10 questions for pro-choice people

S'Lainte!

Here you are drawing a distinction though between humans and eagles which is why arguing against abortion on the basis of that we protect eagle eggs but not human fetuses doesn't work.

The truth is that we actually do protect human fetuses as noted forcing someone to have an abortion would be considered criminal and many states charge killing of fetus when killing the mother as murder. The key difference though between humans and eagles is that we are considered to be able to make moral choices and consent. That is essence of the pro-choice position in that the moral choice is left up to the pregnant women based upon her own personal morality.

Now it is a fair argument that a woman's personal morality will likely not be in accord with the fetus but that is the basic conundrum. If you don't believe the fetus is a human then there is no conflict between a woman's personal morality versus the fetus. If you do then there is obviously a conflict.

The problem with that type of polling is that you are polling the wrong people and asking a very limited question.

And I respect and can largely agree with that position. As I've said before I might not agree with the a position that life begins at conception but that is a position that probably never can be proven either way. What I think is more important is seeking ways to reduce abortion by addressing the root cause of unwanted pregnancies. As I said earlier I don't think absolutist positions really help with that and just end up hardening positions.

 

I'll restate, in case we're not on the same page: the problem with aborting a fetus with Down Syndrome is that in doing so we are essentially stating that a child with Down Syndrome is undesirable, which is wrong because it presupposes that such a child has less intrinsic "value".

Let's say, hypothetically, that there was scientific evidence that a baby conceived on a Monday is 10x more like to be born with Down Syndrome and this became common knowledge. Would there be something wrong, in your view, with a couple that purposely avoids trying to become pregnant on a Monday in light of that knowledge? Would this be as "bad" as aborting a pregnancy to avoid giving birth to a baby with Down Syndrome?

 

1. None of your god damned business.

2. None of your god damned business.

3. None of your god damned business.

4. None of your god damned business.

5. None of your god damned business.

6. None of your god damned business.

7. None of your god damned business.

8. None of your god damned business.

9. None of your god damned business.

10. None of your god damned business.

 

The entire point of mentioning the eagle egg wasn't to argue against abortion it was to point out that a value has to be assigned to something you afford protection or rights.

It defies logic to protect anything that is not worth protecting. Regardless of when you may personnally believe the fetus is viable that doesn't prevent you from placing a value on the fetus. I have 5 children and it would be ridiculous to say my wife and I saw no value in her affording protection to the fetus. The biggest problem in the abortion debate IMO is that the positions are not framed properly. If the only way we can discuss abortion is whether a woman can make a choice... then there is only a pro-choice position, because to say women cannot make choices is wrong. But if we assign value to the fetus then it is logical that most people who value it highly will work to reduce the number of abortions.

There is not one law in history that left the moral choice up to the decision of the individual. The essence of the pro choice position is that the fetus has no value worth protection. You can spin it politically but if you don't see that a human fetus must be killed to prevent it from being born then you will frame the issue around whether an individual can decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Pro Choice advocates must come to grips with the truth that they do not value the fetus enough to afford protection.

I don't have a problem with people being for abortion because they don't value the fetus, I have a problem with people who take a hypocritical position that they both value the fetus and support abortion.

Laws are never framed around individual choice. Laws are framed around values.

There is no question that the fetus is human- we know it is not viable until viability is developed- whatever stage that is. It all comes down to value, some people value a fetus so much they change there diets, quit smoking, start seeing doctors, get married, become religious, start exercising, and some of them have parties and get gifts for the fetus even before it could possibly be viable.

Like I said either government or society will assign a value to the fetus and then the laws will reflect the value assigned.

Some people risk unprotected sex knowing they give no value to a fetus. That is why abortion as a final solution is billions of $$$ business. Other people do not think it through beforehand.

It is a very difficult choice for most women because they do assign a high value to the fetus.

That is the only relevant question and the right people are the ones who cause unwanted pregnancies. Wanted pregnancies do not consider abortion a choice.

Abortion always comes down to this question, you had the sex, you got pregnant, how important is the fetus? There is no other question.

