crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal

[LucyStoner]

I agree. Human beings should not be executed for the crimes of their fathers. Obviously the victim of the sexual crime should receive all possible support, and the rapist should lose any rights they might have had to the child.

Ideally yes, in practice that is not what always happens. Not by half.

 

Many people will doubt that she was raped. Some will say she is "crying rape" to get an abortion because she regetted that night.

 

The chance of her rapist being arrested if reported is low. The chance of the rapist being charged if arrested is low. The chance of the rapist being convicted if charged is low. The sentences for most sex crimes are insanely short. I have a friend who spent her ex spouse's time in prison trying to secure sole custody. I won't detail the dude's crimes but they were bad, very bad and numerous and included more than one sexual assault of more than one person. You don't want to know how often she was told by a usually male judge "that's between you and him, not the kids" or "he is still their father". She finally prevailed but it cost her all her money, time and drained her to running on below empty.

 

And we can't use the word father there accurately without putting some notation on it. Most anyone can ejaculate. But some men certainly don't deserve the title "father".

Edited May 13, 2016 by LucyStoner

[eternalsummer]

But you do believe that the pro-life movement has the right to ALWAYS choose which life (baby) trumps which life (woman), regardless of circumstances. The baby always trumps the mother. Doesn't matter if the mother might lose her job (2/3 of all disability claims are related to pregnancy), whether she is a 13-year-old girl whose uncle has been grunting away on top of her and so impregnated her (yes, that's crass, but that's what happens - had a foster child surviving just those circumstances), or a rape victim who was too ashamed or traumatized to get the Plan B in time, or to report the rape in time to satisfy the people who might get to judge whether the rape is "legitimate" enough to possibly allow an abortion.

 

 

 

 

For pro-lifers, it is not a matter of prioritizing one being's feelings over another, or one being's circumstances over another.    when you say "ALWAYS choose which life (baby) trumps which life (woman)," your examples that follow have a major logical inconsistency - the baby's life is over in case of abortion (as in, dead), while the mother's, in those circumstances, continues, albeit in varying levels of difficulty or misery.

 

For pro-lifers, they generally think you can't kill what they consider to be a valid human life, at an earlier stage of development, in order to save another person (the mother) any particular level of suffering.  For them, it is almost as if you had a newborn baby and said, well, I have to kill this baby to keep the mother from suffering angst or job loss or sadness or trauma.  The difference is just that for someone who is pro-life, the fetus (and often embryo) has the same right to life as a born human.

 

 

For instance, imagine you've been abandoned on a deserted island with a 1 year old baby.  No one else can take care of the baby, and taking care of the baby is for whatever reason a burden for you.  Maybe it was the product of a rape, or you're not good with kids, or there's not really enough food for both of you without a lot of work and sacrifice, or something.  At any rate, you don't want to take care of the baby.

 

Most moral systems, and most people, would say you can't kill the baby.  You must take care of it; it is a burden, and an unfair one maybe, but such is life.  

 

For people who are pro-life,  there is little difference morally between this scenario and being pregnant.  The exception many of them will make is that if the baby/fetus is a direct threat to your life - it's you or the baby - then it's a wash.  Some people will also make an exception for rape or incest - my husband does, and I kind of don't, and that's one of our only points of moral/political disagreement, so I am not good at defending it.

[eternalsummer]

You could, but no one would take you seriously or would believe you are interested in a serious discussion.

 

 

I don't understand why?  If you cannot call the pro-life movement pro-life because they don't believe in saving all lives (that is, they're okay with war and the death penalty and self defense and etc.), then you can't call the pro-choice movement pro-choice because they don't believe in freedom for all choices (murder, stealing, rape, etc.)

 

Again, I am okay with both pro=life and pro-choice because it is generally obvious that what the life is referring to is the fetus's life and what the choice is referring to is abortion.  

 

I was just defending the label pro-life (as if you can accept pro=choice under the same logical quandary, surely you can accept pro-life).

[TranquilMind]

When I was pregnant they used the language 'baby'. When , in one of my pregnancies , my ultrasound revealed there was no heartbeat (miscarriage) the word 'baby' stopped being used. (Though I am sure they would have resumed if I'd chosen to use the term). So clearly the language is adapted based on circumstance.

 

Why?  It was still a baby.  Just calling it something else didn't make it any easier for you, I am sure. 

I'm sorry. 

 

[zoobie]

For pro-lifers, it is not a matter of prioritizing one being's feelings over another, or one being's circumstances over another. when you say "ALWAYS choose which life (baby) trumps which life (woman)," your examples that follow have a major logical inconsistency - the baby's life is over in case of abortion (as in, dead), while the mother's, in those circumstances, continues, albeit in varying levels of difficulty or misery.

 

For pro-lifers, they generally think you can't kill what they consider to be a valid human life, at an earlier stage of development, in order to save another person (the mother) any particular level of suffering. For them, it is almost as if you had a newborn baby and said, well, I have to kill this baby to keep the mother from suffering angst or job loss or sadness or trauma. The difference is just that for someone who is pro-life, the fetus (and often embryo) has the same right to life as a born human.

 

 

For instance, imagine you've been abandoned on a deserted island with a 1 year old baby. No one else can take care of the baby, and taking care of the baby is for whatever reason a burden for you. Maybe it was the product of a rape, or you're not good with kids, or there's not really enough food for both of you without a lot of work and sacrifice, or something. At any rate, you don't want to take care of the baby.

