quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
Those links do look interesting thankyou I've had a cursory look but will do some more digging tomorrow.

It may seem artificial but I do see a real distinction between abortion and euthanasia. I have friends with life limiting conditions which means they will, as it stands, die in pain having lost a significant amount of themselves and their ability to function along the way. I believe that a person should have the right to decide independently that they wish to end their own life provided they can demonstrate they are of sound mind. With an unborn child there is no chance to argue or to consent so I suppose that's the difference for me.

That's probably a whole other discussion though so I'll try to keep focused strictly on abortion on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Lots of pro-choice women wouldn't have an abortion themselves, and do not consider a foetus to be nothing. Appreciating that might help. There is a huge difference between not agreeing with abortion personally, and thinking that you get to extend that to others. You can't legislate on the basis of religious attitudes to abortion, it is wholly unfeminist and unfair on those who do not share your opinions.

The bottom line is that what other women do with their bodies is just not your business, and that's an inherent part of feminism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

The bottom line is that what other women do with their bodies is just not your business, and that's an inherent part of feminism.

---

quote:

---

Work to reduce the number of abortions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is why I don't understand, that so many pro-life people are also vehemently opposed to birth control. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There is absolutely no reason why one cannot chose to be pro-life and be ok with birth control.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There is absolutely no reason why one cannot chose to be pro-life and be ok with birth control.

---

A lot of pro-life people get very very concerned about methods of birth control which allow conception but then subsequently prevent implantation.

Condoms are typically judged fine because they prevent the sperm and egg ever meeting. But some methods allow the two to meet and combine and then prevent the embryo from being able to implant itself in the uterus wall and cause it to simply 'die'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, eliminate poverty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
There is apparently a bill in Congress to allow employers to fire any woman they find to be taking it. Tell me THAT is about babies. No, it's about controlling women. This kind of tomfoolery has got to stop before anyone outside the right-wing Christian ghetto considers the pro-life movement as anything other than self-deluded (or disingenuous) misogynistic bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I've just heard a piece on the law in El Salvador*, where women who have had natural miscarriages or stillbirths are imprisoned because they have aborted their baby. And, worse, where it is illegal to deal with ectopic pregnancies when there is a heartbeat, so that both the foetus and the woman die. The reporter spoke with the local RC bishop, who was adamant that the foetus' life was the most important in any case, not the woman's, and would not address any of the difficult issues about the law.

To have a wider appeal, people claiming to be pro-life really have to be pro-life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Starlight, a really high percentage of fertilised eggs / zygotes are never implanted naturally, unknown to anyone. How is that unnatural? The normal contraceptive pill prevents the egg from being released by mimicking pregnancy, which makes the campaign against that one fairly bizarre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
That seemed one of the stranger aspects of the recent Supreme Court Hobby-Lobby case in the US.

---

As I understand it, the owners of Hobby Lobby claimed that the methods of birth control in question constituted abortion. Technically speaking, they do not, since the fertilized egg is not implanted and therefore no pregnancy is aborted. However, if someone regards a morally relevant question as the termination of a distinct human entity, preventing implantation looks morally a lot more like aborting a pregnancy than it is like preventing conception. From that point of view, claiming that it is not technically abortion would be like claiming that were the police to refuse food to a prisoner until the prisoner starved, that would be not technically murder.

Is that the case, or is the ruling that the owners of Hobby Lobby may claim that methods of contraception that prevent conception amount to abortion? That would be scientifically illiterate.
 

---

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
If you really want to decrease the number of abortions you need to do these things:

1) Provide good sex education starting around age. Make it mandatory in all schools, no matter if public or private. And make it include education about various forms of birth control.

2) Make birth control freely available either free or at reduced cost for anyone that requests it.

3) Stop marginalizing women who get pregnant and stigmatizing them.

4) Provide assistance to single parents, provide free or low cost health care for pregnant women, as well as good food both before and after the birth.

5) Stop trying to judge women who make their own health care choices, even if it should include choosing abortion. Stop trying to legislate against women making their own own health care choices.

6) Stop fighting laws that prevent women from get paid the same as men do.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Teddybear:
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
So I have a question arising from that. I know that pre modern science the Church spoke of 'quickening' as the point at which a foetus became human - does anyone have any suggestions for reading around this and what they think of the concept? I almost feel like I'm trying to wriggle out of my own position to allow for situations like the one Curiousity pointed out above but I think if I am going to hold a position I really ought to be able to reason it out clearly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And indeed, modern biology is in conceptual terms entirely on board with the (philosophical) idea that human development is a single integrated stream of processes that starts off with conception. One and the same genetic "game plan" gets executed form the start in conception to the last breath of the human being. There are no discernible "step changes" in the development: while one can certainly discern many different stages of development, they form a single flow without any sudden switch from "vegetative" to "animal" etc.

---

quote:

---

We can here truly say that both biology and philosophy have moved on, and remain comfortable aligned in now suggesting that conception is the point at which a human being comes into existence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

For me, when I think of "a human being" the primary criteria I generally have in mind is a decent level of cognitive ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Well modern biology makes the issue of implantation extremely relevant, because 'pregnancy' is all but unanimously defined in scientific works to begin with implantation. Cases where conception takes place but the embryo fails to implant are not, scientifically speaking, regarded as pregnancy and hence not as abortion. As has previously been mentioned, implantation failures are known to occur fairly often naturally.

---

quote:

---

I am simply not prepared to regard a single cell as a "human being". At the moment of conception the sperm and egg combine into a single-celled embryo which over the course of the pregnancy splits, develops and grows.

A single cell is simply not a human being. That's not a viewpoint I can take seriously.

---

quote:

---

For me, when I think of "a human being" the primary criteria I generally have in mind is a decent level of cognitive ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Well modern biology makes the issue of implantation extremely relevant, because 'pregnancy' is all but unanimously defined in scientific works to begin with implantation. Cases where conception takes place but the embryo fails to implant are not, scientifically speaking, regarded as pregnancy and hence not as abortion. As has previously been mentioned, implantation failures are known to occur fairly often naturally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I am simply not prepared to regard a single cell as a "human being". At the moment of conception the sperm and egg combine into a single-celled embryo which over the course of the pregnancy splits, develops and grows. A single cell is simply not a human being. That's not a viewpoint I can take seriously. For me, when I think of "a human being" the primary criteria I generally have in mind is a decent level of cognitive ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, at what level of cognitive degeneration does an old person become less than human? Or, for that matter, the birth of a cognitively underdeveloped person. One who can survive, but not without major assistance?
I do not say this to be snarky, but it is on the same path of reasoning.
Any point on the path is arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Like others above have pointed out, research shows that most fertilised ova are not taken up and no pregnancy occurs. If the new life commences at conception rather than at fertilisation, taking steps in that 10 to 12 day period would not amount to abortion; a woman can take the morning after pill without concern that she is bringing a life to an end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
From time to time an obstetrician will be confronted with the dilemma of whose life to save - that of the woman or of the foetus. As I understand the old RC teaching, preference was to be given to the life of the foetus, why automatically so I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And it should be clear that it is basically irrelevant for moral concerns how often something happens "naturally".

---

quote:

---

But biologically speaking, it is a human entity (not for example a snail), and it is a human entity (distinguishable from other entities, including the mother). My own theological and moral analysis is based on this biology, but not identical with it. I certainly do make the claim that all (biological) human entities are (moral / theological) human beings, but that's not a biological claim itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But I read the input from North East Quine and birdie, and realised how late women discover their babies have severe problems, and now I would probably say 22 weeks would be sensible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
If it's clear that the 'human' has lost / not yet gained cognitive function to such an extent that it's clearly inferior to that of the more developed animals, then I wouldn't really tend to regard it as truly human in a sense of regarding it as Person. The upshot of this is that I have no qualms about abortion, because the cognitive functioning of the developing fetus is generally regarded as being significantly below that of the higher animals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
We're with you Macrina. There's a difference between accepting unquestioningly a woman's complete rights over her own body, and what you can accept when there is the body of someone else involved. To take an extreme example, no-one would accept that a woman could forcibly castrate her partner as a form of birth control. We have no objection to a woman using any form of contraceptive or other birth control method available to her, but look at it differently once conception has occurred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
As an aside, the ethics of abortion should be decided by people who could get pregnant. A cisgender* man's opinion is frankly irrelevant - he's never going to be in a position where he needs an abortion.

*a man who was designated male at birth

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
As an aside, the ethics of abortion should be decided by people who could get pregnant. A cisgender* man's opinion is frankly irrelevant - he's never going to be in a position where he needs an abortion.

*a man who was designated male at birth

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And that's where viability comes in. If the thing cannot live outside the mother's womb, how is it different from, say, your finger? Which clearly is not capable of independent life severed from your hand.
There is a moment when the fetus is viable. I have no problems with conferring humanity at that moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
It also seems to me that your own definition is in danger of being totally arbitrary: Why is anything that meets a biological definition of 'human' a morally relevant person? Seems arbitrary to me. What about angels? Demons? Do you have a list of finite length that lists morally relevant species? What happens if we encounter many different species of alien life in future? At that point what would you use to decide if any given alien species was classified by your moral code as being morally relevant persons or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And that's where viability comes in. If the thing cannot live outside the mother's womb, how is it different from, say, your finger? Which clearly is not capable of independent life severed from your hand.
There is a moment when the fetus is viable. I have no problems with conferring humanity at that moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
We're with you Macrina. There's a difference between accepting unquestioningly a woman's complete rights over her own body, and what you can accept when there is the body of someone else involved. To take an extreme example, no-one would accept that a woman could forcibly castrate her partner as a form of birth control. We have no objection to a woman using any form of contraceptive or other birth control method available to her, but look at it differently once conception has occurred.

---

Because a foetus isn't a person and - this is the important bit - has no legal standing. Valuing a non-person over an actual person is the clearest sign of the misogynist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem is that this "rational" approach a la Singer is defeated by the monstrous conclusions it leads to. For we then should have no qualms about killing newborns (arguably even toddlers), the demented elderly, the mentally severely handicapped...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The human species, barring discoveries of homo erectus or homo neanderthal populations on remote islands somewhere, is a well-defined category.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
... 2. I cannot see why a man has no right to have an opinion on these matters. Again, you are stating an opinion as a fact, but give no explanation for it....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But I read the input from North East Quine and birdie, and realised how late women discover their babies have severe problems, and now I would probably say 22 weeks would be sensible.

---

There's a couple of really serious conditions (spina bifida and hydrocephalus) that can go undiscovered until birth. For this reason the Netherlands currently allows infanticide in such circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But I read the input from North East Quine and birdie, and realised how late women discover their babies have severe problems, and now I would probably say 22 weeks would be sensible.

---

There's a couple of really serious conditions (spina bifida and hydrocephalus) that can go undiscovered until birth. For this reason the Netherlands currently allows infanticide in such circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem is that this "rational" approach a la Singer is defeated by the monstrous conclusions it leads to. For we then should have no qualms about killing newborns (arguably even toddlers), the demented elderly, the mentally severely handicapped...

---

As I mentioned, if someone has become a "vegetable", I have no issue with euthanasia. If there is almost a complete absence of higher cognitive function, due to it not yet having developed, or having been permanently lost, then euthanasia seems fine to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The human species, barring discoveries of homo erectus or homo neanderthal populations on remote islands somewhere, is a well-defined category.

---

In the present, yes. Given 100 years and some genetic engineering, it might well no longer be a well-defined category.

Such criteria would seem to allow for potentially terrible treatment of animals on the grounds that they are not human.

It would also seem to allow for arbitrary subcategories of humans to be selected: eg by race. Why say that all humans are persons of moral worth and not just say that white people are? (Or, how would you argue against someone who held such a viewpoint?) After all white vs black was an extremely well-defined category difference to the colonialists and in the US.

I guess I'm saying that I don't understand what the motivation is for seizing on the biological human species as being the measure of morality. Seems like an arbitrary thing to seize upon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
In that case IngoB God is pretty immoral allowing all those human beings to be naturally flushed down the loo, wouldn't you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
For example, if we observe Creation, and find that something has been biologically set up to work a certain way in all animals (eg the body is programmed to self-abort pregnancies if an abnormality is detected, conceived eggs regularly fail to implant etc), then we might well come to believe that God meant it to work that way, and that therefore he is quite okay with pregnancies being prevented or terminated.