Because of the problems of teen pregnancy, over population, sex out of marriage, poverty etc, there is alot of work to be done to prevent unwanted pregnancy, but abortion isn't the only way to solve the problem and it doesn't address those cause factors listed. It is an easy way to avoid solving the bigger problems, but that doesn't make it the best solution.

Why should we give in to a solution that is easy if there is a better solution?

That is where I stand, I work for better solutions even when the issue is difficult.

I would never de-value the fetus just to find the easy way out.

 

I am willing to agree that a discussion of the value of the fetus is valuable but at the same time if you are talking about the assignment of rights then you have to consider is a woman controlling her own biology also of value. The argument you put forward is one that essentially subsumes the woman's right to control of her body to the interest of the fetus.

The second part though is an apriori assumption on whether the fetus is of value to begin with. While your view assigns a very high value to that many on the other side don't.

Actually anytime the law allows something that is leaving it up to the moral decision of the individual. For example legally we can drink alcohol but many people's morality say that they shouldn't. As far as the law is concerned though it is up to individuals to decide whether they should or should not drink alcohol.

That position only works if the pro-choice position mandated or advocated abortion. The pro-choice position isn't automatically pro-abortion as you can be pro-choice yet still not recommend abortion. It is the same as saying that you can be for the continued legalization of alcohol yet be not advocate drinking.

You can certainly hold that value but I think you are greatly simplifying the pro-choice position. Someone could place a lot of value on the fetus but still take the pro-choice position. That could just be because they recognize that banning abortions will lead to a black market that could do more harm than keeping it legal.

That is a very interesting point to take for someone who has espoused some libertarian values because that view could be a justification for much much more regulation in people's lives. Further the real danger with that view is you have to consider whose values are framing the law? If you say the majority values then does that mean that minority values are run over roughshod?

Of course many people do that but many people also do not. Your position is based upon an apriori acceptance of that view but as I stated that is the basic problem because such a view is not agreed upon and probably never will be.

Possibly so but you still have to consider that there are still positions that could place the value on the fetus as you see it but will also still keep abortion legal. In fact given how reviled comments by Mourdock and Akin are I suspect abortion will never be fully outlawed as it will still be allowed in the cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother.

And I agree with you that many people engage in reckless behavior with little thought of the consequence that said abortion isn't the only issue that deals with this and there are whole industries out there that thrive on that. For example where would the auto insurance industry be if we all drove safely with thought of the consequence of our actions?

Largely you are correct but there are other issues then you are ignoring the subset involving situations where the women might have been coerced into sex, might've been lied to about how much protection her partner was using and also potential complications from the pregnancy. As that most people overwhelmingly support keeping an option for abortion regarding rape, incest and health of mothers show that there is more than just the one question you frame.

Fully agree.

And I agree but there as noted I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Further as I've said all along you have to consider what is possible within the political realm as is. Just banning abortion is a very simplistic solution to a complex problem and one that is very very unlikely to pass.

 

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?

-Nothing comes to mind.

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

-Yes, the woman is within her rights.

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

-I do not support any restrictions.

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

-This is question-begging. To make abortion illegal is a violation of a woman's bodily autonomy. Once the fetus is born and the cord is cut, they're now two autonomous people, and entitled to all rights as such.

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

-It doesn't resemble eugenics.

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

-Yes. The fact that a practice is religious in nature does not exempt it from state regulation.

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

-I would guess that those are the areas where the demand for their services is the greatest.

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

- I don't describe it as 'tragic'

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

-Yes, although considering the the tiny fraction of abortions that take place at this stage, I would be willing to compromise at the second trimester if you anti-choicers would go away once and for all.

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

-Two death sentences?

 

Yes, a woman has that right. I would argue that abortions in the third trimester, i.e. approximately after 22-24 weeks after which time a fetus often can survive and live a normal life after being the NICU should be dis-allowed unless the mother's life is at stake. All women opting for abortion should be offered vs required (not decided yet) therapy settings with liscenced therapist/psychologist and/or a similar setting with women who have chosen to have abortions.