 

Most moral systems, and most people, would say you can't kill the baby. You must take care of it; it is a burden, and an unfair one maybe, but such is life.

 

For people who are pro-life, there is little difference morally between this scenario and being pregnant. The exception many of them will make is that if the baby/fetus is a direct threat to your life - it's you or the baby - then it's a wash. Some people will also make an exception for rape or incest - my husband does, and I kind of don't, and that's one of our only points of moral/political disagreement, so I am not good at defending it.

Pregnancy incurs risk to the mother's life. It's not equivalent to taking care of a 1 year old baby. You can kill an actual walking, breathing, fully grown human because you think they might want to steal your purse in some states.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't understand why?  If you cannot call the pro-life movement pro-life because they don't believe in saving all lives (that is, they're okay with war and the death penalty and self defense and etc.), then you can't call the pro-choice movement pro-choice because they don't believe in freedom for all choices (murder, stealing, rape, etc.)

 

Again, I am okay with both pro=life and pro-choice because it is generally obvious that what the life is referring to is the fetus's life and what the choice is referring to is abortion.  

 

I was just defending the label pro-life (as if you can accept pro=choice under the same logical quandary, surely you can accept pro-life).

 

Because "choice" in that context is known to be specifically restricted to a discussion around a woman's right to determine whether or not to carry out a pregnancy.  If you want to feel better about it, you can call that side Pro Women Are Allowed to Choose Whether to Carry a Pregnancy to Term.  Pro Choice is easier to say but do whatever floats your boat.

 

When someone (and not all do this) stakes out a pro-life position on the premise that all life deserves protection, then it does seem hypocritical to start parsing out which lives actually deserve protection.  Some pro life groups (particularly those related to the Catholic Church) are pro life across the board.  Certain others are not.

[Ananda]

While I agree that it is not the fetuses fault how it was conceived, I think the risk of life altering or ending harm from having to carry your abuser's child to term needs to be weighed, for each individual girl or woman and BY each individual girl or woman. It's impossible for me to know or anyone to know what being required to continue such a pregnancy will do to the mother. I HAVE to prioritize her over an embryo or unviable fetus. We tend to treat sexual abuse survivors like crap in this country. Legally but also culturally. That people subject them to crappy treatment and then some want to force them to give birth under that level of duress is just over the top. That some women are able to give birth under those circumstances is amazing but it needs to be their choice and even then, it is not usually easy or without consequence.

 

I definitely agree that risks & effects of pregnancy especially in situations of abuse/rape should be be weighed against the interests of the fetus.  I don't necessary agree that a woman is the appropriate person to make the determination.  If not her, that who?  I don't know, probably her medical providers?  I think that a woman's ob/midwife & her counselor would have greater wisdom in this area than either a vulnerable woman or politicians.  So no, I don't think that abortion in the case of rape should be illegal.  Nor do I think it is appropriate to make a woman prove that she was raped, given the difficulty in doing so.  While I have been both raped & pregnant, I have not been pregnant with my rapists child.  I don't have direct personal experience in this area.  I am not advocating for mistreatment of any pregnant women, least of all rape survivors.   I agree that both society & the legal system really suck in this area and major systematic change is necessary.  

 

If I were asked directly, "Do I think a woman should carry a rape induced pregnancy to term?".  Yes, I think she should.  I know that it would be difficult.  However if you asked me "How do I feel women with rape conceived pregnancies should be treated, if seeking an abortion?"  I would ensure the woman to receive quality medical & mental health care.  I would grieve the situation that brought her to that point.  I would grieve her decision to abort her pregnancy.  And I would zip my lip and treat her with only compassion.   I might tell her that I wouldn't abort a pregnancy under similar circumstances, but only if it seemed appropriate to do so.

 

Wow, this is a difficult facet to this topic.

[MercyA]

I have a question for the pro-lifers who think abortion is ok if the life of the mother is at stake. 

 

I don't believe intentionally killing an innocent human being is ever morally acceptable. A doctor must always care for and strive for the best outcome for both her patients, the mother and the unborn child. She must never intend the death of either and do her best to save both. If, in the process of the mother undergoing life-saving treatment, the child's life is lost, that is tragic, but not the same as an intentional killing.

[Mergath]

I don't understand why?  If you cannot call the pro-life movement pro-life because they don't believe in saving all lives (that is, they're okay with war and the death penalty and self defense and etc.), then you can't call the pro-choice movement pro-choice because they don't believe in freedom for all choices (murder, stealing, rape, etc.)

 

Again, I am okay with both pro=life and pro-choice because it is generally obvious that what the life is referring to is the fetus's life and what the choice is referring to is abortion.  

 

I was just defending the label pro-life (as if you can accept pro=choice under the same logical quandary, surely you can accept pro-life).

 

So you're saying that unless someone advocates for legalizing murder, rape, and theft, they can't legitimately be pro-choice? 

 

I don't think I really need to say what I think of that idea, because I'm sure 99% of the people here are thinking the same thing.

[ktgrok]

Or that's a version she's telling herself. One of my best friends has a sort of similar event which has...changed over the years. Especially depending on the audience. It's her story and her way of processing, and I certainly would never correct her, but the current version is rather different from the original she told me.

