Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've had a "skim" through previous posts. Apols if I'm doing a disservice.
As a lapsed Catholic I don't have a lot of favorable things to say about Catholicism. One, however, is the intellectual consistency in opposing both abortion and the death penalty on "sanctity of life" grounds.
When you overlay a map of US states that permit the death penalty with those that wish to restrict abortion they are remarkably similar. They also have a number of other similarities that it's probably best to pass on here. I find what I consider hypocrisy hard to deal with.
I agree with Silver Bear on the point of putting logical solutions to an emotional issue.
For the purpose of this discussion, is there anyone who is pro-life who would be willing to respectfully and open-mindedly debate the possibility of accepting abortion up to 8 weeks?
Yes, I think the abortion debate is about finding a sensible compromise between a mother's right to choose and an unborn child's right to live.
If a fetus has developed to the point where it shows most of the signs of being a human, then that should be the cutoff point for accepting an abortion. Does the fetus have a heartbeat, a brain, a nervous system, hands, feet, fingers and toes? That is the point that most people would say it is too late for the mother to abort her unborn child.
This issue should be decided at the state level. People/politicians should not make rules for people who live in distant places that they have never seen.
Abortion should never be a substitute for responsible birth control especially at public expense.
I disagree when it comes to some of the bigger issues, this being one of them. Partially because it invites interstate conflict, to have an assortment of extreme positions being taken by various states, it promotes disunity in America and that has nearly reached a crisis point (to the absolute joy, I'm sure, of our ideological enemies globally.) And also because so much of the dissent is not even one whole state versus another one. It's urban versus rural. Pretty much every state I've lived in (and it has been quite a few now) has the same problem. Rural people are angry because most of the state's voters are in the big city, they direct all of their grievance at the city dwellers. In Washington, they are mad that Seattle gets to speak for the whole state. Rural and conservative Californians complain about LA. I knew people in Colorado who referred to "The People's Republic of Denver" (or Boulder) and were constantly saying that the state's entire tax budget was always spent on the needs of the city, ignoring the needs of everyone else, everywhere else.
Not to mention the historical baggage carried by the phrase, "States' Rights" with some claiming that we never really even resolved the Civil War and that it's only a matter of (not much) time before it fires right up again. I don't want that to be true.
If it takes a compromise that makes everybody grumble, I'd take it.
And I think that a lot of Americans who feel all edgy and subversive enjoying the IDEA of civil war, are gonna be singing one hell of a different tune, if it actually comes to pass. Been a while since we had to see war actively happening on our soil. And it was before modern technology. I think maybe some people need to go watch some videos of what modern warfare looks like, and think about that happening in our own neighborhoods and cities.
And if anybody thinks that I'm being ridiculous or off topic bringing war into this, the kind of extremes and division and unwillingness to compromise, the scoffing, "you can't apply logic to an emotional problem"...that's where this takes us. When reasoned solutions aren't seen as possible. All this red-state/blue-state stuff and brutalizing your ideological enemies until liberal voters leave conservative states and conservative voters leave liberal ones.
That's what I'm afraid we're being set up for.
And that's why I am not for this being decided by the states. It keeps the conflict burning hot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
I do, too. But the truth is there are very few points along the way from conception to birth that are not fuzzy.
It is logical to believe a human life begins at conception and should be protected from that point (that we may not be able to identify that moment exactly is irrelevant to the argument).
It is also logical to believe that all points during a pregnancy a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to the unborn "whatever-it-is" because it is in her body. Only when it is out of her body, at birth, does it become an individual with rights.
Every other point between those is hazy: whether it looks like a human being or not (in whose opinion?), whether the heart is beating (is it really a heart yet?), whether it could survive outside the womb (at such-and-such a point, some babies will survive if born, but others won't, and anyway it's not outside the womb), and so forth.
Is a fetus at 13 weeks really deserving of protection but not one at 12 weeks? Or it's deserving at 9 weeks, but not 8 weeks? Did something magic happen to it during that week, besides getting a little bigger? I just don't see how anyone can logically argue that abortion should be OK before their specific, preferred point of time but not OK after that point. It's literally the same being that it has always been, just bigger and more developed.