I do not believe that this is right. However, this is typically a societal problem and phenomenon in which a particular culture/society has subjugated the female race and stripped them of their rights. Trying to look at the abortion issue in light of such cultures ignores the larger issue at hand that must be mitigated first. If this is a major issue in the USA, that is news to me.

While I personally believe that minors should have to notify their parents before going through with an abortion, the current laws that have been essentially agreed upon in nearly all 50 states state that all women regardless of age have the right to make decisions regarding their pregnancy without need for any parental or guardian notification or consent. That is meant for testing, prenatal visits, etc. but if alter those laws for only abortions, the situation would become highly murky legally.

Scientifically, conception, the beginning of life, begins when the egg and sperm join. If you mean when does the the being become somewhat different and not just a collection of cells, that is a totally different question which I cannot answer.

A fetus/child should have human rights at the point at which he/she can survive outside the womb, which today is typically at 22-24 weeks.

You are coloring this question and issue with a movement that is in no way related. Eugenics was a movement in which people choose who was unlikely to live. Down Syndrome is a condition that is is responsible for the largest percentage of miscarriages and stillbirths that occur. In fact, from conception to birth, anywhere from 66-80% of fetuses with Down Syndrome will be miscarried or stillborn. After the current methods of testing for Down Syndrome, there is still a 45-60% chance that the pregnancy will result in miscarriage or a stillborn birth. None of that is due to any person's willful action, but through natural causes.

On top of that, with the increasing age of women who become pregnant increasing the rates of children with Down Syndrome and the increasing access to care to be tested, there has been an increasing trend of children with Down Syndrome.

Lastly, the issue of choosing to abort in this situation more often than not comes down to being able to provide for the child. More and more women and families who have the means are actually choosing NOT to abort given the improved funding for Children for Disabilities in care, schooling, and needs. The issue where this does come up is for those who cannot care for the child due to money, resources, or being unable to cope mentally or emotionally. In all those cases, the child is far more likely to be mistreated with a great deal of pain and suffering.

If you want to fix this issue, making abortion illegal is not the first step. The first steps is improving resources (school, medical care, etc.) for those with disabilities so that they can live happy and fairly normal lives, and improving all aspects of adoption system and foster care that is currently in shambled around the country and testament of absolute hypocrisy and shame to all of us American's who say we believe in fair treatment, human rights, quality of life, and equal opportunities.

His religious consciousness directs is personal action. It in no way decreed that he had to own a business. Once he chooses to pursue such an action, his actions in regards to that business are to protect the rights of his employees and customers. This is the civil contract that he agreed to by owning such a business. It essentially a continuation of generally accepted graces and courtesy that one treats a guest who you invited into your home. Plus:

1. The horrible thing is that contraception has actually been shown to be a very viable treatment for numerous medical conditions, but the initial name stuck.
2. If moral codes are being used to define treatments due to "supposed consequences", then their insurance treatments should disallow Viagra, Levitra, etc., addictive pain medication, anti-depressants, or any other drug that a depressed patient can overdose on.
3. If a Jehovah's Witness owned a business, he could not prevent an employee from receiving a blood as part of medical treatment.

First of all, Latinos as a group have the lowest rate of abortion of any race in America. Secondly, this has much more to do with socioeconomic status than race, the increasing awareness of sexuality in mass media and society, the fall of the family unit due to single parents working or both parents working, and the lack of mandatory teaching of safe sex practices in schools across the country because of the possible supposed consequences.

An abortion is a sign that society has failed. It is societies failure to allow the events to have passed and to not create reasonably viable alternative due to failures I pointed out above. To point blame at a single person, is childish and is no means of finding a solution to the failures that have led to someone feeling that they have to pursue an abortion.

Only when medically necessary as stated above.

Whether or not the criminal is charged with 2 counts of murder, there is innate judgement placed on anyone who would harm a pregnant women, much less kill them. No matter how the situation is framed, the criminal would undoubtable face a harsher sentence than if the woman were not pregnant. As such, whether or not there is two counts of murder would not matter, because they would be punished more severely no matter how many charges of murder/manslaughter/etc.

