What's your position on abortion? And why?

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by beast

Well, thank you for your honesty. I have heard very, very few people admitting that they are against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, though.

I'm not against abortion, beast. I'm very much pro-choice. As I stated in my previous post, I believe that human life begins at conception, but I also believe that since the mother of that human life is responsible for bearing it, that she deserves the option whether or not to abort it. That would include cases of rape, incest, and her own health.

In any event, I understand that the decision is not an easy one to make, and is not one to be entered into lightly. Ultimately, the mother's decision is going to be on her conscience, likely for the rest of her life. That, in itself carries its own weight. And, so I really don't think it's on anyone else to dicate that decision. Let her decide. Give her the choice.

[inri]

Originally Posted by James81

So, an apology back to inri for shutting the convo down like that or making an accusation to that regard.

So not necessary..but thanks. Without facial expressions and tonalities and such, written conversation can easily be mis-interpreted. I'm glad you spoke up so I became the wiser as to how you were perceiving me!....lol...there I was merrily trucking along, assuming you were enjoying me and my (well-beaten!) high horse thoroughly!

[James81]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Interesting analogy, James. But, I'm not beating any dead horses, here. For me, it's a matter of simple definition.

I mean, what is a fertilized egg but the very beginning of human life? What is an embryo? What is a fetus? At what point does one call a human life a human life?

Some people, of course, view an embryo or a fetus as no more significant than a wart on their elbow. But even a wart on your elbow is part of your body, part of your physical existence, and therefore, still a life form. The difference is that a wart isn't likely to grow into a self-contained human being.

This is why I use the word, "period". Whatever term you want use to label it, you'll never be able get away from the fact that human life begins at conception.

Well, yeah, I tend to agree with you.

And I think most people realize this on *some* level. It's kind of an ugly thing to think about, though, when you are debating whether or not it should be ok to remove such a life form from your body. I think the points that bring up "when does human life begin?" are really just an attempt to try to soften the idea as to what is happening with an abortion. And I don't mean that in a "oh that's selfish" kind of way (I could see how it might be perceived as a judgment on my part to say that). I mean it in a "I really feel like I have no other choice but to abort this child" kind of way, in which the woman, who probably already feels alone in the decision as it is given the nature of the subject and all the judgments that come with it, also has to wrestle with the feelings of guilt associated with it.

I'm sure it's a tought decision for anyone to feel like they have to make. I wish that these women were capable of seeing all the resources that are available to them to help them with the raising of a child, and were to see the resources that are WITHIN them for doing so. Sure, our society isn't perfect for helping with this, but I think there are lots of people who may be willing to help a woman through this tough time in her life.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I really don't think the culture makes any difference. Again, it's a matter of simple definition. Anything beyond that seems either argumentative, or, as I stated before, an attempt to justify.

Well, I was using the term culture very widely. Historically*, the concept of "human' and "person" have been interchangeable. That is, "we" (the people) are sentient, rational, conscious, soul-containing, subjects of the universe. Those are why we matter, and therefore it is immoral to hurt "us". There are humans, and there's everything else.

As science has advanced, we realized "human" is actually a species, that term has been differentiated, but still intertwined with the concept of "person". The question now becomes, why do we judge the concept of person on the basis of species, and not the basis of thing we thought made us special in the first place?

Do we draw the person (and therefore subjects not objects) line at a pattern of DNA, or at sentience, rationality, emotionality or something else?

*There has been some variation, but on the whole I think my post captures the zeitgeist of it. For instance, in some societies, women or slaves weren't considered fully human/person. And in India, cows were given a certain respect, but only because "the souls/essence/person-ness" of a deceased human had in their belief been transfered to her.

[inri]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Interesting analogy, James. But, I'm not beating any dead horses, here. For me, it's a matter of simple definition.

I mean, what is a fertilized egg but the very beginning of human life? What is an embryo? What is a fetus? At what point does one call a human life a human life?

Some people, of course, view an embryo or a fetus as no more significant than a wart on their elbow. But even a wart on your elbow is part of your body, part of your physical existence, and therefore, still a life form. The difference is that a wart isn't likely to grow into a self-contained human being.

This is why I use the word, "period". Whatever term you want use to label it, you'll never be able get away from the fact that human life begins at conception.

I think the question that causes most of the disagreement is whether or not a fetus is a human being 'deserving of full human rights'.

I think even staunch pro-lifers show their true colors on this one.....most do not hold funerals or name early embryos or fetuses when they miscarry....nor do I imagine they eat eggs for breakfast and call them 'chicks'....(okay..that was lame...)...but you get the idea.