Well, I knew her when it happened. I'm the one she asked for pregnancy books to borrow. I'm the one she was excited to share her news with. And the one that talked to her hours after the procedure, the procedure that was supposed to be an ultrasound and turned into an abortion. I had no judgement for her, and supported her (because what else could I do?) but she came to me asking about prenatal vitamins and healthy diet for pregnancy and to borrow books and such. I didn't pressure her into that, it was a surprise to me. It was a total about face. And as for the PP clinic mentioned, the president of the local PP Chapter where I am now told me straight out that that clinic was disenfranchised for exactly those kind of tactics. 

[MercyA]

And we can't use the word father there accurately without putting some notation on it. Most anyone can ejaculate. But some men certainly don't deserve the title "father".

 

Edited that for you.

[Mergath]

I don't believe intentionally killing an innocent human being is ever morally acceptable. A doctor must always care for and strive for the best outcome for both her patients, the mother and the unborn child. She must never intend the death of either and do her best to save both. If, in the process of the mother undergoing life-saving treatment, the child's life is lost, that is tragic, but not the same as an intentional killing.

 

I'm trying to (without snark) understand what you're saying here. If abortion is literally the only treatment that would save the mother, are you still against it? For example, I've heard there are cases of women who have HELLP syndrome before viability. It's very rare, but it has happened. In that situation, would you still be against abortion, even when it's a certainty that the mother would die without one?

[Bluegoat]

A doctor cannot violate the legal rights of a person to benefit his patient.  Your question in the previous regarding stolen organs was a clear display of your lack of understanding medical ethics, or even the law.  There really isn't much else to say when you start from a position that is as flawed as the one your presented.

 

If you aren't going to read the context of the comments, they won't make sense to you.

 

The whole point of my comment, had you read back, was just as you said,  doctors can't violate the law or other ethical principles to benefit their own patients.  So - if we recognized some kind of intrinsic rights for the unborn, the fact that the woman was the patient the doctor was responsible for would not make it ethical for him to ignore that. 

 

To argue that doctors need to be able to offer abortions because it is in the interest of the patient only makes sense if we have already determined that the unborn have no, or not that kind, of intrinsic rights.  But since that is actually the substance of the pro-life position, to make that argument in that way is begging the question.

[Bluegoat]

balancing rights, and passive v active measures

 

 

Right, and once we go down the passive/active bunny trail we quickly get to Sophie's Choice / Trolley Dilemma ramblings that are oh-so suitable for 2 am college lounge discussions around greasy pizza and Corona...  :lol:

 

... which is not really my style.

 

 

 

We "safe, legal and rare" types actually have a whole lot of common ground with a certain sub-set of "pro-life" advocates.  There's a Catholic convent in my town, for example.  Nuns rock. 

 

That label in the US has unfortunately been largely coopted by folks who oppose women's autonomy in other areas, including contraceptive choice and sexual autonomy... and too rarely focus on structural / systemic measures to help poor women and their babies AFTER birth, including family leave / child care / wage levels etc.  

 

I wish there were more ways to focus on the common goals (which exist) rather than dwelling on black and white absolutes.  The whole issue is intrinsically gray.  The only way to force-fit into black and white is to deny the existence of one of the parties.

 

Fredrica Matthewes Green has done some very interesting work and writing on the topic of dialogue about abortion and finding common ground between people of differing viewpoints.  I think she might have some sort of group or organization related to it.

[eternalsummer]

Because "choice" in that context is known to be specifically restricted to a discussion around a woman's right to determine whether or not to carry out a pregnancy.  If you want to feel better about it, you can call that side Pro Women Are Allowed to Choose Whether to Carry a Pregnancy to Term.  Pro Choice is easier to say but do whatever floats your boat.

 

When someone (and not all do this) stakes out a pro-life position on the premise that all life deserves protection, then it does seem hypocritical to start parsing out which lives actually deserve protection.  Some pro life groups (particularly those related to the Catholic Church) are pro life across the board.  Certain others are not.

 

But they don't generally say that all life deserves protection, that is what I am saying.  Generally they say all innocent life deserves protection.

 

Even Catholics generally say you can kill someone who is trying to kill you, right?  (I am not religious so I am not entirely sure).

[Ananda]

I have a question for the pro-lifers who think abortion is ok if the life of the mother is at stake. I think there are multiple people in this thread who hold that position. Where do you draw the line - like if the mother is 100% guaranteed to die if she carries the pregnancy, that's ok right? What if it's only 80% likely that she'll die? 50% likely? And so on? It often is not completely clear cut whether the mother will die.

 

I thought about this in relation to a recent story in the news about a 9 year old girl from Brazil who was pregnant with twins after being raped by her step-father (hope I got the details right). The doctors sounded sure that she would die if her 9 year old uterus carried twins to term, and she was able to get an abortion. If that is ok, what if she were 9 years old, but it wasn't twins? What if she were a little older? Many people draw the line at some point. Like if she were 18 with a single pregnancy, it sounds like at least some people here think she should carry it to term. I'm trying to understand how you decide where to draw the line.

 

This is a long thread and I've lost who mentioned organ donation, but I think it is an interesting parallel. In the US it is prohibited to sell organs or to compel someone to donate an organ. If a life or several lives would be saved by organ donation, should the family of a dying (or recently passed) person be compelled to donate their organs? If a pro-life person would be willing to compel a pregnant woman to carry an unwanted child until birth, when it could be given up for adoption, why shouldn't organ donation be compulsory as well? What about live donation - like if you have a sibling who needs a kidney? Should the healthy sibling be compelled to donate a kidney if the sick sibling is almost certainly going to die without the donation?