Your assertion that God has any strong objection to this sort of thing happening would seem unlikely at face value when the fact that the entire created order works this way is taken into consideration. If God objects strongly to the termination of pregnancies, then it seems surprising he hasn't taken the time or effort to intervene to prevent them happening so often naturally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
... 2. I cannot see why a man has no right to have an opinion on these matters. Again, you are stating an opinion as a fact, but give no explanation for it....

---

Because men don't die in childbirth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The human species, barring discoveries of homo erectus or homo neanderthal populations on remote islands somewhere, is a well-defined category.

---

In the present, yes. Given 100 years and some genetic engineering, it might well no longer be a well-defined category.

Such criteria would seem to allow for potentially terrible treatment of animals on the grounds that they are not human.

---

quote:

---

It would also seem to allow for arbitrary subcategories of humans to be selected: eg by race. Why say that all humans are persons of moral worth and not just say that white people are? (Or, how would you argue against someone who held such a viewpoint?) After all white vs black was an extremely well-defined category difference to the colonialists and in the US.

---

quote:

---

I guess I'm saying that I don't understand what the motivation is for seizing on the biological human species as being the measure of morality. Seems like an arbitrary thing to seize upon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
As an aside, the ethics of abortion should be decided by people who could get pregnant. A cisgender* man's opinion is frankly irrelevant - he's never going to be in a position where he needs an abortion.

*a man who was designated male at birth

---

To me that seems like begging the question. If one assumes that the foetus is not a human being, and the question is one of who should make choices for women, then that view makes sense. If, on the other hand, the foetus is a human being then it makes no sense at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
There's probably room for a few words of caution about men pontificating about a situation that they won't ever personally face, but that doesn't take us very far. There are all sorts of temptations I don't personally face, but, if I exercise a modicum of humility and empathy, I can still possess a valid opinion about them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Pomona's argument is stupid and sexist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
But it does seem clear to me that a lot of people, especially on the pro-life side,* are not exercising either humility nor empathy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
To stick more closely to the OP then: . . .

A similar and connected organisation appears to the the Susan B. Anthony list, though they seem to be more a political pressure group and their previous support of Sarah Palin presumably puts them beyond the pale for most people here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Because a foetus isn't a person and - this is the important bit - has no legal standing. Valuing a non-person over an actual person is the clearest sign of the misogynist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So I'm not sure which of Macrina's concerns from the OP you feel are addressed by this organization.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
As an aside, the ethics of abortion should be decided by people who could get pregnant. A cisgender* man's opinion is frankly irrelevant - he's never going to be in a position where he needs an abortion.

*a man who was designated male at birth

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
As an aside, the ethics of abortion should be decided by people who could get pregnant. A cisgender* man's opinion is frankly irrelevant - he's never going to be in a position where he needs an abortion.

*a man who was designated male at birth

---

Notwithstanding that 'cisgender' is a rare and recently invented term, there are more nuances to this question.

But the question here is whether a man is never part of an abortion decision (we have no laws at all about abortion, it is only a health issue, nothing more*). The answer is of course, yes, sometimes men are part of it. If there is a relationship and if the relationship has any form of decent and deep intimacy, the couple will discuss it and jointly come to decisions, without pressure but with mutual understanding. To do other may be to harm the relationship.

A parallel holds when one person in a couple is choosing sterilization. It is normal to discuss together the family planning in this regard, and normal in abortion. It is also normal to discuss most other health issues in healthy relationships.


*having abortion be only a health issue is the Canadian situation; Canada has lower abortion rates than many other jurisdictions where lawyer and governments have laws about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So I'm not sure which of Macrina's concerns from the OP you feel are addressed by this organization.

---

And I'm not sure which part of "All the above without any endorsement from me, I wasn't aware of these organisations before cranking up the search engine" you do not understand?

---

• 'getting into bed' with the anti-gay marriage lobby
• blatantly religious tone of the propaganda produced
• the vitriol directed at people who are sincerely trying to help women
• refusal to advocate for contraception
• refusal to advocate for . . . sex education
• not caring about the life of the baby once it's born

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And whatever else one may think about their current ventures, it is at least interesting to look at their key claim that many of the "original feminists" were anti-abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Like others above have pointed out, research shows that most fertilised ova are not taken up and no pregnancy occurs. If the new life commences at conception rather than at fertilisation, taking steps in that 10 to 12 day period would not amount to abortion; a woman can take the morning after pill without concern that she is bringing a life to an end.

---

To clarify my own language usage above: for me "conception" is basically a synonym for "fertilisation" here, it is not a term that implies both fertilisation and successful implantation. If "conception" is take to denote the latter, then my point above has been that biologically speaking a new human being comes into existence with fertilisation. And furthermore, I attach full moral / theological human status to that being, though I have not argued that much here. Consequently, the distinction made between an implanted and non-implanted human being would be morally false for me: the "morning after pill" is hence not morally neutral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The part where you cited SBA-list as addressing the concerns listed in the OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that it's largely a spurious claim made for PR purposes. There's no clear evidence any nineteenth century feminists advocated using the state's criminal justice apparatus to force women to carry pregnancies to term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you are, because as I understand the position you are now taking is not one the church has historically taken. The church did not, historically, define the start of human life in the way you are defining it. Not least because for a long time the processes around fertilisation weren't fully understood.

But I've seen literature indicating that even after that, the church did not regard a little bundle of cells as a human being. It appears that the view that a human comes into existence at fertilisation is a very recent invention, within the last couple of generations of conservative Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that it's largely a spurious claim made for PR purposes. There's no clear evidence any nineteenth century feminists advocated using the state's criminal justice apparatus to force women to carry pregnancies to term. That simply wasn't a debate they were having at the time.

---

The Wikipedia page seems rather one-sided to me, and your summary of it relies uncomfortably on the word "largely". Furthermore, Anthony might be the most prominent name, but "Feminists for Life" make claims about many other early feminists, see here. Finally, your historical assertion makes a distinction that is not warranted. One can be against abortion without being for the criminalisation of abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
"One" can be against abortion without being for the criminalization of abortion, but neither FfL or SBA-list are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that your cited examples both attempt to project themselves as the true heirs of the nineteenth century feminist movement in order to criminalize abortion, it seems pretty relevant to ask if this position is one nineteenth century feminists would have endorsed. That's more or less the whole point of their citations from various suffragettes: to imply that FfL/SBA-list's pro-criminalization agenda is one that early feminists would endorse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, your entire lengthy post isn't even about the point I raised. I didn't suggest the church had ever said some abortions were okay. I suggested the church hadn't regarded a human being as coming into existence at the moment of fertilisation. Completely different idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Even though I wasn't actually the first person to raise the point. In fact, what I commented on was your own response to someone else's posts on the exact same issue, distinguishing fertilisation from implantation. Why the hell are you involving yourself in a line of conversation that you're now declaring irrelevant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I suggest that you choose your words carefully and indicate that something is irrelevant to you instead of declaring it irrelevant to the whole discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Cut it out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

This distinction between "moral doctrine" and "canonical penalty" should not be difficult for you as a lawyer. In secular terms, what I'm saying there is that the Church has been entirely consistent in condemning all abortion as (morally) gravely wrong, but has varied in what it has declared to be criminal (an offence punishable by Church law). There is of course a kind of evaluation implicit in elevating something that is wrong to the status of criminal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
My own position, after years of wrestling with it, is thus:

So far as I can tell, abortion is indeed taking an innocent human life, and is therefore murder.

However, attempting to legally prevent that won't actually stop it from happening, but instead will make things catastrophically worse (back alleys, coat hangers, drinking bleach, throwing oneself down flights of stairs repeatedly to induce miscarriage, etc.)....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
How could the Pro-life movement have wider appeal?

Stop being self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
How could the Pro-life movement have wider appeal?

Stop being self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks?

---

Pro-choice has plenty of those as well. No matter one's choice, it is a nuanced issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... That they so often refuse to do this -- that they, for instance, picket Planned Parenthood facilities -- tells you that the fetus, the child, and indeed the welfare of the mother means little or nothing to them. What is the real focus of interest? By process of elimination, I fear I can guess. They want to control women having sex. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is this sort of thing that excites contempt:
Hypocrite

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The prejudices surface, and they never fit other than in the imagination of the holder. Women can do what they like with their own bodies, so can men, they're responsible and accountable for what they do. When they harm someone else it's another matter. The baby inside them is someone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't buy that it is a rational person's responsibility to decry the crazies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The problem with the murder argument is that abortion is rarely treated as murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Oh, yeah, and one more thing: I dare, I double-dog dare anyone who says abortion is murder to walk up to a woman in your life (and there's probably more than one) who has had an abortion and call her a murderer to her face.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Now I've heard it all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
The privacy of one's body is generally considered sacrosanct by American courts. Adults can refuse medical procedures even when those procedures are needed to save another's life. Parents are not required to donate organs, or undergo any procedure without their consent, even when it is needed to save the life of their child. In fact, the courts have ruled in cases where fathers have refused life saving donations to their own children that the right to privacy and bodily autonomy trumps. Even the deceased cannot have their organs commandeered for another's benefit without either prior consent or consent of their next of kin. Respect for the individual is generally paramount under American jurisprudence principles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Now I've heard it all.

---

Actually, the argument about forced gestation being akin to involuntary servitude goes back at least to 1971, and the dying violinist.

Though the general consensus seems to be that the argument is not quite the slam-dunk that Thomson and her allies want it to be, since if accepted, it raises a whole lotta questions about just when the state CAN impose obligations on someone.

Good essay, nonetheless. Thomson's talent for constructing thought-experiments is unparallelled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
... I don't especially go out of my way to go up to people I know--and I have known quite a few people in this situation, actually--who were married, and then (not in an open relationship, but secretly) got into sexual relationships with other people before the marriage broke up--and call them adulterers to their face. Why should I? If they think what they did was wrong, then they're likely sorry for it, and my doing that won't help. If they think what they did was right, then my doing that still won't help. Ditto this.

---

Adultery is an odd counter-example to choose. After all, in the Old Testament, causing a miscarriage results in a fine, but the punishment for adultery is death. So if adultery attracts a more severe punishment than abortion, and if abortion is murder, then logically adultery is a worse crime than murder.

Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion. Unless their normal response to a murder is "If they think what they did was wrong, then they're likely sorry for it, and my doing that won't help. If they think what they did was right, then my doing that still won't help."
 

---

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Sorry that I misread your post to be referring to operations etc for children. While there is no requirement here that an adult donate an organ or blood for a child, there are general requirements that a parent maintain a child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As far as I can tell, this argument began to be used by some pro-life people, as it avoids the interminable arguments about what a person is, and the status of the foetus. But some seem to find it an implausible or distasteful argument. But maybe one cannot find a watertight case for abortion, since it's not purely a rational choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It horrifies me that anyone can compare the nurturing of a baby inside the womb which is formed from the woman's DNA and so a part of her, to that of a kidnapped woman being forced to keep someone unconnected to her alive for nine months.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As far as I can tell, this argument began to be used by some pro-life people, as it avoids the interminable arguments about what a person is, and the status of the foetus. But some seem to find it an implausible or distasteful argument. But maybe one cannot find a watertight case for abortion, since it's not purely a rational choice.

---

FWIW I am in favour of the legalisation of abortion, but find the Dying Violinist distinctly unconvincing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Actually, the argument about forced gestation being akin to involuntary servitude goes back at least to 1971, and the dying violinist.

---

Thank you for showing me this. It horrifies me that anyone can compare the nurturing of a baby inside the womb which is formed from the woman's DNA and so a part of her, to that of a kidnapped woman being forced to keep someone unconnected to her alive for nine months.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The idea that she is justified in unplugging herself even though the stranger may die ignores the third party implication too, the one she calls upon to pull the plug.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Adultery is an odd counter-example to choose. After all, in the Old Testament, causing a miscarriage results in a fine, but the punishment for adultery is death. So if adultery attracts a more severe punishment than abortion, and if abortion is murder, then logically adultery is a worse crime than murder.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion.

---

quote:

---

Unless their normal response to a murder is "If they think what they did was wrong, then they're likely sorry for it, and my doing that won't help. If they think what they did was right, then my doing that still won't help."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion.

