Abortion poll (may be triggering)

Things still happen. My mom went to work with a woman who not only had her tubes tied, but her husband had been snipped.

They ended up with twins.

 

Abortion is a difficult thing because everyone has their own set of morals. I'm also aware that most people who are pro-choice don't take abortion lightly. But again, I don't think there is a comparison between gay rights and abortion, and I do believe it is about choice.

People who personally believe that women shouldn't have an abortion aren't oppressive. Individuals who believe that gays shouldn't have rights (even though they had no choice at all in choosing their sexuality) are. There's a clear difference between the two.

---------- Post added 30th Jun 2013 at 08:49 PM ----------

Well yeah...

 

To me there has to be a good reason for an abortion. Not things like its the wrong sex, or I will get stretch marks. I can honestly understand if they are a rape victim, they may die in labour or its because of incest. And if they do have an abortion it has to be early, not in the second or third trimester.

 

I'm going make the faux pas of quoting myself because I really want someone to explain to me how these things are different:

 

Is that a categorical statement?

 

I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to start a flame war. :dry: Since we are already discussing the issue this is my view. Since the end of life is defined as no heart beat and no brain activity I believe that life is present when the fetus has a heart beat and brain activity. Unfortunately sometimes abortions are necessary but they should be a last resort. Has anyone mentioned adoption as an alternative?

 

I'm curious and have a question, since you're one of the few pro-life people here, and if I'm not mistaken also a conservative.

Do you believe in self-ownership? In other words, do you believe that the state has the right to assert ownership over the bodies of its citizens, or do you believe that citizens own their own bodies?

I understand the emotion that many on the pro-life side have over the issue, especially as a pregnancy progresses toward the point of being viable outside of the womb with the assistance of medical science. I understand this, and I do not find it problematic.

The issue I have is one of self-ownership. This has nothing to do with morality or emotion. It's a fundamental question of who owns the body. If the person who is pregnant owns the body, then it makes sense that they should be empowered legally to act as they see fit with the pregnancy. Then, if we as a culture consider it worthwhile to try and save fetuses, then that's perfectly acceptable to intervene at that point. After all if we want to grant personhood to a fetus it's best to do it after it's been physically separated from the one who gave birth to it. That way we can see it as an individual, grant the fetus it's natural rights, and act in what we think is its best interests.

However, if we assume the state has ownership over the body of the person who is pregnant, then does anyone with a uterus have self-ownership or personhood? Or is that self-ownership and personhood revoked the moment they become pregnant? If we allow the state to intervene in the ownership of its citizens bodies, where are the limits of that state ownership? ...are there limits? Can the state begin asserting its ownership on those without a uterus? If not, then why not? Under what conditions is it acceptable for the state to assert its ownership outside of abortions, and if it should be limited to abortions - why?

Now, I realize pro-life people like to make the argument from a moral standpoint about the importance of preserving a life. There are many things that logically extend from that, and we could discuss those - such as being opposed to the death penalty. The Catholic Church has a rather consistent and logical point of view in this regard.

However, I want to instead simply concede the argument - for the time being - that life is important to preserve. Instead, I want to focus on the natural outgrowth of that line of thinking: the quality of the life you're preserving. I don't think it's a stretch to argue that it's not simply a matter of preserving a life, but also it makes sense that we should be focused on the quality of that life.

So, if we're focused on the quality of that life, and we assume the state has ownership over our bodies to some degree - what if the state determines that we could not provide an adequate home for children? Perhaps, for example, our home is dysfunctional. Let's take an example: a single mother living below the poverty line with two children already. She has just admitted to her doctor that she is not using birth control, and is considering having a third child with her boyfriend. (A boyfriend who is - let us say, an abusive asshole who would make a poor father.) Now, the state deems that the quality of the life of any child brought into her home would be poor. She's an inattentive mother who is living off welfare. She drinks too much. She has an on again off again relationship with her boyfriend who is abusive. In fact, the only reason she's considering having the baby in the first place is to try and force her boyfriend into marriage.

Let's just say the above situation is what we're faced with - since the state has already established ownership over her uterus, should the state be legally allowed to force her to undergo sterilization? Since the state owns her uterus, the state should have the ability to deny her access to it, correct? This is especially true if the state deems her to be an inadequate mother of her existing children, perhaps the state is already considering removing her children from her home due to neglect.

Keep in mind, this is not a hypothetical example. There have been numerous cases of forced sterilization in the United States.