 

I am one of those people.  Doctors determine medical risk.  Simple as that.  So in the case of your 9 year old girl from Brazil, the significant element is that her doctors felt her pregnancy was high risk.  I think it is likely that any pregnancy in a nine year old would be high risk.  Obviously people vary in their readiness for pregnancy, but I would think most healthy 18 year olds would be able to safely carry a pregancy, even a twin pregnacy to term.  

 

Briefly on the topic of organ donation, yes I feel people are morally obligated to donate organs on death (they aren't using them).  In the case of live donation, obligated is too strong a word.  I would say that if someone in your close circle of people needs an organ & you could provide you should give it serious consideration.  

[eternalsummer]

So you're saying that unless someone advocates for legalizing murder, rape, and theft, they can't legitimately be pro-choice? 

 

I don't think I really need to say what I think of that idea, because I'm sure 99% of the people here are thinking the same thing.

 

No, you've misunderstood completely.

 

I am saying that if your argument is that you can't call the Pro-Life movement Pro=Life because adherents don't believe in the absolute sanctity of all life, then you can't call the Pro-Choice movement Pro-Choice because adherents don't believe in the absolute right to make all choices.

 

There is a specificity to both claims (innocent life on the part of the pro-life movement and abortion on the part of the pro-choice movement) that is generally understood, and imo denying that on either side is just semantics.

[Bluegoat]

The death penalty has nothing to do with abortion. 

 

Abortion opponents see the fetus (or embryo, depending on stage of development) as morally equivalent to a human life, with the fundamental right to life.

 

Whether or not they think non-innocent people should be subject to the death penalty is completely separate.

 

There are some different considerations, but I wouldn't say they are unconnected at all.  A lot of the fundamental issues about how we view human life cross over.  The question is really for both, under what circumstances is it right to deprive someone of life, and what obligations do we have to help others sustain life?

[Mergath]

No, you've misunderstood completely.

 

I am saying that if your argument is that you can't call the Pro-Life movement Pro=Life because adherents don't believe in the absolute sanctity of all life, then you can't call the Pro-Choice movement Pro-Choice because adherents don't believe in the absolute right to make all choices.

 

There is a specificity to both claims (innocent life on the part of the pro-life movement and abortion on the part of the pro-choice movement) that is generally understood, and imo denying that on either side is just semantics.

 

I don't think I've misunderstood at all. 

[eternalsummer]

We don't accord all life the same rights. For example, a chimp is alive, and intelligent - arguably, a chimp feels, knows and experiences more than an 8 week old foetus - but as a society we've drawn the line at giving them them same rights we have. I see no issue with according a foetus less rights than the pregnant mother. 

 

For me, it's like  a see-saw, with the rights gradually coming into balance the closer a foetus gets to viability outside the womb, although I'd argue there isn't full balance until birth. 

 

Ultimately, these are all opinions. There is no Universal Law that defines the question of foetal rights. Given that, I should be allowed, as a woman, to determine these things according to my own conscience, not according to the conscience of others. Just as I would allow others to determine her choices for herself based on her own conscience. 

 

If there is no Universal Law that defines the question of feotal rights then certainly there is none that defines the question of rape, right?  And yet you would not argue that a man should be allowed to determine those things himself, according to his own conscience, because that action (rape) has a definite deleterious impact on another innocent human.

 

The question of chimps vs people is a red herring.  We are discussing human life, and when a human has the right to that life (that is, the right to not be killed by others); most people agree on certain circumstances - born, innocent (not trying to kill you), etc.  

[eternalsummer]

I don't think I've misunderstood at all. 

 

Okay.  Where do you get from my argument that the adherents must believe anything in particular about other issues in order to be part of one camp or another?  I am just arguing (in this case) about the names people from both sides give themselves, not the legitimacy of their actual positions.

[eternalsummer]

I'm happy to call it being pro-reproductive choice, and call the other side pro-innocent life, anti reproductive choice, if that aids in truth in advertising. 

 

I am too, but to be honest pro-choice and pro-life make sense to me as the perspectives of their relative believers - *I* know they're talking about the choice to have an abortion, and I also know pro-lifers are talking about the specific life of an unborn child, so I am not particularly confused by them as labels, nor do I think they're misnomers (from the perspectives of people who hold those beliefs).

 

At any rate all of that is side issue nonsense, imo.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If you aren't going to read the context of the comments, they won't make sense to you.

 

The whole point of my comment, had you read back, was just as you said,  doctors can't violate the law or other ethical principles to benefit their own patients.  So - if we recognized some kind of intrinsic rights for the unborn, the fact that the woman was the patient the doctor was responsible for would not make it ethical for him to ignore that. 

 

To argue that doctors need to be able to offer abortions because it is in the interest of the patient only makes sense if we have already determined that the unborn have no, or not that kind, of intrinsic rights.  But since that is actually the substance of the pro-life position, to make that argument in that way is begging the question.

 

You are still wrong.  The doctor's ethical duty is to the woman, and she ultimately makes all decisions. 

[eternalsummer]

lol, yep, being allowed to determine if I put my health - physical and emotional - at risk by carrying a foetus to term is exactly the same as letting men rape whoever they want. 

 

Idk. Life is life. Chimps could conceivably be considered a heck of lot more innocent than a whole lot of human life. 

 

 

But what you're saying, from a pro-life perspective, is that your health is more important than someone else's life.  From a pro=choice perspective I get that the fetus is not a human life until a certain number of weeks or maybe until it is born.  From the pro-life perspective it is a human life from much earlier, generally from the beginning (conception).