---

If abortion is deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being, then the word is accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a fallacious argument. Reproduction is in no way analogous to the dying violinist hijacker.
It is a complex issue whose solution isn't bullshit thought experiment or abdication of reality.
Deal with the causes of unwanted pregnancy and you reduce abortion which, frankly should be everyone's goal, regardless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Surgery, or medication, to retroactively address something which could be avoided is ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose it's difficult to find an analogy with the same degree of physical intimacy. After all, one can make the same point in relation to donating blood or organs, I mean that the state does not compel you, even with your own child. But this is 'action at a distance'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
To be truly analogous to pregnancy, the dying violinist scenario would have to be so common that everyone in the world had been in the position of the dying violinist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion.

---

If abortion is deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being, then the word is accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
In the case of a fœtus the argument seems to demand a set of "rights" that wouldn't be extended to any other individual in any other circumstance, like the right to inhabit someone else's body and hijack their metabolic processes.

---

quote:

---

They hold that the unborn are perpetually plaguing and tormenting the married of both sexes, fluttering about them incessantly, and giving them no peace either of mind or body until they have consented to take them under their protection. [...] The only thing of which they were quite sure was that it was the pestering of the unborn which caused them to be brought into this world, and that they would not have been here if they would have only let peaceable people alone.

It would be hard to disprove this position, and they might have a good case if they would only leave it as it stands. But this they will not do; they must have assurance doubly sure; they must have the written word of the child itself as soon as it is born, giving the parents indemnity from all responsibility on the score of its birth, and asserting its own pre-existence. They have therefore devised something which they call a birth formula—a document which varies in words according to the caution of parents, but is much the same practically in all cases; for it has been the business of the Erewhonian lawyers during many ages to exercise their skill in perfecting it and providing for every contingency.

These formulae are printed on common paper at a moderate cost for the poor; but the rich have them written on parchment and handsomely bound, so that the getting up of a person's birth formula is a test of his social position. They commence by setting forth, That whereas A. B. was a member of the kingdom of the unborn, where he was well provided for in every way, and had no cause of discontent, &c., &c., he did of his own wanton depravity and restlessness conceive a desire to enter into this present world; that thereon having taken the necessary steps as set forth in laws of the unborn kingdom, he did with malice aforethought set himself to plague and pester two unfortunate people who had never wronged him, and who were quite contented and happy until he conceived this base design against their peace; for which wrong he now humbly entreats their pardon.

He acknowledges that he is responsible for all physical blemishes and deficiencies which may render him answerable to the laws of his country; that his parents have nothing whatever to do with any of these things; and that they have a right to kill him at once if they be so minded, though he entreats them to show their marvellous goodness and clemency by sparing his life. If they will do this, he promises to be their most obedient and abject creature during his earlier years, and indeed all his life, unless they should see fit in their abundant generosity to remit some portion of his service hereafter. And so the formula continues, going sometimes into very minute details, according to the fancies of family lawyers, who will not make it any shorter than they can help.

The deed being thus prepared, on the third or fourth day after the birth of the child, or as they call it, the "final importunity," the friends gather together, and there is a feast held, where they are all very melancholy—as a general rule, I believe, quite truly so—and make presents to the father and mother of the child in order to console them for the injury which has just been done them by the unborn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure adding in the veil of ignorance necessarily improves the analogy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Anyway, my main point in answer to the OP is that the anti-choice movement should stop using the word murder when referring to abortion.

---

If abortion is deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being, then the word is accurate.

---

Except the anti-abortion movement is not terribly consistent with that position when it comes to ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Certainly it would be murder to kill the soldier while the soldier was off duty and on leave. Given that killing a soldier in battle might well be deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being. But if it were done in battle it wouldn't be murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a fallacious argument. Reproduction is in no way analogous to the dying violinist hijacker.
It is a complex issue whose solution isn't bullshit thought experiment or abdication of reality.
Deal with the causes of unwanted pregnancy and you reduce abortion which, frankly should be everyone's goal, regardless.

---

And yet it isn't. As noted in the OP, no major anti-abortion group advocates in favor of contraception or better sex ed,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

Of course, unwanted pregnancies can only be reduced so far. Contraceptives fail. Rape happens. Sometimes there are pregnancies that would otherwise be very much wanted but have the disadvantage of leading to the mother's death if carried to term. A lot of smug finger wagging at how "ridiculous" women facing those situations are for resorting to medication or surgery seems both counterproductive and cruel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]
]Surgery, or medication, to retroactively address something that could have been avoided is the basis of many if not most medical practices. It's called remedy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

]Surgery, or medication, to retroactively address something that could have been avoided is the basis of many if not most medical practices. It's called remedy.

---

Yes, and so is removing a tumor caused by smoking. Doesn't mean it is better than not smoking in the first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I was surprised "normal use" failures were around 10% - I bet most people don't know that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Nope, it's another urban myth. Young people are notoriously bad at using condoms effectively. That's why the C cards aren't issued until the young person has been trained in their use.

---

quote:

---

*No major anti-abortion groups that I know of support better sex education, but there are a few who do not outright oppose it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
replying as calmly as I can.
There are loads of people who hate abortion but would not see abortion made illegal and would see education to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Loads of us who would never shame a girl for becoming pregnant, who offer support, etc.
We don't get coverage by the press. We get lumped in with the nutters by You lot.
We have no control over them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
replying as calmly as I can.
There are loads of people who hate abortion but would not see abortion made illegal and would see education to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Loads of us who would never shame a girl for becoming pregnant, who offer support, etc.
We don't get coverage by the press. We get lumped in with the nutters by You lot.
We have no control over them.

---

Which gets back to the question of why, given the fairly common existence of such views among individuals, these positions do not seem to be held by any major anti-abortion organization.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
replying as calmly as I can.
There are loads of people who hate abortion but would not see abortion made illegal and would see education to reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Loads of us who would never shame a girl for becoming pregnant, who offer support, etc.
We don't get coverage by the press. We get lumped in with the nutters by You lot.
We have no control over them.

---

quote:

---

I would consider myself to be a left wing feminist in most regards. The big aberration within my world view is abortion. If I am honest with myself I just can't cope with the view that an nonviable fetus is nothing and has no right to life over that of its mother.

---

quote:

---

I don't want to deny women healthcare, or contraception or choice over their bodies but I just can't get past my gut reaction that yes this is the murder of a child and I would really like it if it stopped.

---

quote:

---

So I suppose that makes me pro-life.

---

quote:

---

But I can't feel comfortable with that label because I simply can't identify with the rhetoric and priorities of the anti-abortion movement. I find the 'getting into bed' with the anti-gay marriage lobby distasteful and offensive, I am frustrated by the blatantly religious tone of the propaganda produced and the vitriol directed at people who are sincerely trying to help women in desperate situations.

---

quote:

---

I am mystified by the refusal to advocate for contraception and sex education as a means by which the abortion rates can be decreased.

---

quote:

---

Most of all I find the failure of the pro life movement to actually care about the life of the baby once it's born to be hypocritical in the extreme.

---

quote:

---

Does anyone share my frustration?

---

quote:

---

Are there movements I could get involved in that don't mean I have to scream at vulnerable women outside clinics? Is there a less violent way for Christians to broaden the pro life movement and and reduce abortion rates in a compassionate and just manner?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
L'organist's post demonstrates that rigid, uncaring, message before compassion, rhetoric before accuracy are values shared by the pro-choice movement as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
This is just character assassination. You are not responding to L'organist's actual points, just making a sweeping ad hominem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
First, I don't see what your position as a supposed left-wing feminist has to do with this -

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

Second, you are assuming that people who are pro-choice view your 'non-viable foetus' as nothing: again, this isn't my experience, rather they take the view that one life-form which is dependent on another for its very existence and which cannot survive independently must be the subordinate partner in the relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
to allow what is, in effect, a parasite to remain within their body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

If you sincerely believe that for at least some of her life a woman has no rights at all

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
L'organist's post demonstrates that rigid, uncaring, message before compassion, rhetoric before accuracy are values shared by the pro-choice movement as well.

---

This is just character assassination. You are not responding to L'organist's actual points, just making a sweeping ad hominem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
L'organist's post demonstrates that rigid, uncaring, message before compassion, rhetoric before accuracy are values shared by the pro-choice movement as well.

---

This is just character assassination. You are not responding to L'organist's actual points, just making a sweeping ad hominem.

---

And yet lilB is right on the money here - L'organist's post was breathtakingly stupid and vicious. One of the worst I've seen on these boards in ages. The kind of post which if it had come from the other side of the debate would have been mercilessly slammed. I don't think you have to be a snivelling little pape like me to see that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... If we concentrate on those things which truly help women, abortion numbers naturally reduce.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Old school feminists, and many current, see any question of abortion as a campaign to eliminate it and an attack on the rights of women. Abortion is often portrayed as an non-nuanced stance....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

There's no nuance about the anti-choice movement's end goal, and one doesn't have to be a feminist to see that. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I reside in the state famous for the state-mandated transvaginal probe. Yes, there is steady pressure to cut back on women's rights. It is not at all difficult to find proof of this, every day. We are sensitive about it, because the attacks on women's rights are so frequent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
Others can disagree with me about they whys and wherefores of rights and personhood but the uniqueness of that cell >>zygote>>foetus is a biological fact and hard to dispute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
... I am way more in favour of comprehensive sex education, contraception and proper social supports than I am in making abortion easier and more casual. ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
... I am way more in favour of comprehensive sex education, contraception and proper social supports than I am in making abortion easier and more casual. ....

---

Which, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is the exact opposite of the tactics and goals of the anti-choice movement. Furthermore, an "easier and more casual" policy hasn't resulted in more abortions in Canada. So why would anyone holding these opinions think it a good thing to increase the appeal of this movement?

Perhaps what you're looking for is a movement that wants girls and women to be able to easily access sex education and birth control; that allows women to make their own decisions about sex; that wants society to have good child care, flexible employment practices, maternity benefits and family leave; and that trusts women to make responsible, agonizing, personal, life-and-death moral decisions in a uniquely personal aspect of their lives. Hmmm... what's the word I'm looking for ... I think it starts with an f ... any guesses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Whatever your views on healthcare and contraception, you do want to deny women choice over their body if you aren't prepared to let them choose whether or not to allow what is, in effect, a parasite to remain within their body.

---

quote:

---

The analogy also fails insofar as that a Siamese twin is undeniably there, present, living next to me. This may not make an "intellectual" difference, but it makes a psychological one. If somehow I could barely notice my Siamese twin, the temptation of separating now would be much magnified...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
People do want to adopt, but the market is all for infants (ideally white). To get these desirable infants most people now go for overseas adoptions.
Older kids, or kids from troubled situations or with special needs, are sadly plenteous the world over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
What I have never understood about the pro-life positon in the US is what they wish to do about all the unwanted children. In the US, the dysfunctional foster care system is already bursting with unwanted children, especially children of color and any with special needs. You create a scenario where a woman who lacks the resources for a healthy pregnancy is forced to carry a fetus she feels ambivalent about or even hostile towards, Anyone who has ever been pregnant knows the dedication it takes to create a good outcome and women under duress will not do all that needs to be done. They will not forgo unhealthy habits, may eschew prenatal care (access to which is limited for poor women in the US), suffer mental and emotional angusih (which has been shown to affect the fetus), etc. In the end you have an unwanted child who has not been properly cared for during pregnancy put into an overloaded system rife with neglect and abuse. I just never understand how that is a desirable situation. In the meantime the lack of any support for women in the US means she may lose her job (many women in the US are their family's primary bread winner) and not be adequately able to care for her previously born children and others she is responsible for. Pregnancy is more than a process its a relationship and although you can reduce a woman to the biological function of gestation you cannot force her to create the relationship required for a healthy outcome, physically, mentally or emotionally.

---

quote:

---

It's possibly the attitude that there is a kind of conspiracy to force a woman to see a pregnancy through rather than understanding that some people care about human life, and see the unborn baby as human life too, that stands in the way of progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's possibly the attitude that there is a kind of conspiracy to force a woman to see a pregnancy through . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's possibly the attitude that there is a kind of conspiracy to force a woman to see a pregnancy through . . .

---

The term "conspiracy" seems a bit inaccurate since it implies a level of secrecy. The anti-abortion movement is pretty open about their goal of using the state's criminal justice powers "to force a woman to see a pregnancy through".