[beast]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I'm not against abortion, beast. I'm very much pro-choice. As I stated in my previous post, I believe that human life begins at conception, but I also believe that since the mother of that human life is responsible for bearing it, that she deserves the option whether or not to abort it. That would include cases of rape, incest, and her own health.

In any event, I understand that the decision is not an easy one to make, and is not one to be entered into lightly. Ultimately, the mother's decision is going to be on her conscience, likely for the rest of her life. That, in itself carries its own weight. And, so I really don't think it's on anyone else to dicate that decision. Let her decide. Give her the choice.

Sorry for being unclear. I read your first post and saw that you are not against abortion; that part was not about you but I just reread it and can see that it absolutely looks as though it was.

[inri]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Well, I was using the term culture very widely. Historically*, the concept of "human' and "person" have been interchangeable. That is, "we" (the people) are sentient, rational, conscious, soul-containing, subjects of the universe. Those are why we matter, and therefore it is immoral to hurt "us". There are humans, and there's everything else.

As science has advanced, we realized "human" is actually a species, that term has been differentiated, but still intertwined with the concept of "person". The question now becomes, why do we judge the concept of person on the basis of species, and not the basis of thing we thought made us special in the first place?

Do we draw the person (and therefore subjects not objects) line at a pattern of DNA, or at sentience, rationality, emotionality or something else?

You bring up a really interesting point. Something I've always wondered about; Why is it that many staunch pro-lifers, who supposedly are filled with overwhelming compassion towards the unborn child are generally not also moved over the plight of fully formed, breathing, conscious animals? (OR people for that matter)

You'd think that in someone with such a 'supposedly' highly developed empathic response would also feel emotional pain when faced with the suffering of all sentient beings...and lord knows, the animals we use in the food industry certainly DO appear to suffer.

I've met many a pro-lifer in my day and not one of them were vegetarian. (This is not to say they don't exist...I've just never personally come across any).

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

The question now becomes, why do we judge the concept of person on the basis of species, and not the basis of thing we thought made us special in the first place?

Do we draw the person (and therefore subjects not objects) line at a pattern of DNA, or at sentience, rationality, emotionality or something else?
[size=3] There has been some variation, but on the whole I think my post captures the zeitgeist of it. For instance, in some societies, women or slaves weren't considered fully human/person. And in India, cows were given a certain respect, but only because "the souls/essence/person-ness" of a deceased human had in their belief been transfered to her.[/size=3]

Originally Posted by inri

I think the question that causes most of the disagreement is whether or not a fetus is a human being 'deserving of full human rights'.

I think even staunch pro-lifers show their true colors on this one.....most do not hold funerals or name early embryos or fetuses when they miscarry....nor do I imagine they eat eggs for breakfast and call them 'chicks'....(okay..that was lame...)...but you get the idea.

These are good points.

All of which would belie the very premise of the term, "pro-life," when, at least according to most pro-lifers, it would be more accurate to use the term, "pro-human-life".

For the record, I eat eggs. Love 'em, in fact. But, I've also had fertilized eggs, and honestly, I don't like them. They taste different, and that little single little red splotch just grosses me out to no end.

[beast]

Originally Posted by inri

I think the question that causes most of the disagreement is whether or not a fetus is a human being 'deserving of full human rights'.

I think even staunch pro-lifers show their true colors on this one.....most do not hold funerals or name early embryos or fetuses when they miscarry....nor do I imagine they eat eggs for breakfast and call them 'chicks'....(okay..that was lame...)...but you get the idea.

In Japan, where abortion is extremely common, there's something called a mizuko kuyō ritual, and people often honor their dead fetuses and still-born children. It's not a political action, though - many Buddhist Japanese women who get abortions decide to acknowledge the life and wish it a good journey.

We don't do this in the US, though, and I do think it is strange that there are no rituals in place to honor fetuses, given our supposed obsession with the sanctity of life. It really does seem to me that that's just an empty catch phrase.

[beast]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

All of which would belie the very premise of the term, "pro-life," when, at least according to most pro-lifers, it would be more accurate to use the term, "pro-human-life".

Sorter has stated in a few times in this thread that the variable that matters to her is "innocence". So, "pro-innocent-human-life", and I think that would jive with the fact that many pro-lifers support the death penalty. "Innocence" isn't really a variable which I think of in those terms, though.