 

So you wouldn't say that because you feel healthier or saner with more money, you can kill your neighbor and take his money, because after all there is no Universal Law and you can do what you like as long as your conscience is clear.  There are in fact moral laws to which we adhere.

 

Whether you consider *this* (abortion) to be acceptable or unacceptable isn't because you think there is no right and wrong, it's because you think abortion is neither right nor wrong.  Your argument for it can't be that there is no moral code, because you do believe in a moral code (or you wouldn't be against rape, right?).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am one of those people.  Doctors determine medical risk.  Simple as that.  So in the case of your 9 year old girl from Brazil, the significant element is that her doctors felt her pregnancy was high risk.  I think it is likely that any pregnancy in a nine year old would be high risk.  Obviously people vary in their readiness for pregnancy, but I would think most healthy 18 year olds would be able to safely carry a pregancy, even a twin pregnacy to term.  

 

Briefly on the topic of organ donation, yes I feel people are morally obligated to donate organs on death (they aren't using them).  In the case of live donation, obligated is too strong a word.  I would say that if someone in your close circle of people needs an organ & you could provide you should give it serious consideration.  

 

You danced around the question.  Should organ donation be legally required?

[Bluegoat]

I wholeheartedly agree that pro-lifers should desire to protect all innocent human beings whose lives are threatened, regardless of the form of the threatened violence. I am anti-war and pro-refugee and would certainly oppose the death penalty for someone without the mental capacity to understand their crime. 

 

However, I agree with anemone that the death penalty is a separate issue, and one I am still thinking through. It is a just response to someone who has intentionally taken the life of another and can certainly act as a deterrent. However, I would not personally participate in carrying out the death penalty. I would prefer to see mercy shown, as Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery. I don't trust our current justice system and believe it is responsible for putting to death many innocent people; that is always wrong. I welcome thoughts from other pro-lifers [or anyone else who can share them without snark ;) ] on this topic.

 

My view is that the state (or community, depending on what level of cultural organization we are talking about) can rightfully make decisions that mean taking the life of an individual.  This is a very serious decision and only can be made at great need, in order to allow the community to fulfill its job to protect the individuals in the community.  So - war when the consequences of no war would be worse and injustice is not a motivation..  The death penalty when there is no other possibility to make people safe.

 

In modern western society, I don't think there is any need for the death penalty - we have the ability to secure the truly dangerous in other ways.  And the downsides of using that power are so destructive, both for individuals and the community as a whole, that it is impossible to justify them.  That being said, there have been times and places and circumstances where the community or state was not able to secure dangerous individuals over the long term, and in such situations it can be possible, to my mind, to justify the death penalty.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Bluegoat

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But they don't generally say that all life deserves protection, that is what I am saying.  Generally they say all innocent life deserves protection.

 

Even Catholics generally say you can kill someone who is trying to kill you, right?  (I am not religious so I am not entirely sure).

 

Self defense is often (not always) an exception.  Killing someone on death row is not self defense.

[eternalsummer]

That's your opinion, which you are free to hold.

 

My objection to pro-life ( besides obscuring 'anti-choice ) is that anti-abortionists don't get to claim that moral high ground for themselves.

 

Pro-foetal life, sure. But just because I believe in safe and legal abortions doesn't mean I go around rampaging in an anti-life manner. Pro-choice people can also be pro-life - starting with the life of the mother. 

 

Pro-life people use that moniker to obscure the facts - that they are pro-foetal life and against a full range of reproductive choices, no matter what the cost to the mother's life. 

 

 

But I can be Pro-Choice - I am for the choice to school your children as you wish, get married when you like, join the army or don't join, etc.  I am just not for *this* choice, right?  And you are not for *this* life (that is, the fetal life).  And that is pretty well understood by both sides.

[eternalsummer]

Self defense is often (not always) an exception.  Killing someone on death row is not self defense.

 

I thought Catholics were opposed to the death penalty?

 

I agree that the death penalty is somewhere in the middle - certainly the life is not innocent, by the society's standards, but neither is it a direct and immediate challenge to someone else's life.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I thought Catholics were opposed to the death penalty?

 

I agree that the death penalty is somewhere in the middle - certainly the life is not innocent, by the society's standards, but neither is it a direct and immediate challenge to someone else's life.

 

The RCC is, which is why I specifically referenced them above.

[Bluegoat]

I'm curious to know what pro-lifers attitude is to restriction of a pregnant woman's rights in other areas. For example, to be logically consistent with the idea that the foetus from conception has equal rights to the pregnant woman, I'd assume you are in favour of restricting what she can do during pregnancy - what she drinks, eats, the kind of activities she engages in ? 

 

How far do you think this restriction should extend ? Should bars have to deny a pregnant woman a drink, for example ? Should women who take drugs during pregnancy be charged with endangering the foetus ? Held liable for post-birth costs of dealing with a FAS baby ? 

 

How do you reconcile restricting the woman's liberty for those nine months, given that liberty and the pursuit of happiness is at the core of your national character and strivings ? 

 

I think this is a difficult question to answer without specific examples - it isn't as easy as some people think to say this or that is bad during pregnancy.  Even alchohol is pretty controversial.

 

I have heard a few cases of women who were pregnant being ordered to detox type units, but that seems unusual and they were very extreme circumstances as well.

 

But I suppose I'd start thinking about it in terms of how do we think about removing children from parental care that we think is sub-standard.