---

1. There is a pool of people waiting to adopt children - finding numbers is difficult but there are very low numbers adopted from that number of children in care - that BPAS page gives the following figures from that 69,000 children in care:
   

   quote:

   ---

   5% (3,580) were placed for adoption
   4,820 children had an adoption decision but were not yet placed at 30th September 2014.
   3,470 children had a placement order for adoption but were not yet placed at 30th September 2014

   ---

   That's around 12,000 from the 69,000, so around one sixth or 17% of all the children in care. It doesn't look as if adoption is the solution for those children already in care.
2. The women involved are willing to jeopardise their health and careers for a possible baby;
3. That having persuaded all these women to carry to term the babies will be available for adoption immediately, not after the home situation has broken down, leaving more older children in care.
4. That whoever involved in organising this new policy will be happy to fund the additional costs of full term pregnancy and birth, the prenatal care of up to $25,000, hospital costs of delivery - up to $37,227 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery, up to $71,000 for a caesarean, maternity costs: the new wardrobe including bras to cope with the changing shape of the woman both during the pregnancy and following, time off work for prenatal appointments, as against the costs of termination of pregnancy ($800) (using US prices as easier to source)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I did say that I was using US figures. However my point still stands: the NHS or UK Government funds those additional costs. So that might play into Government willingness to enforce such a policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Here is a question which may be worthy of its own thread:

From the point of view of those people who believe abortion is not morally wrong, what are your thoughts about an anti-abortion/pro-life (pick whatever name you wish) movement whose focus is specifically not to make abortion illegal again, but to create that social safety net I mentioned above as a way to lower the number of abortions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What I find utterly repulsive about the more strident pro-life faction is their blatant hypocrisy. (Far, far too many examples to insert here, but if you want a fresh one hot from today's headlines put in the word "Duggar" into a search window. And then step back and hold your nose.)

So, yes: if the focus of the pro-life movement could shift from the "what is between your legs, I get to manage" bit over to the actual caring for, you know, life, then my ire would diminish greatly. They could then ease back from the misogynist oppression agenda. And then, when a major figurehead of the movement is found with his pants down with his sister, the furor might not be less, but the embarrassment would hopefully be cooler. The element of "the law, it is for those little people, not me" would be gone.

---

quote:

---

The problem with this is that the formal legal status of abortion is essentially irrelevant to whether the wives, mistresses, and daughters of people like Scott DesJarlais and John McCain will be able to obtain safe abortions. They are fully aware of this when they vote for every abortion regulation and ban to come down the pike. And the disjuncture also illustrates that these votes are appalling. All women should have access to safe, legal abortions, not just women who are affluent or who have access to the patronage of people like Scott DesJarlais.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In the UK there were 185,331 terminations of pregnancy in 2013¹ and as of 31st March 2014 there were 68,840 children in care², 6% of whom were under a year.

There are some assumptions in the proposition of asking women to carry those nearly two hundred thousand babies to term to provide more children for adoption.

1. There is a pool of people waiting to adopt children - finding numbers is difficult but there are very low numbers adopted from that number of children in care - that BPAS page gives the following figures from that 69,000 children in care:
   

   quote:

   ---

   5% (3,580) were placed for adoption
   4,820 children had an adoption decision but were not yet placed at 30th September 2014.
   3,470 children had a placement order for adoption but were not yet placed at 30th September 2014

   ---

   That's around 12,000 from the 69,000, so around one sixth or 17% of all the children in care. It doesn't look as if adoption is the solution for those children already in care.
2. The women involved are willing to jeopardise their health and careers for a possible baby;
3. That having persuaded all these women to carry to term the babies will be available for adoption immediately, not after the home situation has broken down, leaving more older children in care.
4. That whoever involved in organising this new policy will be happy to fund the additional costs of full term pregnancy and birth, the prenatal care of up to $25,000, hospital costs of delivery - up to $37,227 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery, up to $71,000 for a caesarean, maternity costs: the new wardrobe including bras to cope with the changing shape of the woman both during the pregnancy and following, time off work for prenatal appointments, as against the costs of termination of pregnancy ($800) (using US prices as easier to source)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Here is a question which may be worthy of its own thread:

From the point of view of those people who believe abortion is not morally wrong, what are your thoughts about an anti-abortion/pro-life (pick whatever name you wish) movement whose focus is specifically not to make abortion illegal again, but to create that social safety net I mentioned above as a way to lower the number of abortions?

---

The hypothetical movement you describe sounds a lot like the pro-choice movement

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
I think that the problem with too many pro-life supporters is that they either completely ignore the reality of the situation, fantasize that the women will suddenly have a change of heart or that there are countless safe, adoptive homes awaiting, or have a craven disregard for what happens to the children born of these situations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The pro life side does not have to justify its moral objections to abortion by providing a contingency plan for every unwanted pregnancy or finding some magic that avoids all unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I did say several pages back that the moral solution was to change society's attitude to sex, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Practically, termination of pregnancy is the least bad solution as the outworkings of policies that insist outlawing medical abortions are not great when you (general you) start looking at what is actually involved.

---

quote:

---

On your first point, I would say we are on a long recoil from a period of sexual repression. I don't think you can do much about it, it's a bit like being starved for a period, you tend to feel hungry. Moral exhortation may also rebound.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, examples are not hard to find. An aunt of mine nearly died in childbirth, after begging for an abortion, as previous births had been very difficult. This was in the dark days, and her obstetrician was Catholic, and refused. She was in hospital for two months, no doubt ruminating on the moral arguments pro and con.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
First, let's distinguish between "solving" the issue and ameliorating it. Just because we may not "solve" this problem by throwing money at it, does not mean that we should not throw money at it. I think it is entirely defensible to say that the state should invest a few billion currency units to help pregnant women and young families. That is a damned good idea as such and likely more helpful to society than say buying a few nuclear submarines at the same price tag. And in addition it is likely to prevent some unnecessary abortions by giving some women opportunities they did not have before. I fail to see how anybody in either the pro choice or pro life camp can be against that outcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And yes, if you think that having sex whenever you want and with whom you want is a human right, or at least so desirable as to trump other concerns, then this means contraception.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, examples are not hard to find. An aunt of mine nearly died in childbirth, after begging for an abortion, as previous births had been very difficult. This was in the dark days, and her obstetrician was Catholic, and refused. She was in hospital for two months, no doubt ruminating on the moral arguments pro and con.

---

This assumes that the abortion would have gone smoothly, of course.

The answer to this sort of question is one to be made on a proper clinical basis. On a spectrum, at one end the mother is going to die regardless. In that case, the doctors should do all possible to ensure a safe delivery. The other end is that the child will die come what may, and in that case a course which involves termination is justified. In between is nowhere near as easy.

In our own case, Madame's very much wanted pregnancy was extremely difficult, and she spent quite some time in hospital before giving birth and a longer than usual time after. But she and Dlet both came through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
I think that the problem with too many pro-life supporters is that they either completely ignore the reality of the situation, fantasize that the women will suddenly have a change of heart or that there are countless safe, adoptive homes awaiting, or have a craven disregard for what happens to the children born of these situations.

---

First, let's distinguish between "solving" the issue and ameliorating it. Just because we may not "solve" this problem by throwing money at it, does not mean that we should not throw money at it. I think it is entirely defensible to say that the state should invest a few billion currency units to help pregnant women and young families. That is a damned good idea as such and likely more helpful to society than say buying a few nuclear submarines at the same price tag. And in addition it is likely to prevent some unnecessary abortions by giving some women opportunities they did not have before. I fail to see how anybody in either the pro choice or pro life camp can be against that outcome. To insist on "all or nothing" to me sounds like privileging the ideological war over pragmatically improving the common good.

Second, it is unfair to demand of the "pro life" side that they must arrange society so that every unwanted pregnancy can become a wanted baby. The primary solution to unwanted pregnancies is of course to not become pregnant unless you want to. And yes, if you think that having sex whenever you want and with whom you want is a human right, or at least so desirable as to trump other concerns, then this means contraception. Or, given the still too high failure rates we see with contemporary contraception, developing better contraception or perhaps using sterilisation. There are other possible solutions, too. Like not having sex as much and/or increasing the number of children you want. But how terribly unrealistic these other solutions might be to your mind does not change that this simply is a different discussion.

The pro life side does not have to justify its moral objections to abortion by providing a contingency plan for every unwanted pregnancy or finding some magic that avoids all unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It would be beautiful if this were possible, but the sad truth is that unwanted pregnancies which are not terminated will in many cases result in hardship. And the way these things work out, it is a safe bet that these hardships will disproportionally affect women and children. But from that it neither follows that the moral objections against abortion are invalid, nor that those who voice these moral objections hate women and children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:

---

On your first point, I would say we are on a long recoil from a period of sexual repression. I don't think you can do much about it, it's a bit like being starved for a period, you tend to feel hungry. Moral exhortation may also rebound.

---

It is the same thing with women's rights. After many millennia of second-class status, within my lifetime we have (as the ad used to say) come a long way, baby. And so we are rather stroppy with things like this Trans Vaginal Probes, You Love 'em

---

quote:

---

In the US "pro-life" is not merely a moral/philosophical position but a political movement. In the US the pro-choice lobby seeks to end all legalize abortion for any reason and is seeking a constitutional amendment that grants full person-hood to a fertilized egg. This would end all abortion, even those required to to spare life and health and those for children who are victims of incest and all women/girls who have victimized by rape. It has the added benefit of outlawing several of the most reliable forms of contraception because the lobby "believes" they cause abortion. ... THese are societal questions with real life and death consequences to actual families.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
While I don't find this argument convincing, I find it easy to see how a good number of people could be against that outcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The only reason to get bent out of shape about women choosing their own sex partners is if you feel that they'll pick wrong and it's somehow your responsibility to prevent this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Once you've postulated that lifelong chastity is a reasonable demand to place on the poor (i.e. the only people whose decisions regarding abortion are likely to be influenced by a massive increase in social spending), then lifelong chastity will be seen as the much more economical option, from a government spending perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
From past experience of discussing this with other women I have often found that people seem influenced by their own experiences and emotions. Those who have had fertility problems have found the termination of any pregnancy inconceivable and offensive; those who are so fertile that birth control methods are insecure may think that abortion is an evil, but see it as a necessary evil.

A rising number of terminations in the UK are for older women. There have been articles in the press highlighting this and discussing reasons, one of which is they are no longer eligible to use the contraceptive pill (only recommended for under 35 smokers and 45 for non-smokers with no other contraindications). From the 2013 statistics¹, table 4a

Women aged 34-39 - 18,955
Women aged 40-44 - 7,662
Women aged 45-49 - 686
Women aged over 50 - 24

So about 15% of the 181,000. This suggests that contraceptive failure continues to be an issue even into later years of fertility, and abortion is not just a problem for feckless teenagers and young women.

(Those 2013 statistics were released in June 2014, which suggests the 2014 statistics are due out soon.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
In the US the pro-choice lobby seeks to end all legalize abortion for any reason and is seeking a constitutional amendment that grants full person-hood to a fertilized egg. This would end all abortion, even those required to to spare life and health and those for children who are victims of incest and all women/girls who have victimized by rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
It has the added benefit of outlawing several of the most reliable forms of contraception because the lobby "believes" they cause abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
Any political movement that seeks to change the law is responsible for explaining to fellow citizens why they wish to change the law, what benefit(s) to society will result and what the plan is to mitigate harm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
It is the pro-life side re-arranging society so they are responsible to ensure "every unwanted pregnancy can become a wanted baby."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
How will society respond to the overwhelming number of unwanted children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Or a massive increase in sterilisation and prostitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Or a massive increase in sterilisation and prostitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, and a return to double standards, probably; men have affairs and shag prostitutes, women have a pure unsullied life as vessels of domestic harmony and propriety.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And yes, if you think that having sex whenever you want and with whom you want is a human right, or at least so desirable as to trump other concerns, then this means contraception.

---

The only reason to get bent out of shape about women choosing their own sex partners is if you feel that they'll pick wrong and it's somehow your responsibility to prevent this.

---

Foetuses do not spontaneously pop into existence in wombs. If I am supposed to worry about unwanted pregnancies, then that inevitably leads to worrying about the sexual choices people make, which lead to these unwanted pregnancies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that some of the information you seem to think is critical is actually irrelevant. Your claim that the identity and number of sex partners ("whom you want") is just as important as frequency of intercourse ("whenever you want") when assessing the chance of unplanned pregnancy seems of that nature. As I've stated before, if you know the latter the former is largely irrelevant if your interest is in shaping public policy to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Your focus on taking some kind of sexual census seems prurient, creepy, and about as relevant to questions of pregnancy as assessing the religious affiliation of sex partners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
In particular, it will mean women returning to a general attitude of careful selectivity and exclusivity concerning their male sexual partners. As for men, it will likely mean a considerable reduction in their overall sexual activity. In general, it will be advisable to have sex with someone only if you believe that they will be a parent to the potential child.