I do not think abortion is immoral if the mother's life is threatened (we all have the right to self-defense) and I would reluctantly make an exception for rape, although I do see that as taking an innocent life. I would be happier with a ban on abortion-on-demand after 8 weeks than no ban at all, don't get me wrong. But I see that deadline, or any other deadline, as an arbitrary compromise.
That's why I argue for legislating by procedure. Rather than setting the cutoff point based on "hazy" arguments centered on fetal personhood, or making women prove adequate reason or cause, it creates a very simple line at 12 weeks that is distinguished by:
- Take 2 pills and miscarry (available to anybody in a clinic.)
- Surgical removal (unavailable unless it is a medical emergency, done only in a hospital.)
That eliminates the need to watch for women ordering these pills or other more dangerous herbal substances to try and induce miscarriage, worries about typical (non deliberate) miscarriages being investigated like homicides, he said/she said questions about rape or incest, false accusations of such in order to get abortions, and a host of other problems.
If in addition to this, we also made birth control more readily available and sex education more appropriate and accurately done, improved resources and support to help women who are willing to keep a child or give one up for adoption...things that actually reduce demand for abortion... We could indeed make it a RARE thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I think it is logical to say that something that cannot survive on its own is not a full fledged human being. A fetus younger than five or six months cannot survive on its own and therefore does not meet the definition for me of a full fledged human being. I regard it as more of a philosophical than a scientific question. I would say a fetus younger than that age is a potential human life. That potential is reached only when the fetus is either (1) viable; or (2) born alive.
Until that time, I do not believe it is immoral for a woman to abort that fetus. Ideally, abortions would only be for reasons like the health of the mother, rape or incest, or grave fetal deformity. However, in the final analysis I believe until at least fetal viability is reached that abortion (and the reasons for it) are the private decision of each individual pregnant woman.
The Supreme Court got it right in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. The original vote was 7-2 as I recall. The precedent should be respected. It would be if politics had not been played in recent years with three appointments to the Supreme Court.
I agree, but I do think that there is room for rational compromise.
I think that if we absolutely HAD to try and pin down a point for personhood arguments, it would have to be based on brain activity. We pull the plug on people who are on life support if there is no brain activity. Even if their heart is still beating. A beating heart is not very meaningful, it's just a blood circulating organ, it's not some mystical, magical repository for a soul. Might as well be asking if the liver is fully developed or if there are nose hairs, it's too arbitrary. As to it being detectable by our senses, much like "quickening"...we could just as easily ask if we can hear the baby screaming yet with our ears. Subjective, still, and arbitrary.
But when we ask what is a person, what determines if a being can experience pain, what differentiates a potential human from a human in terms of what it is in the present moment and if it is a life that has rights...we could at least consider brain activity.
Part of the concern with the obsession with potential babies is honestly whether women should have the right to not breed at all? We already make it almost impossible for a woman who has never had kids, to get a hysterectomy or even a tubal ligation. Even if she is suffering from severe and painful medical issues, preserving her womb for future babies is considered more important than her health or quality of life. Honestly I think that's one of the reasons this whole question makes some women feel so threatened. It really does feel, sometimes, like some segment of society wants us to be livestock, to serve the rights of men to pass on their DNA without having to really do the work, necessarily, of raising any child. And we're supposed to be happy about it and how dare we not be?
And we're not supposed to be a burden on anyone else, and we'd better be prepared to take care of our parents when they are old, and our husbands since they still probably need a mommy and we've got to get an education and have a career and support the family but if we don't parent perfectly then we're terrible people, and if our lives aren't perfect then it's all our own fault and we'd better be pretty so that random strangers have something nice they're entitled to look at and we will never be able to retire or even afford to own a home and it's our fault, only our fault... Should never have had sex, but men are shooting women in this country for telling them no, and if you say you were raped no you were not, what were you wearing, and how much did you have to drink?