[Ananda]

You danced around the question.  Should organ donation be legally required?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to dance around the question.  I don't concern myself much with legal imperatives, so no, I don't think organ donation should be legally required.  I do think it should be the legal default, with people opting out instead of opting in.  With respect to legal abortion, I am undecided.  I don't know what I feel about laws & public policy in this area.  I suspect this thread will have great impact in my forming views in this area.  The law is a crude vehicle for morality, so I think we should exercise great caution when legislating.  

[LucyStoner]

I definitely agree that risks & effects of pregnancy especially in situations of abuse/rape should be be weighed against the interests of the fetus. I don't necessary agree that a woman is the appropriate person to make the determination. If not her, that who? I don't know, probably her medical providers? I think that a woman's ob/midwife & her counselor would have greater wisdom in this area than either a vulnerable woman or politicians. So no, I don't think that abortion in the case of rape should be illegal. Nor do I think it is appropriate to make a woman prove that she was raped, given the difficulty in doing so. While I have been both raped & pregnant, I have not been pregnant with my rapists child. I don't have direct personal experience in this area. I am not advocating for mistreatment of any pregnant women, least of all rape survivors. I agree that both society & the legal system really suck in this area and major systematic change is necessary.

 

If I were asked directly, "Do I think a woman should carry a rape induced pregnancy to term?". Yes, I think she should. I know that it would be difficult. However if you asked me "How do I feel women with rape conceived pregnancies should be treated, if seeking an abortion?" I would ensure the woman to receive quality medical & mental health care. I would grieve the situation that brought her to that point. I would grieve her decision to abort her pregnancy. And I would zip my lip and treat her with only compassion. I might tell her that I wouldn't abort a pregnancy under similar circumstances, but only if it seemed appropriate to do so.

 

Wow, this is a difficult facet to this topic.

Being vulnerable doesn't mean people themselves are not best equipped to act in their own best interest.

 

If a woman has been raped and does not want an abortion, I am going to trust that she and she alone is the best person to decide what the heck to do. And I am not going to tell her all about how that option was fraught for my mother who made the same decision.

 

If a woman has been raped does want an abortion, I am going to trust that she and she alone is the best person to decide what the heck to do. And I am not going to tell her about how I loved my brother who was conceived in rape or that my life is enriched by his children.

 

Because my opinion is not relevant to her situation.

 

I think it comes down to who do we trust to make the best personal decisions for themselves? The person is my answer and I ended up pro-choice. Someone else seems to be the answer most pro-life folks have.

[Guest2]

Where are those hundreds of kids now?

Alive.

[Bluegoat]

Except we can't remove the foetus from maternal care. 

 

So is restriction of a woman's liberty OK as a substitute ? 

 

I mean, in some ways, I don't care what pro-life people think ( it's their actions I worry about). But at least be honest. Say, I care more about the rights of the foetus than I do about the rights of the mother. I am A-OK with depriving a woman of liberty for the duration of a pregnancy.

 

So far as I can see, they are not even arguing for equal rights of woman and foetus. I'd like to unpick the justification for that from their perspective. What's that about ? Is it about this idea of innocence ? That the foetus is innocent and the woman is not ? Are some women more innocent than others ? Where does this idea of innocence arise from and is there a justification for imposing it on society ?

 

I tend to think of removal of children from parental care as a restriction.  But yes of course it isn't identical.  Even in that kind of instance though, I think the bar is normally pretty high.  We tend to be very retiscent about telling parents their care or lifestyle is such that they have to change it or lose their kids.  So - I would think, at first blush, that you would tend to see at least that much retiscence with regard to your question.  Of course there are people who would remove kids a lot more if it was up to them and that would probably reflect on their views with regard to a pregnant women as well.

 

People aren't generally going to sat that they care more about the rights of the fetus than those of the woman, because it wouldn't be honest to do so - they don't think that.  They might differ in their views of how to balance equal rights, which is not the same as saying they are not equal, in this as in many other things.

 

As far as innocence - I think when it gets used in this context it's usually trying to indicate that there has been nothing done purposefully by the fetus in order to cause the situation.  I'm not sure why it comes up really because it seems obvious to me that is the case and I can't see anyone disputing it.   Though it may be that those people are wanting to contrast it with whatever choices they think the woman made, I don't know.  That seems foolish to me, and pretty unsavoury as well.

[Ananda]

Being vulnerable doesn't mean people themselves are not best equipped to act in their own best interest.

 

If a woman has been raped and does not want an abortion, I am going to trust that she and she alone is the best person to decide what the heck to do. And I am not going to tell her all about how that option was fraught for my mother who made the same decision.

 

If a woman has been raped does want an abortion, I am going to trust that she and she alone is the best person to decide what the heck to do. And I am not going to tell her about how I loved my brother who was conceived in rape or that my life is enriched by his children.

 

Because my opinion is not relevant to her situation.

 

I think it comes down to who do we trust to make the best personal decisions for themselves? The person is my answer and I ended up pro-choice. Someone else seems to be the answer most pro-life folks have.

 

The woman's knowledge is so limited.  She can only speak to how her situation has affected her in the past, and how it is affecting her in the moment.  She may be able to predict to a certain degree how it will affect her in the future, but even then she is largely speculating.  I think her truth is a valuable piece of the puzzle, but it isn't the only piece we should consider.  Medical doctors can provide the piece relating to pregnancy risk both for the mother & the fetus.  Rape crisis counselors can provide a broader, more objective perspective related specifically to the rape piece of the puzzle.   The  concerns relating to the interests of the fetus as a prospective child remain.  