---

Oh yeah. Right. That'll happen. That's what people did in the olden days, and we could/should just go back to that.

[ 29. May 2015, 16:31: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I did say is that if you want to screw around freely (whenever you want, with whom you want) but with no unwanted pregnancies resulting, then you need contraception. That's a fairly uncontroversial statement, I would say. The "whenever" may be enough to give you an inkling about the likely chance of pregnancy, but the "with whom" usually is a key factor concerning the question whether the pregnancy is unwanted. If you fancy shagging someone, but do not fancy having their child, then what do you do? Exactly, you use contraception. This is a different question to how often you want to shag them. I hope I don't need to belabour the point any further. The statement I made is straightforward and as such does not really take any sides. What you are making out of it says more about the state of your mind than mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The "whenever" may be enough to give you an inkling about the likely chance of pregnancy, but the "with whom" usually is a key factor concerning the question whether the pregnancy is unwanted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
In the US the pro-choice lobby seeks to end all legalize abortion for any reason and is seeking a constitutional amendment that grants full person-hood to a fertilized egg. This would end all abortion, even those required to to spare life and health and those for children who are victims of incest and all women/girls who have victimized by rape. It has the added benefit of outlawing several of the most reliable forms of contraception because the lobby "believes" they cause abortion.

---

quote:

---

From past experience of discussing this with other women I have often found that people seem influenced by their own experiences and emotions. Those who have had fertility problems have found the termination of any pregnancy inconceivable and offensive; those who are so fertile that birth control methods are insecure may think that abortion is an evil, but see it as a necessary evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
I would consider myself to be a left wing feminist in most regards. The big aberration within my world view is abortion. If I am honest with myself I just can't cope with the view that an nonviable fetus is nothing and has no right to life over that of its mother.

I don't want to deny women healthcare, or contraception or choice over their bodies but I just can't get past my gut reaction that yes this is the murder of a child and I would really like it if it stopped.

So I suppose that makes me pro-life. But I can't feel comfortable with that label because I simply can't identify with the rhetoric and priorities of the anti-abortion movement. I find the 'getting into bed' with the anti-gay marriage lobby distasteful and offensive, I am frustrated by the blatantly religious tone of the propaganda produced and the vitriol directed at people who are sincerely trying to help women in desperate situations. I am mystified by the refusal to advocate for contraception and sex education as a means by which the abortion rates can be decreased. Most of all I find the failure of the pro life movement to actually care about the life of the baby once it's born to be hypocritical in the extreme.

Does anyone share my frustration? Are there movements I could get involved in that don't mean I have to scream at vulnerable women outside clinics? Is there a less violent way for Christians to broaden the pro life movement and and reduce abortion rates in a compassionate and just manner?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsofchange:


I'm having a LOT of problems right now dealing with other Catholics who insist that if I don't support their current battle to de-fund Planned Parenthood, then I must be one of those evil people who support dismembering babies and selling their quivering, bleeding parts on the black market.

FWIW, I do think it's perfectly appropriate to investigate PP in light of the recent allegations and videos. But it seems to me that defunding it would hurt a lot more people than it would help, so I simply can't support it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You realise that the videos have been selectively edited to give the appearance of wrongdoing, and that there is nothing in the videos that comes close to being illegal. The only thing to investigate that I can see is the defamatory actions of those behind the videos, and the criminal act (in California, where one of the videos was made) of making recordings without permission. Bearing false witness is a sin too. [/QB]

---

None of which really relates my problem, though I appreciate the clarification. My problem is I'm basically an Episcopalian in Roman Catholic clothing, and I'm not in a position to change my outfit at the moment.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I would hope that the pro-life movement (whatever that really is) loses all appeal with its present focus. It is one of those groups that infuriates me because of its hypocrisy and abject moral failure.

Start with prevention.

Women need complete control over their reproductive health, and thereby, pregnancies that are not wanted simply don't occur. So the 'prolifers' would have to get good with birth control, thorough sexual education and knowledge, and stop associating with anti-sex, anti-masturbation, anti-gay, and whatever else they are against about reproduction. Abortion would be reserved for those situations where the prevention doesn't work, which is inevitable, and the pregnancy is easily handled, before it is even known to exist, e.g. mifepristone, which happily Health Canada has approved as of July 2015.

Re-aim at something actually useful.

The pro-life movement might be better to aim itself at something really useful, such as children dying from contaminated water around the world which is estimated at 2200 per day, estimated 18,000 children dying from starvation per day. We might also consider the killing directly or indirectly children in war. The Iraq war estimates were 6-7 thousand children per month**. I think the prolifers need to examine their moral failure, narrow goals, and consider stopping bother everyone else.

Just generally stop associating itself wrongly with Christianity.

Because that's doing "Christianity and..."

As I have learned on the evangelism loving and hating Jesus thread, it is wrong to do "Christianity and...":


** You can search for similar figures via your favourite internet search engine.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You realise that the videos have been selectively edited to give the appearance of wrongdoing, and that there is nothing in the videos that comes close to being illegal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I would hope that the pro-life movement (whatever that really is) loses all appeal with its present focus. It is one of those groups that infuriates me because of its hypocrisy and abject moral failure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Ross Douthat speaks my mind on this kind of defence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Ross Douthat speaks my mind on this kind of defence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This: Life has nothing to do with it really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

Step one here is for both sides to admit that pregnancy is a special case. It is not simply a human being who just happens to live within another human being for a while, as many on the pro-life side would have it. It is not simply another piece of tissue that the mother happens to be growing, as many on the pro-choice side would have it. It is a difficult moral problem precisely because it is a special case. It may have one right solution in the end, but if we acknowledge that it is not simple, then we can approach those who disagree with us with the appropriate respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

The problem with discussing the prices isn't that it is done. It is the perception that this is the motive for the practice rather than a practical side issue. That abortions will be encouraged so to generate revenue. Yes, I know that this is unlikely, but this, IMO, is the fear.

---

quote:

---

And it is about life. And it is about supporting women. For some of us. We would not see abortion illegal, but we would like it to be extremely rare. And this is objectively good for women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't really understand how it follows that even if one thinks that abortion is really bad that use of the fetus in research (and discussion therein) is worse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The way that a doctored video and a false narrative has been trotted out and immediately used as an excuse to cut help to women simply reeks of evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The way that a doctored video and a false narrative has been trotted out and immediately used as an excuse to cut help to women simply reeks of evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The way that a doctored video and a false narrative has been trotted out and immediately used as an excuse to cut help to women simply reeks of evil.

---

Not necessarily that simple. Or even likely that simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not necessarily that simple. Or even likely that simple.
Yes, there are those who fit your description. But not everyone does.
Let's examine the spectrum of those of us who don't see abortion as a positive.
From the misogynistic "women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" to me. There is a lot of room for nuance and variation.
My objection is not that you paint some with that brush, it is that you paint all with it.

---

quote:

---

Please help me understand why I should be getting angry about the videos and using the anger to deprive tissues for research and services for women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Actually, everyone should get angry about the videos.
This issue can be discussed and debated on a rational level and the videos are underhanded. Whatever their motive, the practice is lacking.

---

1. the fertilised egg is human as it has created new genetic material and life, so has full human rights, or
2. any foetus is only potential life without a woman to act as incubator and potential life cannot trump the woman's rights

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I just said. The fact that they are underhanded. That they are not honest.
That should anger everyone, even those opposed to abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
If fetal tissue research is evil because it's gross (per IngoB/Douthat), it seems a non-sequitur to claim that the solution is to start withholding cancer screenings from poor women. There does not seem to be any kind of interest in investigating or penalizing the large bio-tech firms that actually use fetal tissue for research.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
US law

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I fully agree that funding for say cancer screening should be ring-fenced against whatever action is taken in this matter. If we are worried about a specific issue, then that issue must be addressed. Using it as a device for a much broader attack is not appropriate (and IMHO also tactically unwise for the pro-life side).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not know what regulations exist in the USA, and whether they are reasonable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:


Third, it is not evil as such to perform research on human tissue, including foetal human tissue. The ethical question is precisely how the researcher gets this human tissue in the first place. Generally speaking, this becomes an issue of consent. For a (deceased) foetus, one would expect some kind of regulation requiring consent from the parents. In the UK this is regulated by the Human Tissue Act. It does an acceptable job in spite of some ideological nonsense in its classifications, basically because the same people get asked for consent no matter how the tissue is legally labeled. I do not know what regulations exist in the USA, and whether they are reasonable. I also do not know to what extent US companies may have pushed for the illegal or immoral harvesting of tissue. However, the mere fact that a company does research on foetal tissue does not indicate that the company is doing something illegal or immoral.

---

but are you saying there is a problem even if there is consent?
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet that seems to be the approach the American pro-life movement has taken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
but are you saying there is a problem even if there is consent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
Can I ask when they become 'tiny human persons' in your opinion? Is it at fertilization or somewhere along the developmental time line? If along that timeline when and what qualities bestow personhood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The thing I still don't understand is this point that the fetus should not be used because it was obtained in a bad way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is there a blanket prohibition on using things that were obtained in bad/sinful ways? Does the Vatican know this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
IngoB's view of the origins human life is not that held by everyone. For many of the rest of us, an embryo is a precious and miraculous thing, but it is not a human life until birth. That is the status it has in law. So claiming that abortion is somehow murder of a human is a religious claim many of us do not accept. Furthermore there is no particular reason to join him in believing this and therefore no reason to listen to his - or anyone else's - overblown rhetoric on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
There is a debate to be had whether something obtained in an illicit way can be used for the good, and whether that depends on the intentions behind the illicit act. Is it more important to maintain the integrity of the prohibition, or is it more important to pragmatically make the best out of a bad situation? But in sense that sort of discussion is independent of the particular case at hand.

---

quote:

---

RC morality maintains that evil may not be done to achieve good. This is however not exactly the same as saying that the outcome of evil may not be used for the good.

---

quote:

---

I have not used any "overblown rhetoric". I have stated matter-of-factly what I consider to be the case, since I was asked to do so. And this appeal to not listen to the reasons I - or anybody sharing my opinion - may have is very strange to me. I would say that it is key for any discussion of any topic to listen to the reasons of the other. Whether one agrees with them is a different matter, but to preemptively announce that one will just ignore them seems foolish and/or fanatic to me.

---

quote:

---

I believe the law on this matter is obviously false, in the sense of being counter-factual (at odds with reality). It is however right in the sense of representing the reigning majority opinion (or at least it codifies the desires of the majority into a categorisation of human life). I respect the rule of law, but I also insist on the possibility of overturning unjust law through a political process. The task at hand is then to change the opinion of the majority on this matter, at which point the unjust law is bound to fall sooner or later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In my view it is sufficient to believe that abortion is a terrible thing to be normalised in society and often does great damage physically and emotionally to the mother without using overblown language.

---

quote:

---

The truth remains that most substantive studies in the last 30 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect — except when pre-abortion emotional problems exist or when a wanted pregnancy is terminated, such as after diagnostic genetic testing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why is it? You seem to have rejected the use of fetal samples from abortions in the above. I don't see how this is independent - why exactly do you think the videos are abhorrent? I don't understand what the problem is here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Clearly it does not check every financial donation or the origins of it, so this is easily falsifiable. You are using a standard here the Vatican does not use in other contexts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, well, we've all heard the arguments from your side ad nauseum. Time we moved on and ignored you, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, so you just follow laws as you feel like it - and laws which enable the use of organs from fetuses which have unfortunately been aborted are "unjust" according to you. Because you say so.

---

quote:

---

Two recent meta-analyses claim that abortion leads to a deterioration in mental health.

---

quote:

---

There was a broad range of findings across the different mental health diagnostic
categories regarding prevalence rates following an abortion. Overall the quality of the
studies was poor to fair, with large variation in the study design, including: retrospective
study designs and secondary data analysis of population studies; variable and
sometimes small sample sizes; considerable variation in the measurement methods
and the outcomes reported; and lack of adequate control for confounding variables
including whether or not the pregnancy was planned and multiple pregnancy events
both before and after abortion. In this context, the high degree of heterogeneity in
prevalence rates reported may well result from these variations, making it difficult to form
reliable conclusions or to make generalisations from these results.