[inri]

Originally Posted by beast

In Japan, where abortion is extremely common, there's something called a mizuko kuyō ritual, and people often honor their dead fetuses and still-born children. It's not a political action, though - many Buddhist Japanese women who get abortions decide to acknowledge the life and wish it a good journey.

I saw a program about this myself...I was floored over the lack of judgment involved re: the aborted pregnancies and the willingness to openly share this experience. It struck me as an incredibly healthy way to approach such a life decision and/or occurrence.

We don't do this in the US, though, and I do think it is strange that there are no rituals in place to honor fetuses, given our supposed obsession with the sanctity of life. It really does seem to me that that's just an empty catch phrase.

It does seem that way doesn't it......and as such, it's no wonder some of us perceive this debate as being more about 'preventing women from exercising full control of their bodies' than 'saving a baby.'

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by inri

You bring up a really interesting point. Something I've always wondered about; Why is it that many staunch pro-lifers, who supposedly are filled with overwhelming compassion towards the unborn child are generally not also moved over the plight of fully formed, breathing, conscious animals? (OR people for that matter)

You'd think that in someone with such a 'supposedly' highly developed empathic response would also feel emotional pain when faced with the suffering of all sentient beings...and lord knows, the animals we use in the food industry certainly DO appear to suffer.

I've met many a pro-lifer in my day and not one of them were vegetarian. (This is not to say they don't exist...I've just never personally come across any).

Granted, I'm not generalizing all pro-lifers (James ), but I've never met one either (a veg prolifer, I've met many many prolifers in general).

In my experience that has to do with religion. The whole human=person thing is deeply entrenched in the brand of Christianity I experienced (even more so than the average Western mind, as dogma isn't considered a virtue in secular culture). I specifically remember some progressives being berated for "caring more about endangered species than fetal humans".

It's a sacredly, arbitrarily held belief that a specific pattern of DNA makes one morally valuable (aka, a person, or has a soul). You've heard about war-mongers dehumanizing their enemies? "Not even human" is the ultimate insult in this culture--it gives us permission to do what we please, and sometimes obligation to destroy.

I think we can come up with a better measure for intrinsic (or even subjective! and by that I mean--the entity is a subject, not an object, and has interests, rights or whathaveyou that are honored) value than that.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by James81

I wish that these women were capable of seeing all the resources that are available to them to help them with the raising of a child, and were to see the resources that are WITHIN them for doing so. Sure, our society isn't perfect for helping with this, but I think there are lots of people who may be willing to help a woman through this tough time in her life.

Again, what makes you think they aren't? Because they're not making the choice you'd make, to you this means they are necessarily missing something? Can you consider the idea that a woman might have an abortion not because she feels she can't go through with this pregnancy, but because she doesn't want to?

[beast]

Originally Posted by aelle

Again, what makes you think they aren't? Because they're not making the choice you'd make, to you this means they are necessarily missing something? Can you consider the idea that a woman might have an abortion not because she feels she can't go through with this pregnancy, but because she doesn't want to?

I think that it is really impossible for many people (not necessarily James!) to understand that many women actually have no desire to be mothers ever under any circumstances. Though I agree, there should be better resources in place for those women who do want to be mothers and may be seeking out an abortion because they feel that they have no other option.

[James81]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Granted, I'm not generalizing all pro-lifers (James ), but I've never met one either (a veg prolifer, I've met many many prolifers in general).

In my experience that has to do with religion. The whole human=person thing is deeply entrenched in the brand of Christianity I experienced (even more so than the average Western mind, as dogma isn't considered a virtue in secular culture). I specifically remember some progressives being berated for "caring more about endangered species than fetal humans".

It's a sacredly, arbitrarily held belief that a specific pattern of DNA makes one morally valuable (aka, a person, or has a soul). You've heard about war-mongers dehumanizing their enemies? "Not even human" is the ultimate insult in this culture--it gives us permission to do what we please, and sometimes obligation to destroy.

I think we can come up with a better measure for intrinsic (or even subjective! and by that I mean--the entity is a subject, not an object, and has interests, rights or whathaveyou that are honored) value than that.

I wonder how many moral vegan pro-choice people we have here? That would be fun to dissect why someone might care about animals more than people.

Originally Posted by aelle

Again, what makes you think they aren't? Because they're not making the choice you'd make, to you this means they are necessarily missing something? Can you consider the idea that a woman might have an abortion not because she feels she can't go through with this pregnancy, but because she doesn't want to?