So with the above example in mind, how do we deal with that? Basically, what I'm trying to draw out and understand is how someone who is pro-life defends the states ability to assert ownership over an individuals body, and then somehow magically draws a line to erase that state ownership. ...and keep in mind, I'm not making a slippery slope argument.

I'm looking specifically for where and how you draw the line and why, because if someone is pro-life for "moral" reasons then we could surely argue for other reasons that are just as moral if not more so for the state to assert ownership over our bodies. ...and this is an argument that extends far beyond abortion.

So, do you believe in self-ownership? If not, then where do you draw the line and why do you draw it there? How are your arguments not easily extended to go beyond where you intend them to go? As a conservative, I am certain that you understand that when we grant the government power - it continues to extend that power far beyond what it was originally intended to do. Thus, I hope you can see my concerns.

 

Again, your comparison is off again. Way off.

For one, there is always the option of adoption if the mother doesn't want to have the child. Though adoption can have its flaws, I think it's certainly better than the alternative. HIV, on the other hand, is different because it is life threatening and giving birth generally isn't. Big difference.

I don't see being against abortion as wanting to punish the woman for having sex as you put it. I look at it as giving the child an opportunity at life, and it's reasonable to want the mother who made the choice to have sex to give the child that chance, even if she doesn't want him/her after birth. I don't think that's punishing.

 

I don't think it's off at all they are both medical conditions resulting from unprotected sex, they both have huge impacts on the individuals health. More than 25% of child births are via cesarian, that's a pretty major health consequence and risk.

I'd like to add that I truly appreciate you answering the question, but it was directed to the people who've posted things like people deserve to endure an unwanted pregnancy for getting knocked up. You haven't said anything that cruel or disrespectful.

 

*parent

*person

 

If we are talking about quality of life then who decides what's good enough? The mother? The doctor? My mom may have gone for an abortion if she had the option. The doctor told her I would be severely retarded and never even sit up. He was wrong on both counts. I'm very glad she didn't go to Mexico for an abortion.

 

Nope, I'm not really a conservative; I am a moderate who leans Republican.

Anyway, maybe I'm overstating my own point. I'm not advocating for Barack Obama to change abortion laws tomorrow. What I personally believe should not be forced on others. After all, that'd be quite hypocritical of me considering this is the very reason why I can't stand religious nuts. As I already stated, everyone has their own set of moral beliefs. I've merely stated why I am against it and the alternatives to abortion - not what should be law.

To answer your question, I think the state has a right to enforce reasonable laws on its citizens (also a strong supporter of federalism for most laws). Even if the child isn't at a point where he/she cannot be viable if born, I still think it's reasonable for the child to be protected. It's not about the state owning the woman or anything else - it's about protecting an opportunity at life. Of course I wouldn't be in favor of the state having the power to sterilize women. The powers that government possess gotta be in moderation - a balancing act. That's why I don't really have an issue with the abortion laws right now. Yeah, I'm against abortion, but the current laws are pretty much a compromise. Liberals don't get everything they want and conservatives don't either with our abortion laws.

Your above scenario unfortunately occurs all too often, and that's why I'm in favor of adoption or putting women in a better position to get out of those types of situations - like giving them the chance at getting an education so that they can obtain a good job (which also requires having a good economy). Obviously, those things I mentioned still wouldn't completely eradicate a similar situation you stated, but life is far from perfect and no one program or action can change that.

---------- Post added 30th Jun 2013 at 10:13 PM ----------

Insightful.

 

None of the above. The state gets to make that decision as the guidelines have to be passed into law. As for what guidelines they use - it could be any guidelines they dream up and consider "moral". This could range from terminating every pregnancy that doesn't meet certain standards on one extreme end. Then on the other extreme end they could fight to keep every fetus alive no matter what, even if they have a severe birth defect such as Anencephaly. (Anencephaly is a condition where the fetus does not develop most of its brain, and is usually born dead - however it is possible for them to survive for a few hours after birth. Thus, giving doctors a chance, at least in some cases, to try and use medical technology to artificially prolong their lives.)

 

I'd just appreciate it if you didn't equate the ability to carry a child to womanhood, please!

 

Uh, what? I never did.

If that's what you got out of what I've typed, then you've got some major reading comprehension issues.

 

"For one, there is always the option of adoption if the mother doesn't want to have the child."

"I don't see being against abortion as wanting to punish the woman for having sex as you put it."