---

quote:

---

1. There was a large number of studies that examined the relationship between abortion and mental health, but many were of poor or only fair quality and most had significant methodological problems.
2. There were no rigorous studies that reliably established the prevalence of mental health problems following abortion that resulted directly from the effect of the abortion rather than other confounding factors.
3. From the studies considered, the approximate rates of mental health problems following abortion did not appear to be greatly different from rates of mental health problems in the general US population, although there was some uncertainty regarding this finding.
4. Some factors appeared to be associated with poorer mental health outcomes following abortion, including the stigma associated with abortion the need for secrecy regarding the abortion, personal characteristics, interpersonal concerns, level of social support and previous mental health problems. Previous mental health problems were identified as the most important factor associated with poorer mental health outcomes following abortion.
5. Within the Charles review, the higher the quality of the study, the less likely it was for differences to be found in the relative risk for adverse outcomes following abortion when compared with a group of women with an unwanted pregnancy. The converse appeared to be the case for lower quality studies.
6. When only higher quality studies were included in the analysis, the relative risk of mental ill health was no greater following a first-trimester legal abortion than following delivery at full term of an unplanned pregnancy.
7. A meta-analysis of the studies in the Coleman review suggested that abortion was associated with increased risk of mental health problems across different comparison groups and different diagnostic categories. However, previous mental health problems were not controlled for within the review.

---

quote:

---

There were no rigorous studies that reliably established the prevalence of mental health problems following abortion that resulted directly from the effect of the abortion rather than other confounding factors.

---

quote:

---

When only higher quality studies were included in the analysis, the relative risk of mental ill health was no greater following a first-trimester legal abortion than following delivery at full term of an unplanned pregnancy.

---

quote:

---

From the studies considered, the approximate rates of mental health problems following abortion did not appear to be greatly different from rates of mental health problems in the general US population, although there was some uncertainty regarding this finding

---

quote:

---

due to the nature of abortion research no ideal gold standard study exists. First, it would be not be ethical or morally justified to conduct a randomised controlled trial of abortion versus live birth for women with an unwanted pregnancy. Second, as mentioned in Section 1.2, the measurement of pregnancy wantedness is open to many difficulties.

---

quote:

---

• The rates of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth.
• An unwanted pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of mental health problems.
• The most reliable predictor of post-abortion mental health problems was having a history of mental health problems before the abortion.
• The factors associated with increased rates of mental health problems for women in the general population following birth and following abortion were similar.
• There were some additional factors associated with an increased risk of mental health problems specifically related to abortion, such as pressure from a partner to have an abortion and negative attitudes towards abortions in general and towards a woman’s personal experience of the abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
In general, at fertilisation. More precisely, at the point where God infuses a human soul. Since my concept of soul is hylomorphic, i.e., that of a form shaping the body, this is largely equivalent in biological terms to the formation of a distinct set of human DNA with of the associated cell machinery, which is starting to build up a human body. There are special cases, like twins, where God infuses a second soul at a later stage (or, in biological terms, where an independent entity starts a separate process of development at a later stage due to a splitting of the so far assembled cells).

---

quote:

---

Conclusions: Women who received an abortion had similar or lower levels of depression and anxiety than women denied an abortion. Our findings do not support the notion that abortion is a cause of mental health problems.

---

quote:

---

While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
You covered identical twins (except which twin gets the original soul and which the second) but what happens in the case of tetragametic chimeras (two fertilized eggs but the later on merge and one human results)? Is one of the souls dead or do they also merge? If someone were to clone a human, would the clone have a soul?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

People don't have abortions for their own amusement, any more than they have hip replacements. They have them because they need them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

Abortion is legal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
People don't have abortions for their own amusement, any more than they have hip replacements. They have them because they need them.

---

No. They have them because something went wrong. If you want to find a surgery that is analogous, it would be the removal of a tumor caused by smoking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I would hope that the pro-life movement (whatever that really is) loses all appeal with its present focus. It is one of those groups that infuriates me because of its hypocrisy and abject moral failure.

---

Such comments are part of the problem, not of the solution. There will be no dialogue unless it is first admitted that the opposing side has some reasonable points, even if one thinks that they are getting it wrong overall. This of course also applies to the pro-life side, and some of the American activists certainly could do with a truckload of nuance. But this is just the mirror image on the pro-choice side.

Step one here is for both sides to admit that pregnancy is a special case. It is not simply a human being who just happens to live within another human being for a while, as many on the pro-life side would have it. It is not simply another piece of tissue that the mother happens to be growing, as many on the pro-choice side would have it. It is a difficult moral problem precisely because it is a special case. It may have one right solution in the end, but if we acknowledge that it is not simple, then we can approach those who disagree with us with the appropriate respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
People don't have abortions for their own amusement, any more than they have hip replacements. They have them because they need them.

---

No. They have them because something went wrong. If you want to find a surgery that is analogous, it would be the removal of a tumor caused by smoking.

---

I'm pretty sure hip replacement surgery is also undertaken because "something went wrong". No one would replace a hip that didn't have something wrong with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. They have them because something went wrong. If you want to find a surgery that is analogous, it would be the removal of a tumor caused by smoking.

---

I'm pretty sure hip replacement surgery is also undertaken because "something went wrong". No one would replace a hip that didn't have something wrong with it.

---

Please. Is that the best you've got? Deliberately ignoring the difference?
Why do abortions happen?
Not using protection. This is bad for disease prevention as well as unwanted pregnancy.
Rape and incest. You don't think working to reduce those is a good thing?
Some reasons are not easily preventable. Like health issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Prevention is better than the need to cure, regardless of the issue.
Abortion is not in the same category as hip replacement.
At some point after sperm and egg meet, the growing cell mass becomes another person.
Your hip is all you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Prevention is better than the need to cure, regardless of the issue.
Abortion is not in the same category as hip replacement.
At some point after sperm and egg meet, the growing cell mass becomes another person.
Your hip is all you.

---

So who is "a tumor caused by smoking"? That's your preferred analogy, but it's not really "another person" either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am really not understanding your point. Truly I don't.
What I am saying is that doing your best to prevent something is better than curing it afterward. Do you disagree with that?

---

Unless it's hip replacement surgery. For some reason you don't think preventing hip replacement surgery is a better than curing it after the fact. What I'm trying to get at is why you feel the need to carve out an exception to this generalized "prevention is better" philosophy when it comes to hip replacement. (Or possibly all orthopedic surgery. Your parameters weren't particularly clear.)
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

You can have a degenerative and/or congenital issue which causes the need for hip surgery. I chose a smoking-related tumor as a better example. Not that I think preventing, where possible, the need for orthopedic surgery shouldn't be the goal.
In fact I did say that prevention is better than needing a cure. I did not qualify that statement.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This.

It probably could be an auto-post, every fifty or a hundred posts in threads like these: Abortion is legal. The law of the land.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You can have a degenerative and/or congenital issue which causes the need for hip surgery. I chose a smoking-related tumor as a better example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How about not as good an analogy as? Does this satisfy you? How about we stick to the reason I wrote that post rather than whether I properly chose which analogy best represented it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Prevention is better than the need to cure, regardless of the issue.
Abortion is not in the same category as hip replacement.
At some point after sperm and egg meet, the growing cell mass becomes another person.
Your hip is all you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

When a person merges with another person in marriage or when doing la bête à deux dos (the beast with two backs)* are they still themselves though spiritually and physically part of one is within or mingled with the other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This.

It probably could be an auto-post, every fifty or a hundred posts in threads like these: Abortion is legal. The law of the land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Unless they think that a pre-born human is more worthy than a post-born (not saying you think this). The morality discussion - before anything about abortion will have any general currency - must deal with ALL human life. It must confront the deaths of children from preventable passive causes such as water and food issues as I noted, but also must confront the direct killing of children by wars and policies supporting wars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Happily in Canada, abortion is not illegal at any stage, and is solely a health decision regulated by the Canada Health Act, administered by provinces. What this means in practice is that abortion is medically regulated only.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
So, are you happy with infanticide as well, as long as it is medically regulated? Up to what age? Toddlercide? Teencide? Or does something magic happen to the baby as it passes through the birth canal, which changes its status?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
How can the pro-life movement have wider appeal? By not resorting to this kind of sarcasm to "win" arguments, for one thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
That's not a principle you apply to any other moral or policy discussion, because it is just unworkable. If we require that in order to address one issue all issues will have to be addressed, then we will never get around to doing anything. If you want to argue that we should care first about good water supplies, because it is a more important issue than abortion, then fine - whether I agree or not, prioritisation as such makes sense. But "all at once" is just a synonym for "nothing ever" as far as human realities are concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But we don't hear the same kind of language about the 1.5 billion people who live with intestinal worms. We don't hear religious people talking as if the millions who die from the lack of sanitation are being murdered by everyone else who refuses to provide workable systems. We don't hear condemnations of the "abortion" of post-birth humans from major killers. Truly, it seems, life is only more precious from a RCC (and other pro-life churches) when you are in someone else's womb than when you are actually alive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Here are some of my assertions against this nonsense: human embryos are not human lives. Abortion is not murder. The fetus has no soul until birth. Until the embryo can survive on its own, there is no more a moral problem with abortion than with amputating a limb - a serious medical procedure nobody does unless absolutely necessary. Of course, I can't prove any of that, but neither can IngoB prove his religious assertions. The difference is that I'm not left with a whole heap of vulnerable women who the church has decided are murderers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Once more, it is just plain nonsense to heap up the ills of the world and claim that one has to solve them all (or a choice selection thereof) before one can say anything about abortion.

The reason abortion is higher up on the agenda is the same why war is higher up on the agenda. These are human actions that directly lead to human death, where we can isolate the problematic act and attribute culpability for it. Whereas diseases may in part be caused by human activity, but generally not in a direct manner. Rather, these are systemic problems that are difficult to isolate and where moral culpability is diffusely distributed. It's the same reason why if you kill your neighbour, you get thrown into prison, but if the purveyors of soda drinks contribute to the accelerated deaths of billions, they remain respected business people.

---

quote:

---

There are certainly parts of these statements that are not "provable" aside from a shared faith. However, this is much less clear-cut than you seem to think. Your assertion "human embryos are not human lives" is objectively wrong, and you will have to withdraw from it or contradict really basic biology. You will have to assert a more defensible position, like "human embryos are not human persons."

---

quote:

---

Your statement "The fetus has no soul until birth" is objectively false for certain conceptions of "soul", and hence requires an additional definition of what you mean by soul.

---

quote:

---

As mentioned, in a hylomorphic conception "soul" is just what one calls the form of a living thing. And since it is undeniable that a foetus has some kind of form (indeed, a lot of structure which we know about through biology), consequently it is undeniable that a foetus has a soul from conception in a hylomorphic sense. Here you would have to argue more specifically that it is the attribution of "specialness" (an incorporeal, God-infused aspect of the human soul) which is not present in the beginning, or ever.

---

quote:

---

If you claim that the moral status of an embryo is different because it cannot survive on its own, then you have to defend other applications of this principle. For example, a baby cannot survive on its own. Neither can a toddler. The age where a human being becomes "self-sustained" in any practical sense is earliest about 6-8 years old. A child of this age may survive fending for itself, both in the sense of surviving in the wild and of surviving in human society. Are you saying that children up to this age may be killed with moral equivalence to amputation? Many people who are sick, old, or severely disabled are clearly not capable of sustaining themselves without continuous help from others. May they be removed from existence like a diseased limb?

---

quote:

---

FWIW, I would not consider abortion "murder" in spite of the killing of an innocent human person due to the special circumstance that the mere existence of the growing child imposes on the bodily integrity and autonomy of the pregnant woman. There is a genuine and automatic clash of "rights" here that is not present in regular "murder", hence one cannot simply consider them equivalent. But the mere fact that a lot of people are doing something, and that some of them are vulnerable and may be doing it under grievous pressure, does not decide that this act must be morally licit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Here are some of my assertions against this nonsense: human embryos are not human lives. Abortion is not murder. The fetus has no soul until birth. Until the embryo can survive on its own, there is no more a moral problem with abortion than with amputating a limb - a serious medical procedure nobody does unless absolutely necessary. Of course, I can't prove any of that, but neither can IngoB prove his religious assertions. The difference is that I'm not left with a whole heap of vulnerable women who the church has decided are murderers.