Honestly, that was me attempting to understand what a woman going through an abortion might be feeling and perhaps trying to empathize a bit. Why do you insist on seeing my posts about this in a pessimistic light?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by James81

I wonder how many moral vegan pro-choice people we have here? That would be fun to dissect why someone might care about animals more than people.

We can dissect that if you want.

[James81]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

We can dissect that if you want.

Ok. A penny for your thoughts.

[inri]

Originally Posted by James81

I wonder how many moral vegan pro-choice people we have here? That would be fun to dissect why someone might care about animals more than people.

I personally am vegetarian for the reason that I want to contribute as little as possible to the suffering of animals.

It's not that I care 'more' about animals than people...For me, first and foremost, my pro-choice stance is based upon the belief that all women have a right to manage their own body as they see fit. From this vantage point, it would matter not if I lost sleep every night over the 'poor fetuses who are aborted.' A Right to one's own body means that MY morals and sensibilities regarding what goes on in that body get zero consideration.

Fully developed Animals (those who are not fetuses) are in my mind, conscious beings who are capable of indeed capable of suffering. This is a factor that I see as being important when compassion is in question.

Re: the issue of lack of compassion for a fetus; I find it hard to empathize with a being that 'appears to be' incapable of thinking, feeling, suffering, or even of perceiving itself as being conscious...(as in early abortion, when most abortions take place). as I've said earlier though, whether or not I have compassion for a fetus or not is really a mute point, as my belief in a woman's right to choose would trump my personal feelings every time.

While my empathy and compassion for a more developed, near-term fetus is definitely evoked through such things as witnessing a woman purposefully engaging in behavior that may harm it...I still uphold a woman's right to her own body to reign as supreme in terms of 'the competing rights.'

[aelle]

Originally Posted by James81

I wonder how many moral vegan pro-choice people we have here? That would be fun to dissect why someone might care about animals more than people.

We've had many threads on the topic already that you were a part of, it's sad that you still haven't heard the other party's opinion. Most vegans draw the line not at "does it have human DNA?" but at "can it fee pain?" A cow: yes. A person: yes. A head of lettuce: no. An embryo: no.

Originally Posted by James81

Honestly, that was me attempting to understand what a woman going through an abortion might be feeling and perhaps trying to empathize a bit. Why do you insist on seeing my posts about this in a pessimistic light?

Now that you point it out, I acknowledge that moving to this point of iew must have taken you some effort. I find it equally frustrating, though, as it looks like moving from outright dissaproval to pity disguised as compassion. I wish the default view of others were respect - "I cannot understand why you are making this choice, but I trust that you have your own, perfectly valid reasons and that you are empowered".

[James81]

Originally Posted by inri

I personally am vegetarian for the reason that I want to contribute as little as possible to the suffering of animals.

It's not that I care 'more' about animals than people...For me, first and foremost, my pro-choice stance is based upon the belief that all women have a right to manage their own body as they see fit. From this vantage point, it would matter not if I lost sleep every night over the 'poor fetuses who are aborted.' A Right to one's own body means that MY morals and sensibilities regarding what goes on in that body get zero consideration.

Fully developed Animals (those who are not fetuses) are in my mind, conscious beings who are capable of indeed capable of suffering. This is a factor that I see as being important when compassion is in question.

Re: the issue of lack of compassion for a fetus; I find it hard to empathize with a being that 'appears to be' incapable of thinking, feeling, suffering, or even of perceiving itself as being conscious...(as in early abortion, when most abortions take place). as I've said earlier though, whether or not I have compassion for a fetus or not is really a mute point, as my belief in a woman's right to choose would trump my personal feelings every time.

While my empathy and compassion for a more developed, near-term fetus is definitely evoked through such things as witnessing a woman purposefully engaging in behavior that may harm it...I still uphold a woman's right to her own body to reign as supreme in terms of 'the competing rights.'

I went to google just to see when a fetus is capable of feeling pain. According to this link:

Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.

It says that a fetus can feel pain by 8 weeks.

Now, bear in mind that women do not discover that they are pregnant until probably somewhere around week 5 or 6 (a missed period is usually what trips a woman that something is up).

So, we're talking about a time frame of "no pain" of about 2 weeks to get an abortion.

Perhaps I ought to back my earlier assessment of 3 months up to the 8 week mark.

[inri]

Originally Posted by beast

I think that it is really impossible for many people (not necessarily James!) to understand that many women actually have no desire to be mothers ever under any circumstances.

This is a really important point...the assumption that all women would love to become mothers and that the decision to abort is a horrifically difficult one to come to for all women, is a fallacy.