 

My opinion is only relevant to her specific situation if it is relevant to her.  Although I do feel I should be able to discuss ethics globally without it implying that I desire to compel everyone to strict adherence to my code of ethics.  Clearly the universal ethical norms in this area are in flux.  Just as you reject the ethical principals of those who would dehumanize rape victims and force them to be human incubators at all costs; I reject the ethical principals that completely dehumanize the unborn.  ETA: I am against dehumanizing women as well, in case that was unclear.

 

I understand that for pro-choice people the reproductive self-determinism of the woman is of paramount importance.  For pro-life people the concern is the human rights (specifically the right to life) of the prospective human.  I think both are very important.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Ananda

[MercyA]

I'm trying to (without snark) understand what you're saying here. If abortion is literally the only treatment that would save the mother, are you still against it? For example, I've heard there are cases of women who have HELLP syndrome before viability. It's very rare, but it has happened. In that situation, would you still be against abortion, even when it's a certainty that the mother would die without one?

 

I know you're not being snarky. Yes, I am always against abortion. As you note, HELLP syndrome is rare before the third trimester. If it were to occur before viability (which thankfully keeps moving earlier and earlier), and if all possible treatments had been exhausted, and if the mother was in imminent danger of death, I would probably be in favor of early delivery and hope that all reasonable attempts were made to save the child's life. 

[MercyA]

I'm curious to know what pro-lifers attitude is to restriction of a pregnant woman's rights in other areas. For example, to be logically consistent with the idea that the foetus from conception has equal rights to the pregnant woman, I'd assume you are in favour of restricting what she can do during pregnancy - what she drinks, eats, the kind of activities she engages in ? 

 

How far do you think this restriction should extend ? Should bars have to deny a pregnant woman a drink, for example ? Should women who take drugs during pregnancy be charged with endangering the foetus ? Held liable for post-birth costs of dealing with a FAS baby ? 

 

How do you reconcile restricting the woman's liberty for those nine months, given that liberty and the pursuit of happiness is at the core of your national character and strivings ? 

 

I don't define myself as a United States citizen, first and foremost, but as a Christian, so the American ideal of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" doesn't really affect my position on these issues. 

 

I think we can all agree that a pregnant woman shouldn't, morally speaking, intentionally do anything that will cause death or permanent and serious bodily harm to her (wanted) unborn child. The legal ramifications of that are a whole other discussion. I suppose I would just say that there are a limited number of things that cause death or serious and permanent damage to an unborn child, and many of those (such as recreational drugs) are already illegal. I wouldn't restrict things like moderate drinking which are still under debate and not likely to kill or seriously injure the child.

[MercyA]

We don't accord all life the same rights. For example, a chimp is alive, and intelligent - arguably, a chimp feels, knows and experiences more than an 8 week old foetus - but as a society we've drawn the line at giving them them same rights we have. 

 

Just for the record, I personally think chimps should have rights to autonomy and freedom from harm. :leaving:  

[MercyA]

Bluegoat and ananemone, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the death penalty. I appreciate it.

[Ananda]

Except we can't remove the foetus from maternal care. 

 

So is restriction of a woman's liberty OK as a substitute ? 

 

I mean, in some ways, I don't care what pro-life people think ( it's their actions I worry about). But at least be honest. Say, I care more about the rights of the foetus than I do about the rights of the mother. I am A-OK with depriving a woman of liberty for the duration of a pregnancy.

 

So far as I can see, they are not even arguing for equal rights of woman and foetus. I'd like to unpick the justification for that from their perspective. What's that about ? Is it about this idea of innocence ? That the foetus is innocent and the woman is not ? Are some women more innocent than others ? Where does this idea of innocence arise from and is there a justification for imposing it on society ?

 

I don't care more about the rights of the fetus, than the rights of the mother.  I believe they both have rights and when in conflict must be weighed against one another.  I am okay with restricting pregnant women's reproductive freedom for the duration of her pregnancy.  As another example, I am against drug/alcohol use in pregnancy because it harms the fetus.   I think this is non-unique to pregnancy though.  Often we have to weigh the rights of one person against the rights of another.   

 

I am not arguing for equal rights for a woman & fetus exactly.  There is some credence to the model of viewing fetal development as a spectrum of person-hood.   I am completely okay with all forms of modern contraception including Plan B.  The one celled zygote is the extreme one end of that spectrum.  At the extreme other end is the new born child, which I think we agree has full human rights.  I don't agree with pro-lifers who ascribe full baby status to the one celled zygote.  Nor do agree with the pro-choicers that give no rights to a fetus until it is born into a baby.  I think there is a process of becoming a person, and a corresponding process of gaining increasing rights.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to dance around the question.  I don't concern myself much with legal imperatives, so no, I don't think organ donation should be legally required.  I do think it should be the legal default, with people opting out instead of opting in.  With respect to legal abortion, I am undecided.  I don't know what I feel about laws & public policy in this area.  I suspect this thread will have great impact in my forming views in this area.  The law is a crude vehicle for morality, so I think we should exercise great caution when legislating.  

 

Agreed, which is why I support allowing women the right to carry a pregnancy to term or not.

[Caroline]

Alive.

How could you possibly know that?

[Guest2]

You know, that's such a weird argument, the 'alive' one. If I hadn't have had a termination when I was 19, that foetus would now be a grown up person. But...the three kids that I have now wouldn't exist. Same if I'd continued my pregnancy later on - I'd have a 14 year old, but I wouldn't have my 12 year old. Was the potential 14 year old 'meant' in a way that the existing 12 year old isn't ???

