigning in the 'pro-choice' movement?
In typical US usage, an "abortionist" would be a person who performs abortions. Someone who actively campaigns would usually be described as an "abortion activist."
And I think it's worth mentioning that many activists would regard it insulting to be called an "abortionist". I certainly find it so. I don't use pro-life or pro-choice unless I have to, as both are misleading euphemisms. I support legal access to abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. I'm not "pro-abortion", or an "abortionist".
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
[QUOTE]In typical US usage, an "abortionist" would be a person who performs abortions. Someone who actively campaigns would usually be described as an "abortion activist."
Thanks, Scot, for this information which is very helpful.
I note Dorothea is writing from London - my question arises because in British English the only usage of 'abortionist' I am aware of is perjoratively, as in 'backstreet abortionist'.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Riv,
I didn't mean to say the woman doesn't share responsibility. We were talking about whether the man in question can demand that she carry it to term, so the focus on the man's choices seems relevant in that context.
In an ethical sense, I do think that if a couple agrees to abort any unplanned pregnancies, and the woman changes her mind, it doesn't *seem* right that the man will have to pay support.
Laura: Right, and I understand what you're saying. I wasn't speaking from a legal standpoint. I suppose you struck a small nerve w/me with the "men should keep their pants zipped" bit. I trust you got my meaning.
Regarding women changing their minds (and perhaps to revive a bit of Sharkshooter's commentary), how do you reconcile (morally, not legally, mind you) a woman doing so (and seeking an abortion) after becoming pregnant by a man with whom she had formerly planned to have a family? The man is simply S.O.L? This may be moot, b/c I suppose it always becomes a legal issue.
Also, and if it's not falling on deaf ears, can no one help with the issue of pregnant women being murdered and their killers being charged with/convicted of double homicide? Am I imagining this having happened? (in the US at least)
--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams
"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune
Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Assuming that two people having intercourse agree beforehand that any unintended pregnancy will be carried to term, morally, it is more wrong than not for the woman to change her mind, unless there's been a change in circumstance that would justify it. It would be more immoral, however, for him to be able to force her to go through with it. So that's where I'd say the balance falls. Legally, however, the man is, as you say, SOL.
Now, that said, sex is something to which many imponderables are attached. That is, (if you are a man) you may be a man who doesn't want children now and you may end up with children. A woman who agrees totally with a man on these issues in principle may find that actually being pregnant changes her mind a) in favor of or b) away from having an abortion; a man who was in favor of aborting unplanned pregnancies might find himself, when faced with the actual situation, feeling quite differently.
I hate to sound harsh, but if one is unable to cope with such critical imponderables, it would be better not to have potentially fertilizing intercourse.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