There are as many different reasons for aborting and as many different takes on the whole process as there are women.

It seems many staunch pro-lifers either want to paint a portrait of either a morally loose, party girl who frivolously approaches abortion as a replacement for birth control, OR as wanna-be Maddona's....emotionally torn apart because they simply cannot come to see a way, financially or logistically to bring the precious child to fruition.

I know women who have aborted who have suffered emotionally after wards and I know many who honestly were so aligned with their decision, they gave it very little thought after the fact.

[inri]

Originally Posted by James81

I went to google just to see when a fetus is capable of feeling pain. According to this link:

Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.

It says that a fetus can feel pain by 8 weeks.

Now, bear in mind that women do not discover that they are pregnant until probably somewhere around week 5 or 6 (a missed period is usually what trips a woman that something is up).

So, we're talking about a time frame of "no pain" of about 2 weeks to get an abortion.

Perhaps I ought to back my earlier assessment of 3 months up to the 8 week mark.

You'll get a much different story from a source that has no agenda. I'll dig one up when I have time.

[James81]

Originally Posted by inri

This is a really important point...the assumption that all women would love to become mothers and that the decision to abort is a horrifically difficult one to come to for all women, is a fallacy.

There are as many different reasons for aborting and as many different takes on the whole process as there are women.

It seems many staunch pro-lifers either want to paint a portrait of either a morally loose, party girl who frivolously approaches abortion as a replacement for birth control, OR as wanna-be Maddona's....emotionally torn apart because they simply cannot come to see a way, financially or logistically to bring the precious child to fruition.

I know women who have aborted who have suffered emotionally after wards and I know many who honestly were so aligned with their decision, they gave it very little thought after the fact.

For a women who has no desire, ever, to become a mother, I would say that the "responsible" think to do would be to go into the hospital and get her tubes tied (or burnt...or whatever they do). I do understand that is not 100% foolproof, but you know? if you have that done, then you get pregnant, we understand why you might want an abortion. Not having it done, knowing you never want a child, is irresponsible IMO.

[James81]

Originally Posted by inri

You'll get a much different story from a source that has no agenda. I'll dig one up when I have time.

Haha, you find me a source that doesn't have an agenda, and I'll give you a coupon for a free abortion.

(Are we allowed to make insensitive abortion jokes in this thread? Or do I need a vagina to make an abortion joke? )

[aelle]

Originally Posted by inri

You'll get a much different story from a source that has no agenda. I'll dig one up when I have time.

Yes, I've always heard that the scientific consensus on the possibility of fetal pain was definitely not before 24 weeks.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by James81

Ok. A penny for your thoughts.

I'm vegan, and I don't think eating meat is definitively morally wrong. And I think that the choice is based on a thousand diverging priorities. In my case, after I explored the option I also found out it wasn't a sacrifice at all but actually improved my quality of life. And I think that, if the effect on someone is neutral, it's better to not eat meat, particularly in this culture.

I think animals are valuable for more than they can do for us. I think they're individuals who enjoy their lives, and often an integral part of a system that also has value beyond serving humans. I think that someone who understood and agreed with that would eat meat only under certain circumstances. I also think it's possible to respect animals for what they are, and eat meat.

I don't think humans are definitively better than other animals.

[beast]

I see no moral inconsistency with being pro-choice and vegetarian. I suppose you might think there is an inconsistency with being pro-choice and believing that other people should not have the right to eat meat, but that is debatable, and absolutely not in line with any vegetarians I know, anyways.

[Angela]

Researchers from the University

of California, San Francisco in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded in a meta-analysis of data from dozens of medical reports and studies that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy. There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain. Because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it may be "impossible to know" when painful experiences are perceived, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.

[beast]

James, have you snooped around the abortionfacts website?

[James81]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

I'm vegan, and I don't think eating meat is definitively morally wrong. And I think that the choice is based on a thousand diverging priorities. In my case, after I explored the option I also found out it wasn't a sacrifice at all but actually improved my quality of life. And I think that, if the effect on someone is neutral, it's better to not eat meat, particularly in this culture.

I think animals are valuable for more than they can do for us. I think they're individuals who enjoy their lives, and often an integral part of a system that also has value beyond serving humans. I think that someone who understood and agreed with that would eat meat only under certain circumstances. I also think it's possible to respect animals for what they are, and eat meat.

I don't think humans are definitively better than other animals.

I did make the distinction of MORAL vegan in my statement, secrets.