 

Idk. It's all a bit strange to me.

I tried to double quote, but it didn't work. I took it to mean a retorical question. Did she really think there was long term data or there ought to be on the children of those women who changed their minds? Should we be tracking these families? That is kind of creepy. Who could actually know what happened to those families?

 

I have many of the same thoughts of possiblities of what might have been in my family,Sadie. My mom aborted her first child. Maybe I wouldn't be here if she didn't , but I wouldn't choose to be alive at the expense of another person. My Mom has had to live with wondering how things could have turned out if she made a different choice for a lifetime. It has weighed heavily on her. My sister made a different choice in similar circumstances. Sometimes, it looks so hopeless because we try to do it ourselves. Our moms group often routinely makes meals and watches kiddos of pregnant women. That helps a little. Maybe it is just the compassion. I am not arguing any points about abortion. I am pro-life and I just have compassion and love. The last thing women need is to hurt each other. My heart breaks for women making this choice, and for their children.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Nor are abortions forced.  But there are some who insist that we have to pretend there isn't even a baby in there in order to treat these women.  How obnoxious and condescending that is.  It IS a baby.  It will be a baby.  It will be nothing but a baby, should it live. 

 

But with reference to vaccines, compliance is forced unless you want to lose your job, in some places.  If you want to call that voluntary, go ahead, but it isn't.  Forcing anyone to do anything to their bodies (or their childrens' bodies) in order to gain basic services or employment is completely unacceptable.   Do what you want to your own body, and let everyone else make his own decision, same as in abortion. 

 

There is no such thing as free healthcare. Someone pays for it.  I'm in favor of that cost being shifted away from a narrow margin of the middle class who pays the most in taxes and toward the top, as Bernie suggests. 

 

And personally, I oppose the death penalty as well.

 

I'm very consistent in my views. 

From what I understand the jobs that normally require vaccines are ones where you might put others at risk from not vaccinating such as health care .I don't see this as force since one can choose a career without these mandates.

[hornblower]

One thing that strikes me is that while we are open to hearing about women who regret their abortion, and some of us are open to hearing about women who are glad of their abortion (the shout your abortion trend on social media), and we hear about women who thought they were going to abort but gladly decided not to......

we really do not have a way for women to talk about regretting having children. 

It's just not a conversation most of us would have & the taboo on women saying they regretted having children (or a specific child) is just too big. 

Edited May 13, 2016 by hornblower

[LucyStoner]

The woman's knowledge is so limited. She can only speak to how her situation has affected her in the past, and how it is affecting her in the moment. She may be able to predict to a certain degree how it will affect her in the future, but even then she is largely speculating. I think her truth is a valuable piece of the puzzle, but it isn't the only piece we should consider. Medical doctors can provide the piece relating to pregnancy risk both for the mother & the fetus. Rape crisis counselors can provide a broader, more objective perspective related specifically to the rape piece of the puzzle. The concerns relating to the interests of the fetus as a prospective child remain.

 

My opinion is only relevant to her specific situation if it is relevant to her. Although I do feel I should be able to discuss ethics globally without it implying that I desire to compel everyone to strict adherence to my code of ethics. Clearly the universal ethical norms in this area are in flux. Just as you reject the ethical principals of those who would dehumanize rape victims and force them to be human incubators at all costs; I reject the ethical principals that completely dehumanize the unborn. ETA: I am against dehumanizing women as well, in case that was unclear.

 

I understand that for pro-choice people the reproductive self-determinism of the woman is of paramount importance. For pro-life people the concern is the human rights (specifically the right to life) of the prospective human. I think both are very important.

 

The fetus is more important to some.

 

The woman is more important to others.

 

It's essentially impossible for someone to give each the exact same importance and value.

Edited May 12, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Alive.

I've always wondered how pro-life people (collectively not uniamously) say life is so great for those not aborted yet when people die or a woman has a miscarriage, it is often said they are in a better place or God Knows Best or "everything happens for a reason". Maybe the woman decided to have an abortion for a reason? Why aren't these lives said to be "in a better place"?

 

And those are just three of the crappy things people have said to my face post miscarriage. There are so, so many more.

[Miss Peregrine]

Lucy, I'm sorry for your losses.

 

 

 

Edited for typo.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Miss Peregrine

[JeanM]

I am one of those people.  Doctors determine medical risk.  Simple as that.  So in the case of your 9 year old girl from Brazil, the significant element is that her doctors felt her pregnancy was high risk.  I think it is likely that any pregnancy in a nine year old would be high risk.  Obviously people vary in their readiness for pregnancy, but I would think most healthy 18 year olds would be able to safely carry a pregancy, even a twin pregnacy to term.  

 

Briefly on the topic of organ donation, yes I feel people are morally obligated to donate organs on death (they aren't using them).  In the case of live donation, obligated is too strong a word.  I would say that if someone in your close circle of people needs an organ & you could provide you should give it serious consideration.  

 

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I have many conflicting feelings on these topics myself.

 

I agree that any pregnancy in a nine year old would likely be high risk! And most healthy 18 year olds would not be high risk. There is a lot of middle ground in between though, which makes it very difficult.

 

Personally I see a strong similarity between forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term in order to save the life of the child and forcing an unwilling live organ donor to donate to save the life of a person (child or adult).

 

Just to be clear, I am not advocating forced organ donation. This is purely a thought experiment!