---

There are certainly parts of these statements that are not "provable" aside from a shared faith. However, this is much less clear-cut than you seem to think. Your assertion "human embryos are not human lives" is objectively wrong, and you will have to withdraw from it or contradict really basic biology. You will have to assert a more defensible position, like "human embryos are not human persons."

---

quote:

---

FWIW, I would not consider abortion "murder" in spite of the killing of an innocent human person due to the special circumstance that the mere existence of the growing child imposes on the bodily integrity and autonomy of the pregnant woman. There is a genuine and automatic clash of "rights" here that is not present in regular "murder", hence one cannot simply consider them equivalent. But the mere fact that a lot of people are doing something, and that some of them are vulnerable and may be doing it under grievous pressure, does not decide that this act must be morally licit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In my opinion, there is a quantifiable difference between refusing to give people adequate sanitation and supplying fizzy drinks. Or even cigarettes. The former is very clearly a dereliction of humanity, in my opinion, affecting the poorest of all. I'd put it as at much higher moral position than abortion. But y'know, YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
An embryo neither has the status or the abilities of a human child, therefore it is not a human life, unless you define life in ways that I don't. I withdraw nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are using objectively in a strange way here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not using that definition of soul.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Before a certain gestation period, an embryo cannot survive outside of the womb. So the rest of this is humbug.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, that's fair enough, but you'll presumably concede that a very large number of people who talk about abortion from a religious viewpoint are using the language of murder, even if you've redefined it as some other morally illicit category.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Exactly. But I do. So your counter-assertion does not grip. We basically are thrown back to a more fundamental discussion of terms (and possibly to making assertions about those).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've no interest in discussing further your idiosyncratic religious views and genuinely believe it is time to stop giving them any notice at all. We should just nod sagely and say "fine, you are entitled to your religious view" and take no notice of it whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Apparently there are several points at which life has historically been considered to have started legally:

Conception
Quickening
Viability
Birth
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
So, are you happy with infanticide as well, as long as it is medically regulated? Up to what age? Toddlercide? Teencide? Or does something magic happen to the baby as it passes through the birth canal, which changes its status?

---

The rabbis defined life as "breath" (which has very good Biblical backing -- cf. Gen 2:7). So yes, something very important happens when a baby starts breathing for the first time. This can be argued against of course. But it's not so completely ridiculous as to warrant your level of sarcasm.

How can the pro-life movement have wider appeal? By not resorting to this kind of sarcasm to "win" arguments, for one thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is what I mean.

---

quote:

---

Part of the reason is that, as much as I'm appalled by the death of the baby in an abortion, I also think that women should be recognized by the government as sovereign over their own bodies — at least prior to fetal viability, when things get even trickier

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is what I mean.

---

Actually I don't. I think the article very reasonable. Other than it being more eloquent than I am capable of, I could have written it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is what I mean.

---

Actually I don't. I think the article very reasonable. Other than it being more eloquent than I am capable of, I could have written it.

---

While I don't agree with everything in it, I also think it makes a lot of very good points and is an excellent example of a thoughtful pro-choice understanding of the question of abortion.

---

quote:

---

I have faith that Douthat's honesty and intelligence will lead him to concede that he's lost his debate with Saletan and that making birth control much more widely available could do enormous good.

---

Admittedly finding this funny requires knowing who Ross Douthat is, but the guy who considers contraception to be the ultimate bonerkiller isn't going to assess any new studies any more objectively than he did earlier ones.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
1. Being against contraception is not being pro-life because before conception there is no life. It's being pro-potential-life, perhaps. But equating contraception with being "pro-life" is absurd on the face. Killing an infant (if that's what abortion is) and preventing the formation of one (which contraception unarguably is) aren't even close to being the same thing, except that they have to do with unwanted pregnancy (either preventing or terminating it). Equating them brings much-deserved derision on the so-called pro-life cause. And when the so-called prolifers are not just indifferent to but fiercely opposed to helping the children that result from unwanted pregnancies, or their mothers, then it's time to call bullshit.

2. Yes, Croesus, I thought the same thing about Douthat.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Killing an infant (if that's what abortion is) and preventing the formation of one (which contraception unarguably is) aren't even close to being the same thing, except that they have to do with unwanted pregnancy (either preventing or terminating it). Equating them brings much-deserved derision on the so-called pro-life cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And when the so-called prolifers are not just indifferent to but fiercely opposed to helping the children that result from unwanted pregnancies, or their mothers, then it's time to call bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... So the author in the article is wrong to excuse himself from the pro-life movement just because they do not support contraception. If he is pro-life (if perhaps qualified by being so only after "viability"), then he should act according to that. Otherwise he is hypocritical, not the pro-lifers who cannot join him on contraception because of their convictions on that matter. ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Sorry, that makes no sense at all. ... A non-Catholic can be consistently pro-contraception and anti-abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you want fewer abortions, it is common sense to push birth control. If you want fewer abortions, but deplore birth control as well, the position is fearfully illogical. So illogical that it forces the observer to conclude that you are not actually pro-life, for commonly accepted definitions of the word 'life.' You are grinding some other agenda that you dare not articulate. Like controlling women, or anti-sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Killing an infant (if that's what abortion is) and preventing the formation of one (which contraception unarguably is) aren't even close to being the same thing, except that they have to do with unwanted pregnancy (either preventing or terminating it). Equating them brings much-deserved derision on the so-called pro-life cause.

---

Who is equating these, when and how?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Where in the post you linked to did IngoB equate contraception and abortion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, if the southern state (Texas?) that has been seeking an end run around the Constitution to severely limit abortion succeeds and then somebody shoots one of the responsible lawmakers, you are responsible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Not that he qualifies as a movement, but Nat Hentoff might be an example of someone sharing your position.

He's a social liberal, supportive of civil-rights and GLBQT equality, against the death penalty, resolutely opposed to all forms of censorship, AND opposed to legal abortion.

(On the other hand, he's gone to the right lately on foreign-policy issues, supporting the Iraq invasion for example, but still against the suspension of civil liberties in the USA.)

His article links to another one about the consistent life ethic, which you might find interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Not that he qualifies as a movement, but Nat Hentoff might be an example of someone sharing your position.

He's a social liberal, against the death penalty, resolutely opposed to all forms of censorship, AND opposed to legal abortion.

Consistent_life_ethic]the consistent life ethic[/URL], which you might find interesting.

---

---

Sounds like a man after my own heart! I also believe that all women should be at least as well paid as has men!
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
I attended a dinner at a nearby Catholic church over the holidays. Conversation at the dinner table:

Catholic 1: You are so brave, to go and protest at the abortion clinic every day.

Catholic 2: Well, you know, it's so much more convenient for us since they moved to their new location.

It's like, "I'd love to stop the murders, but I'd have to take two buses."

Not only that, the "abortion clinic" they are picketing happens to be in a building which also includes a psychiatric clinic, GP's offices, and a range of health services for the community ranging from parenting support to low-cost dental clinics and methadone treatment. Plus a drugstore and a really popular pizza-by-the-slice place.
 

---

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I am reading a very interesting book right now which is an ethnographical account of the Christian Reconstructionist movement in the US.

I am only in my early 30s so I have grown up with the pro life movement and pro choice movements as they are now. It's very interesting to me that pro-life = anti abortion and anti contraception is actually a new slant on the position. It's one of my biggest stumbling blocks in being able to engage with any pro-life person at all. It doesn't make logical sense.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
It's very interesting to me that pro-life = anti abortion and anti contraception is actually a new slant on the position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
It's very interesting to me that pro-life = anti abortion and anti contraception is actually a new slant on the position.

---

It might be interesting, but it isn't accurate.
Some very vocal people are anti-abortion and anti-contraception.
Some are anti-abortion and pro-contraception.
Some, like me, would see abortion kept legal but become rare for lack of necessity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
It's very interesting to me that pro-life = anti abortion and anti contraception is actually a new slant on the position.

---

It might be interesting, but it isn't accurate.
Some very vocal people are anti-abortion and anti-contraception.
Some are anti-abortion and pro-contraception.
Some, like me, would see abortion kept legal but become rare for lack of necessity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
I am reading a very interesting book right now which is an ethnographical account of the Christian Reconstructionist movement in the US.

I am only in my early 30s so I have grown up with the pro life movement and pro choice movements as they are now. It's very interesting to me that pro-life = anti abortion and anti contraception is actually a new slant on the position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
This whole thread was borne out of me realising I couldn't get into bed with either pro choice or pro life camps as they are commonly set out and my trying to find the grey ares.

Abortion is the termination of a life/potential for life and therefore should never be done casually or lightly. However, I think we all acknowledge there are pregnancies that just will end badly for all concerned for a lot of reasons and for that reason I think I'd much rather have abortion available safely and legally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This illustrates an interesting but fairly common phenomenon: after claiming to reject both the "pro-choice [and] pro-life* camps", the speaker will then advocates a pro-choice position (abortion should be a legally available option in many or all cases).


--------------------
*Offer expires at birth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
I am only in my early 30s so I have grown up with the pro life movement and pro choice movements as they are now. It's very interesting to me that pro-life = anti abortion and anti contraception is actually a new slant on the position. It's one of my biggest stumbling blocks in being able to engage with any pro-life person at all. It doesn't make logical sense.

---

quote:

---

Macrina: I can't get on board with a group that says abortion should be available for all women all the time no hindrances because it's her body and her choice (as I believe that a foetus must have some worth and value of its own) so pro choice as it is commonly espoused is out for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
One suspects that some pro-life evangelicals have adopted the anti-contraception position because they're copying the Roman Catholics (which used to be a big evangelical no-no). However, one suspects that there is also a large element of pro-lifers who are not so much pro-life as anti-unmarried-women-having-sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Are there many evangelicals who are anti-contraception in principle? I don't think that's an attitude I've ever encountered, though of course things may be different in other parts of the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This illustrates an interesting but fairly common phenomenon: after claiming to reject both the "pro-choice [and] pro-life* camps", the speaker will then advocates a pro-choice position (abortion should be a legally available option in many or all cases).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This illustrates an interesting but fairly common phenomenon: after claiming to reject both the "pro-choice [and] pro-life* camps", the speaker will then advocates a pro-choice position (abortion should be a legally available option in many or all cases).

---

Well, of the permutations:

a.) Abortion is immoral and should be illegal;
b.) Abortion is not immoral and should be legal;
c.) Abortion is immoral but should not be illegal -

Option (c) does seem to be on the middle between (a) and (b). At any rate, it's not obvious that it's more of a sub-case of (b) than (a).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet it's fairly obviously a pro-choice position (that abortion should be a decision in the hands of the woman involved, not the state). Introducing questions of morality into a debate about legality seems like an attempt to muddy the waters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
... I can't get on board with a group that says abortion should be available for all women all the time no hindrances because it's her body and her choice (as I believe that a foetus must have some worth and value of its own) so pro choice as it is commonly espoused is out for me. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
1. Since when has the abortion debate been solely about legality? If we want to classify what people actually believe, and are concerned about 'muddying the waters', then ignoring what they are actually talking about by unilaterally redefining the terms of the debate seems an odd approach.

---

quote:

---

2. ... Similarly, adultery is not illegal, but I don't expect my wife would be particularly impressed if I had an affair and then defended myself on the grounds that I had a right to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

It is insulting to suggest that women don't know that fetuses have value or haven't thought about it or don't know what happens in an abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It is insulting to suggest that women don't know that fetuses have value or haven't thought about it or don't know what happens in an abortion.

---

It might be insulting, but it is accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Of course it's about legality. We can talk about the morality of abortion all day long, but when we stop looking at our navels, the only real question is: can a woman who wants an abortion have a safe, legal* abortion? If it were only a question of individual beliefs, anyone who thinks abortion is immoral is free to never, ever have an abortion, and would keep their noses out of other women's lives.

---

quote:

---

But if adultery were illegal, your wife could call the cops and you might go to jail. Do you think that is a good way for society to deal with adultery?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How do you get that from my post?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
When someone says "women" without qualification, and neither you nor they say "some", then it means "women." As in, "All women." That's how the English language works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
When someone says "women" without qualification, and neither you nor they say "some", then it means "women." As in, "All women." That's how the English language works.

---

Pedantically speaking, it isn't how the English language works. Consider:

Birds can fly.
T or F?

---

quote:

---

It is insulting to suggest that women don't know that fetuses have value or haven't thought about it or don't know what happens in an abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... It might be insulting, but it is accurate. People think less than they think they think. ... I have not met everyone, so there may be exceptions, but all those humans I have encountered have at least one area where they regurgitate rather than cogitate. ...