 

I'm not sure if you are serious here. If not, please look up the blue people of Kentucky as to why inbreeding is wrong.

Spoiler

I cannot believe I had to make an argument as to why incest and inbreeding isn't a good thing...

 

Great answer repped.

 

Except you have to consider that allowing for abortion in the case of incest isn't the same as mandating abortion for incest so it still is a choice. If in the case of two consenting adult brothers and sisters it would be up to them to decide but most cases of incest involve the exploitation of children of family members through outright coercion or through emotional manipulation. In that case it isn't that much dissimilar to rape.

 

The answer to your question is a simple one Yes if thet were going to get rid of the babt before they were told or after it's still there choice.

 

It's a selfish world.

 

Yeah, I love all the passages in the Bible where Jesus talks about the virtues of greed.

 

Why don't you cite one since I didn't....

(not sure what your meaning is here)

 

I'm pointing out that you are apparently justifying greed and, IIRC, you are also Christian. Of course, Jesus decried greed, repeatedly, and I made a sarcastic remark about it.

Do you really think greed is a good thing?

 

My comment was a criticism... very little or no thought given to the new creation.

 

I totally agree with you, there is a value assigned by society to the woman's right to terminate a pregnancy based upon her biologically carrying the fetus.
That is my point. This issue then comes down to those who value the fetus enough to afford protection and those who value the woman's choice more.

why would the value for a woman hinge on whether she wanted the pregnancy or not? What are the factors that would cause one woman to afford great protection to the fetus and another woman to de-value the fetus to the extent of killing it? If abortion only exists because women value the right to terminate a pregnancy then women are very conflicted as to the value of a fetus.

I think you are confusing compliance with rule of law. The law states you cannot drive drunk whether you like it, hate it, break it or otherwise. Individual morals play no part in whether a 15 yr old can drink in a bar and no individual moral plays any part in legalized drinking. That is exactly why prohibition did not work. The law itself defines the morals FOR individuals.

No law leaves anything up to the moral decision of an individual. If abortion was banned there would be individuals who would find a way to get abortions.

I do not support banning abortions. I support comprehensive efforts to reduce them to a very low number. We have crossed a line, there are over 1 million abortions annually, it is too big a number to go 'cold turkey'. Let's start by working together to reduce unwanted pregnancy, I would like to see results in this area, it is acheivable IMO.

I support all pro-choice positions that do not recommend abortion.

You are separating the pro choice position from the abortion position. That is illogical.

That wasn't an opinion, all laws are passed by the values of those who make them. It doesn't make a law right or wrong, laws will reflect the values of those who make them. Minority values are protected where people hold equality and justice as a value.

If it is not a human fetus what species is it?
You are probably speaking to viability, maybe you are thinking when would I consider the fetus a functional human being.

I would answer that simply- a human fetus is a functional human being when it can be delivered and is viably a newborn baby- so I wouldn't call a first trimester fetus a functional human being, that is illogical, I would call it a human fetus.

I've considered that and I agree.

that will make millions- abortion insurance, pregnant? Call Geico.

Good points, and I realize that unintended pregnancies rarely happen in the context of 'I can just get an abortion'. I don't believe a majority of women use abortion a birth control option (just my opinion).

Great discussion, I certainly believe that pro choice supporters are often trying to do the right thing and they are not 'baby killers', that kind of hateful label makes it hard to dialogue, I don't personally support immediately banning all abortion, I used to, but I think I see that our society could not adjust at this point without there being tragedy. But I must qualify that by saying that abortion is a tragedy already of great magnitude and I currently hold the position of trying to get things moving in the direction of changing the options and opportunities all around to see abortions greatly reduced.


So good discussion, hope for more healthy babies, mothers and far less mothers left without a responsible father to support and care for the mom and fetus.

I am against abortion but not against mothers- so I have to work this for success on both sides IMO