We belong to everyone but ourselves. The pressure is unbelievable. Being a parent made me, personally, stuck in a relationship I didn't want to be in, and the erasure of my self and the dismissal of my hopes and dreams felt like the punishment for being born female. Like I was in prison for a crime I committed as a child, for daring to become a woman and sexually desirable to men. But I was supposed to be happy. Being a mother was supposed to give me a shining new identity to replace the one that was taken away. And maybe if my young adult kids were actually doing OK today, perhaps I might even be able to feel that it was worth it.
We already make it almost impossible for a woman who has never had kids, to get a hysterectomy or even a tubal ligation.
There are plenty of doctors willing to do a hysterectomy - if she's transitioning to live as a male. I'll try and keep the transgender debate out of here, but the question is if doctors are willing to compromise fertility due to feeling like the opposite sex why not if it's due to pain or other tangible health issues?
Last edited by KellyXY; 05-18-2022 at 10:47 AM..
Reason: grammar
I have a long-held belief that men are not qualified to give opinions on the topic of abortion.
As a man, I don't think that I should have full representation in this debate. I have opinions, but they are uninformed opinions because, like other men, I cannot become pregnant. I understand that the topic is complicated by perceptions of when and how human life begins, but men have no special understanding of that issue when compared to women. At the same time, women have a special understanding (those who have become pregnant) or a vested interest in pregnancy and childbirth that no man has.
I would even argue that men have less respect for the sanctity of human life due to biological differences between the sexes. The majority of murders are committed by men and this is not a proportionate reflection of the increased size and strength of men compared to women. The majority of wars are caused by male politicians, but this may be simply a proportionate reflection of the number of male leaders compared to female ones.
This is not to say that men must completely recuse themselves from the abortion debate, but they should act as impartial witnesses and only provide data rather than give a direct opinion. Male clergy can provide input on when religions believe life begins. Male doctors and scientists can provide input on when the human brain can produce electrical impulses that appear to be thoughts, feelings, and the processing of sensory inputs. Male psychologists can give data on when they estimate a fetus differentiates itself as a person.
However, all this data is available to all, and can be processed and debated by women just as well as men.
In conclusion, I believe:
Men are no more qualified than women to determine when human life begins.
The male population, in aggregate, has less respect for the sanctity of life.
Men cannot become pregnant or give birth and therefore they will never have an abortion.
Men should completely recuse themselves from this debate, except to provide data. Women are clearly more qualified to decide whether, when, and how abortion should be legal.
Men should completely recuse themselves from this debate, except to provide data. Women are clearly more qualified to decide whether, when, and how abortion should be legal.
If a pregnant woman is granted a specific window in which she can decide whether to keep the child or abort, then the man should also have a similar window, with a defined end date early in the pregnancy, in which he can decide whether or not to accept being the child's father for support purposes.
Just as it quickly becomes too late to abort, it would quickly become too late to reject fatherhood.
It is very unfair to allow a woman the right to decide not only whether to become a mother or not but also to force fatherhood on another person, while denying any such rights to men.
This issue should be decided at the state level. People/politicians should not make rules for people who live in distant places that they have never seen.
Abortion should never be a substitute for responsible birth control especially at public expense.
I don't agree that it should be a state by state decision. And I would not call different states "distant places that they have never seen". We're supposed to be a nation.
I do agree that responsible birth control is reasonable.
I am slightly left of center, but I do understand both sides of the abortion issue. I don't think it's an issue with one simple answer. I can understand why some think abortion is murder. I can understand the issue of a woman's right to choose. Abortion has always made me uncomfortable. But me being uncomfortable with something is not what should determine the law. It's a difficult issue with no good answers.
It used to be simple: is the fetus viable outside the womb? To me, that's the crux of the matter.
I didn't know I was pregnant at 12 weeks so IMO, that's not enough time and the viability is the factor. After 2 miscarriages, (no "beans" or anything to see, just blood clots) I was offered a tubal ligation for free. In Wyoming, no less! So, no problem there. (no prior kids)
Though I am pro-choice, I couldn't do it myself so arranged for adoption. This is the missing component. We need to help unsuitable mothers by making adoption more available and acceptable to the mother. Everyone else in the process makes the big bucks so the mother should be compensated. Talk about "labor"!
There used to be some anti-abortion places (my sister worked at one) but they had no provisions for the baby or after-care. That is my gigantic objection to the pro-life crowd. Only the unborn matter. The same people who are so strident for anti-abortion are also against any support or help for the "born". What is going on there?
I have mixed feelings about abortion but for those who tout "My body, my choice", let's not be disingenuous about that. I agree with the poster who said men should not be making this decision about women's bodies.
It's terrifying what's happening in the U.S. I don't know what I'd be doing if I was a young women there these days. Move out of red states, for sure. Or you'll regress to how it is here: a Catholic country with no abortion, hardly any contraception, teenage girls with 2 babies and no sex education, or other education for that matter---too busy with children raising children. And thus, this is not a first-world country---that's how it goes when you repress one half of the population.
I disagree, wac_34. This is a vitally important discussion on a topic that disproportionately impacts women, but which all of us have a significant stake in.
I'm male and 64 years old, so I was almost 16 when Roe vs Wade was decided. A sophomore in a Catholic all boys HS, though it was taught by Jesuits who my father respected but considered hardly Catholic. I'm lapsed for decades now, but that had to do with human failings and not the core teachings of the church. Those core teachings shaped most of what's good about me.
And I'm pro-choice largely based on those core teachings, especially the call to care for the poor and underprivileged, which always resonated most with me. I've worked my entire working life with people who have disabilities, and who are often poor and on the verge of all sorts of other indignities. Like sexual abuse and in some states soon being forced to carry to term the result of that abuse.
Looking bigger picture though, I'm not against restrictions. What follows is something like an attempt at compromise on an issue that practically speaking likely can't really be the subject of compromise.
My own internal struggle with this question relates to the decision to have a child being a very personal choice vs the idea I can't shake that at some point the developing fetus.....matters. Has the right to some level of consideration and protection. I've always thought that viability, 24 weeks, was that point. Conceding the spirit of wac_34's point, as a man I didn't know the info Sonic supplied defining the line between medical and surgical abortion procedures at 12 weeks. That's another good data point. Quickening typically occurs right in the middle of those to dates at around 17-20 weeks. Intuitively that date means something too.
With that in mind, the proposed Miss. law that sets a limit of 15 weeks with some exceptions seems like a good compromise. I have only read summaries of that law, so I'm not suggesting it's a good compromise as is, but if those summaries didn't exclude any relevant facts, then it may be close. I think about 6% of abortions occur between 13-15 weeks, 4% from 16-20 weeks, and about 1.5% after that.
I say this thinking of a compromise, meaning a decision that equally concerns rational people on both sides of the issue, and pi$$es off less rational people on both sides to about the same extent. In practical terms the Miss. law is meant to be an incremental step toward banning abortions in all cases. In the case before the SCOTUS from which a draft decision was leaked the state of Miss. went beyond the proposed statute to question whether abortion was or could be constitutionally protected in any case. That's no compromise, so I don't support their argument, but the original law may have some merit.
If my #s above are correct, about 12% of abortions are potentially surgical, though I think that % is closer to 5% because they often try and successfully complete medical abortion before surgery for women somewhat beyond 12 weeks. But call it 12%. About half that # would be potentially restricted depending on circumstances. If 15 weeks became the limit, the # could drop since the vast majority of women know they're pregnant early enough to decide prior to 15 weeks. For that to work abortion has to be more available than it is now, and exceptions beyond 15 weeks have to be possible.
Having said all that I would have left Roe alone if it were up to me. Before the SCOTUS turned more conservative and Roe came into question, I never thought in terms of a compromise, but that seems worth considering now.
You never know what's going on in another person's life. If abortion is a sin, then leave to to God to judge in the hereafter.
I understand your point. But we have laws in the hear-and-now for a reason. Murder, for example is a sin in many religions; should we leave murder to God to judge in the hereafter?
We have laws to limit behaviour. At the same time, this country was founded by fierce individualists who wanted to limit government - and importantly - keep government the heck out of their lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