---

quote:

---

the only real question is: can a woman who wants an abortion have a safe, legal* abortion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Because yours is in keeping with a long line of treating women as less than wholly competent moral agents.

---

quote:

---

It is insulting to suggest that women don't know that fetuses have value or haven't thought about it or don't know what happens in an abortion. Women who have children have beliefs about abortion. Women who have never been pregnant have beliefs about abortion. Men who can't get pregnant have beliefs about abortion. And yet, as soon as a woman is pregnant, somebody else has to do their thinking and make decisions for them because the poor dears have no idea how precious a fetus is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
... I can't get on board with a group that says abortion should be available for all women all the time no hindrances because it's her body and her choice (as I believe that a foetus must have some worth and value of its own) so pro choice as it is commonly espoused is out for me. ...

---

That's nice. If you think a foetus has worth and value, what do you expect the state to do about it? Whether an abortion happens or not is going to be somebody's decision; who or what should be making those decisions? In Canada, we used to have hospital abortion committees that decided these things, so whether or not a woman could get an abortion depended on the opinions / beliefs / desires / whims of the local hospital adminstrators. Needless to say, access to abortion - and by inference, the worth and value of the fetuses - varied widely across the country.

It is insulting to suggest that women don't know that fetuses have value or haven't thought about it or don't know what happens in an abortion. Women who have children have beliefs about abortion. Women who have never been pregnant have beliefs about abortion. Men who can't get pregnant have beliefs about abortion. And yet, as soon as a woman is pregnant, somebody else has to do their thinking and make decisions for them because the poor dears have no idea how precious a fetus is.

Really?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

the only real question is: can a woman who wants an abortion have a safe, legal* abortion?

---

That isn't the only question. The others are about education, prevention and support.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

I'm not unsympathetic to e.g. Macrina's discomfort with an extreme pro-choice position. However, other than a medical doctor, I don't see anybody other than the woman herself who is more competent to make that decision or who personally has more at stake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So? The answer to the first question is independent of the next three, UNLESS whether a woman can have a safe, legal abortion depends upon some combination or lack of education, prevention and support, individual or social. Care to expand upon that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
However, other than a medical doctor, I don't see anybody other than the woman herself who is more competent to make that decision or who personally has more at stake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

The day the pro-life movement calls for sex education, pre-natal care, living wages, paid maternity leaves, and flexible, affordable daycare will be the day they finally live up to their name. Until then, they're nothing but a bunch of slut-shaming busybodies occasionally spitting out a terrorist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There isn't just one side or the other, there is a solid middle. One that truly believe each and every part of abortion should Safe, Legal, and Rare.
We aren't pro-life or pro-choice, we are pro-life and pro-choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant or have a smidgen of an abortion, either women have a choice or they don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant or have a smidgen of an abortion, either women have a choice or they don't.

---

Abortion on demand up to a particular gestational age, and no abortion afterwards is widely considered to be middle ground between the pro-life and unrestricted pro-choice positions.

---

quote:

---

The lawsuit describes the protests as a form of coercion, intended to draft parents and administrators into a campaign to block the clinic from opening next door. The antiabortion activists “have promised they will ‘be back every week’ if the students and parents do not take action against the Planned Parenthood health center,” the complaint alleges. Protesters have shouted at children to “Tell your parents they kill kids next door.” In November, an activist named Jonathan Darnel sent an e-mail to school administrators that read, “I am not threatening you. Nevertheless, if you are failing to challenge Planned Parenthood, I feel a moral obligation to alert the community (including the parents of your students) myself…. I’m sure you don’t want to see me, my antiabortion friends and our graphic images any more than we want to be in your neighborhood.”

---

quote:

---

Defendant Larry Cirignano was at the protest on Thursday, wearing a banana-yellow tie stamped with the words “choose life.” I asked him if he was at all concerned for students who were disturbed by the images and messages he and other demonstrators present to them. “I’m worried more about the kids who are in the pictures,” he responded.

---

 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Quoted by Soror Magna: Defendant Larry Cirignano was at the protest on Thursday, wearing a banana-yellow tie stamped with the words “choose life.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Even to save the mother's life? Most late term abortions are due to health reasons either the mother's or because the fetus is doomed anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Even to save the mother's life? Most late term abortions are due to health reasons either the mother's or because the fetus is doomed anyway.

---

A fair few are due to non-fatal foetal abnormalities such as Down's. I find that morally objectionable but I'm not sure it should be illegal.

---

quote:

---

... According to a statement from Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson, the 232nd Grand Jury extensively reviewed the joint investigation into allegations of misconduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast for more than two months and cleared the organization of breaking the law. However, the grand jury did hand up indictments for two individuals who were involved in making the allegations against Planned Parenthood using covert recordings. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Another answer to the OP's question:
fake clinic

---

quote:

---

The report, by a former Muskegon County health official, Faith Groesbeck, accuses Mercy Health Partners of forcing five women between August 2009 and December 2010 to undergo dangerous miscarriages by giving them no other option.

All five women, the report says, had symptoms indicating that it would be safest for them to deliver immediately. But instead of informing the women of their options, the report says, or offering to transfer them to a different hospital, doctors – apparently out of deference to the Mercy Health Partners’ strict ban on abortion – unilaterally decided to subject the women to prolonged miscarriages.

As a result, the report claims, several of the women suffered infection or emotional trauma, or had to undergo unnecessary surgery. None of the women were pregnant beyond 24 weeks, when an infant can survive outside the womb.

---

It's getting pretty hard to rule out "general contempt or disinterest in women's well being" as a common factor in pro-life* thinking.


--------------------
*Offer very clearly expires at birth.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
It's as if they've taken God's "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children" and decided it's up to them to make not giving birth even worse. And it's not like these women wanted to have abortions - they were miscarrying already.

In what universe is it a moral imperative to make them suffer as long as possible? How is it "pro-life" to believe that a dying fetus' last minutes / hours / days are more sacred than the lives and health of these women? And of course, they lied to them, as it's well established that lying is absolutely the right thing to do if one is doing it "pro-life".
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
In what universe is it a moral imperative to make them suffer as long as possible? How is it "pro-life" to believe that a dying fetus' last minutes / hours / days are more sacred than the lives and health of these women?

---

quote:

---

All five women, the report says, had symptoms indicating that it would be safest for them to deliver immediately. But instead of informing the women of their options, the report says, or offering to transfer them to a different hospital, doctors – apparently out of deference to the Mercy Health Partners’ strict ban on abortion – unilaterally decided to subject the women to prolonged miscarriages.

As a result, the report claims, several of the women suffered infection or emotional trauma, or had to undergo unnecessary surgery. None of the women were pregnant beyond 24 weeks, when an infant can survive outside the womb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

I'm not unsympathetic to e.g. Macrina's discomfort with an extreme pro-choice position. However, other than a medical doctor, I don't see anybody other than the woman herself who is more competent to make that decision or who personally has more at stake.

---

The only reason a doctor's opinion might be relevant at all is if there's something unusual about the pregnancy that endangers the mother. The British fudge of having doctors sign off on elective abortions because they carry less medical risk than a full-term pregnancy is absurd (does that still happen?) In the normal case, I don't really see that a medical doctor more competent than anyone else at making decisions. My plumber is competent to install a new shower in my house, but his opinion isn't any more relevant than anyone else's if I'm deciding whether I want a new shower.

---

quote:

---

By exposing the lies surrounding abortion; by educating the public with the truth about abortion; and by campaigning against abortion - we are saving babies, mothers, and indeed this country, from the silent holocaust that is brutally destroying 50 million lives worldwide every year.

---

quote:

---

NAF has compiled statistics on incidents of violence and disruption against abortion providers for almost 40 years, according to a press release the organization issued Tuesday.

The statistics for 2015 “reflect a dramatic increase in hate speech and internet harassment, death threats, attempted murder, and murder, which coincided with the release of heavily-edited, misleading, and inflammatory videos beginning in July.”

Since 1977, there have been 11 murders, 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 185 arsons, and thousands more incidents of criminal behavior directed at abortion providers, according to NAF’s press release.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
If the "Pro-life" movement as a movement , not as occasional individuals, but on an organizational level, would show any interest at all in preserving or bettering the life of children above the age of a fetus in any way at all, it would go a long way towards making the movement palatable.

---

quote:

---

Surely at that stage the genitialia are not differentiated? The gonads would be internal, and whatever was visible between the legs would be something that could become either a penis or a clitoris.

---

quote:

---

Bernadette the activist, on the other hand, was fiercely unpleasant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I always think that killing babies is a very useful displacement from controlling women's bodies. That is not a great slogan really, yet that's what it involves. Hence the recent popularity, I guess, of the bodily autonomy argument for abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I always think that killing babies is a very useful displacement from controlling women's bodies. That is not a great slogan really, yet that's what it involves. Hence the recent popularity, I guess, of the bodily autonomy argument for abortion.

---

What exactly are you saying here? The message gets garbled by the snark, or something.

---

quote:

---

Doesn't make her right, either.

She wants to extend her version of sharia to everywhere, and, with no surprise, like all of those sorts of rule based ways of organising societies, adult women go down to the bottom of the heap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Penny S:

quote:

---

Doesn't make her right, either.

She wants to extend her version of sharia to everywhere, and, with no surprise, like all of those sorts of rule based ways of organising societies, adult women go down to the bottom of the heap.

---

Didn't say I agreed with her. I was just pointing out that thinking someone is a nasty piece of work is not a valid reason for disagreeing with them. What you and Mousethief and Brenda said about this woman's point of view... those are valid reasons for disagreeing with her.

Looking at it another way, the fact that the housemates were nice people who were upset about invading their friend's privacy, rummaging through her dustbin and reporting her to the police does not mean they were right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think my last sentence didn't quite connect. I was trying to say that the pro-life movement fundamentally wants to control women's bodies and women's sexuality, but dare not go public with that, so 'stop murdering babies' is a much better slogan.

---

Oh no, you discovered the secret of the pro-life movement, Sharia Law in disguise!
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think my last sentence didn't quite connect. I was trying to say that the pro-life movement fundamentally wants to control women's bodies and women's sexuality, but dare not go public with that, so 'stop murdering babies' is a much better slogan.

---

Oh no, you discovered the secret of the pro-life movement, Sharia Law in disguise!

---

quote:

---

An Oklahoma bill that could revoke the license of any doctor who performs an abortion has headed to the governor, with opponents saying the measure in unconstitutional and promising a legal battle against the cash-strapped state if it is approved.

<snip>

Under the bill, doctors who perform abortions would risk losing their medical licenses. Exemptions would be given for those who perform the procedure for reasons including protecting the mother or removing a miscarried fetus.

<snip>

Supporters of the bill said it will help protect the sanctity of life.

"If we take care of morality,” bill supporter David Brumbaugh, a Republican, said during deliberations, "God will take care of the economy."

---

quote:

---

Oh no, you discovered the secret of the pro-life movement, Sharia Law in disguise! [Roll Eyes]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe it's just me, but legislatures striking "deals" with the Almighty to fix the economy in exchange for enforcing a code of morality (the burden of which will predominantly be borne by people who aren't in the legislature) sounds a little Sharia-esqe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
If a doctor had their license revoked in a state determined to bring Margaret Atwood's Gilead into being for reasons which other states did not espouse, could they have a new license issued in another state? Or country?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
If a doctor had their license revoked in a state determined to bring Margaret Atwood's Gilead into being for reasons which other states did not espouse, could they have a new license issued in another state? Or country?

---

Only if they moved their practice there. You have to be licensed to practice medicine by whatever government has jurisdiction where you're practicing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It also sounds alien to Christianity. This is the Prosperity gospel, not the one that Jesus was preaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It also sounds alien to Christianity. This is the Prosperity gospel, not the one that Jesus was preaching.

---

In a sense the pro-abortion movement is an extension of the Prosperity gospel; 'babies are a barrier to a woman's prosperity.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How about just stop telling people what to do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It'll never sell. Not with the right wingnuts who run the anti-abortion rhetoric mill in this country.

---

Just heard on CBC Radio1 "Do not go genital into that good night." ....sex is just wrong, bad and wrong with some wingnutbars. Keep your legs together and rage rage rage against everything.

[ 29. April 2016, 01:36: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
It's always a good night when I get to go genital. I rage against "dying" in the light.

[ 29. April 2016, 02:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :