[Ratmagiclady]

I said what I had to say, and spent some time doing so, Les. Do me the service of reading it.

This 'debate' kinda just boils down to some people trying to arrogate government authority to themselves over others when it's *just not their call.*

Religious arguments and 'definitions of life' some use to do so seem to me to just boil down to 'We're freaked out and scornful about sex and believe women shouldn't make their own decisions, or even be *informed* about them, even when in the final analysis, they're the ones left holding the bag, *whatever* others do.'

But if I can make this *clear,* the *laws* aren't about that stuff you accuse others of. They're about *whose call it is.* And it's not yours. Unless you're the one in the situation.

[les3547]

I said what I had to say, and spent some time doing so, Les. Do me the service of reading it.

This 'debate' kinda just boils down to some people trying to arrogate government authority to themselves over others when it's *just not their call.*

Religious arguments and 'definitions of life' some use to do so seem to me to just boil down to 'We're freaked out and scornful about sex and believe women shouldn't make their own decisions, or even be *informed* about them, even when in the final analysis, they're the ones left holding the bag, *whatever* others do.'

It seems ironic you request I read what you've had to say, yet you have responded to some made-up oppressor that has absolutely nothing to do with my thread theme. I said nothing about changing the law or involving the government, I said nothing about sex, I didn't speak of religion, I didn't say women shouldn't make the final decision. If you ever actually respond appropriately to a thread theme I think I'll pass out from shock.

[mikemike]

Suddenly for more 'government control,' then are, you, Mikemike?

I fully recognize that an abortion is a legitimate medical procedure sometimes necessary to save the life of the woman, I would say it is sometimes certainly recommended for unplanned pregnancies which resulted from rape or incest. I would say those are 2 "good reasons" for an abortion.

I would also say that it should be available to all because being a parent is a huge life change which can be a blessing or a curse. All that being said, I think abortions of unwanted pregnancies which which were conceived by 2 consenting adults is a "bad reason" for an abortion and when you start to talk about the same individual whether a man or a woman is responsible for conceiving multiple fetuses which get aborted I would say it is borderline criminal. Once is an accident and twice is a trend but if lightning strikes three times society should give you a little timeout to think about how your living your life.

With modern technologies it's not far fetched that selective abortions of wanted and planned pregnancies based on the fetus either being the wrong sex (like we see in India and China) or having some kind of a birth defect could be occurring and I think that should be considered criminal.

I don't really see this as government control so much as government playing a role in monitoring and sensibly regulating something that is borderline criminal. I view this issue a lot more like alcohol or gambling where with sensible laws and effective enforcement most of those who consider themselves pro-life would become tolerant abstainers who accept the legitimate need for access to abortion services even if they would never use it themselves. I think a society like this would tolerate more widespread access to health care providers who provide safe abortion service if it was demonstrable that wider access didn't mean more abortions for "bad" reasons and provide a mechanism to criminalize certain types of abortion related behavior which are corrosive to society.

You say some 'what ifs' and want women's rights taken away?

Interesting. But you diverge from topic to just generally saying 'Don't trust women with their own bodies.' Or, now, relationships.

I agree, some of that was divergent... and like you the issue of abortion does not affect me personally because I am married and happily welcome children and before marriage I always made sure that both I took responsibility for preventing pregnancy with condoms and my partners took responsibility by using the pill. The decision of whether or not to have an abortion is almost completely avoidable even for sexually active heterosexual people. Would you agree with my classification of multiple abortions or selective abortions as socially corrosive and potentially criminal?

Its just a little pet peeve of mine whenever someone frames the abortion issue as purely a woman's rights issue because every woman's baby is also a man's baby and any man who is going to be a respectable father should be able to say that my sweetiepie is pregnant with *OUR* baby.

[les3547]

Its just a little pet peeve of mine whenever someone frames the abortion issue as purely a woman's rights issue because every woman's baby is also a man's baby and any man who is going to be a respectable father should be able to say that my sweetiepie is pregnant with *OUR* baby.

But what about the other issue . . . does the baby's body "belong" to the mother (and father)? It is inside her body, but she and he caused it to be there. When the baby is born, eventually it will become that being's possession. So inside the womb can we assume the fetus is nothing more than property of the parents? Or does the future conscious being intended for that body deserve some consideration?

Let's say the mother wants to drink, smoke crack . . . why not? After all, it is her body, she only is responsible to her self and the baby has no rights.

I have to repeat that I'm not advocating changing the law, I am just expressing doubts about the attitude that a woman's rights is all that matters.

[Ash]

If you ever actually respond appropriately to a thread theme I think I'll pass out from shock

(cf. Do RML's posts make sense to you? - PentaxForums.com)

As for this thread, you've shown a sympathetic position to both mother and foetus. We each may hold out own personal convictions about whether it's right or not, OK in some instances and not others, but we cannot and should not allow those opinions get in the way of policy. I have seen everyone contributing here so far uphold that.

Liberty over religious/political agendas at all times, since free will is necessary for convictions of the heart, not just of the mind. Of course, the caveat is how much the law will recognise the rights of the foetus. If it has none, then it's solely up to the woman. If it does, there is an uncomfortable sociojudicial shift in this dynamic.

It's fair to challenge the woman's abortion intents, but also fair to permit the final onus on the woman. Ultrasounds and planned parenthood organisations such as Not Born Yet and Emily's Voice may give unsure pregnant women the confidence to carry their baby to term, however the socioeconomics of women abortees complicates matters. It's certainly not a straight forward issue. And yes, it takes two to tango.

[newarts]

If a mother can abandon a child after it is born (and she legally can) there is no logical reason she cannot abandon it before birth.

Abandoning a child and all responsibility for its welfare is not the same as killing it although its death may result for technical reasons.

Consider a case in which a baby is delivered by Caesarian Section and the mother abandons the baby to the state. How can the order of those events matter? Clearly the order doesn't matter.

[Nesster]

Les, thank you for the courageous, honest, and obviously stimulating OP... And I skim the ensuing opinions with interest. While any ethical philosophy is subject to current - and ancient - politics, in society and in isolation we do yearn for some consistent way to value ethical choices.

Where my thoughts run on this: miscarriage. Medicine in general. Humans as manipulators of natural processes (and this manipulation itself is a natural process).

Let's consider an aspect of this from the other end of life: it is certainly natural (and some would say, God ordained) for us to suffer the effects of aging and to die at some point. For the human animal with its self-awareness, it is natural to attempt to formulate strategies to deal with aging and death... and modern medicine with its Hippocratic oath will go to great lengths to prolong life and eradicate disease and age related bodily processes.

And, societies deal with death and killing - keeping this just within the species - in various ways, but it seems to me that taking another's life is prohibited in some circumstances, and allowed in others. E.g. in war it is OK to kill the enemy. Many think it is OK for the state to kill criminals. But there are laws against murder and manslaughter.

So, a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion (some might say, God ordained), the way dying from pneumonia is a spontaneous death, or dying in a war might be a spontaneous death.

That humans seek to 'improve' or 'manipulate' these natural processes - precipitate the abortion, treat the pneumonia so the patient now lives (whereas in past history would have died), and both improve the efficiency of mass killing in war and invent better ways to avoid war... seems to me part an parcel of the same thing.

I also remember here that while modern medicine on one hand is able to supply safe and effective abortions, it also is supplying costly fertility treatments and premature birth saving techiques.

Just as, in addition to addressing vital problems of age, modern medicine is also addressing vanity problems of age.

The culture seems to be going in every possible direction here, and our ethics struggle to catch up. Quite apart from any oppressive and suppressive functions of ethics, and apart from criticism of power structures, ethics do drive what society finds acceptable or not.

Guess that's a long way round to saying I too share the ambiguity on this subject.

[GeneV]

Gene, keep in mind I don't want to repeal the law. I am wondering why if I support it why I keep finding myself happy about restricting it.

I don't have time to answer you point by point right now since I am being called on by wife to serve her dinner. But one point of yours strikes me as unfair. How is it one can say no person is "required" to give another bodily fluids, etc., yet who was it that created that sort of situation in the first place?

Are you saying that if you allow yourself to get pregnant, a situation that requires the nourishment of a baby in your body, then somehow you are being imposed upon if expected to follow the laws of nature?

I am really just trying to change the legal paradigm for discussing this. I pick the example of someone whose injury one causes, because, like the pregnancy, it could be said to result from the action or inaction of the person asked to give a portion of her body. The current law does not require you to contribute any part of your body to remedy the situation, and no one questions it. Yet we assume it is the legal responsibility of a woman to do so. Perhaps it is because of the perception of the laws of nature.

The laws of nature had us dying on average at under 40 years of age. The laws of nature still have pregnancy and childbirth as leading causes of death in young mothers in developing countries. Pregnancy and childbirth leading causes of death Nature would have us suffering through many things that medicine can cure or alleviate. While that is a distinction, it is not decisive.

If I were a woman, or fathered an unexpected child, I would be have serious difficulties on a moral plane about terminating the pregnancy. I am even more appalled at the prospect of late term abortions. Perhaps it was because earlier in my life, we tried very hard but unsuccessfully for almost a decade to have a child that I can't imagine discarding that gift. That still does not mean I think the law should force a woman to turn that decision over to others. Again, I suppose I, too, suffer from more than a little moral ambiguity, but that does not extend to law or policy.

[GeneV]

But what about the other issue . . . does the baby's body "belong" to the mother (and father)? It is inside her body, but she and he caused it to be there. When the baby is born, eventually it will become that being's possession. So inside the womb can we assume the fetus is nothing more than property of the parents? Or does the future conscious being intended for that body deserve some consideration?

Let's say the mother wants to drink, smoke crack . . . why not? After all, it is her body, she only is responsible to her self and the baby has no rights.

I have to repeat that I'm not advocating changing the law, I am just expressing doubts about the attitude that a woman's rights is all that matters.

Where we diverge a bit on this is the whole idea that the mother "caused" the baby to be there. This implies a conscious decision that a competent person made. Many of thes situations are accidents. Many more of these situations are, as Jesse Jackson said, "babies having babies." The women who are pregnant often do not even had the legal right to consent to sex.

[les3547]

Where we diverge a bit on this is the whole idea that the mother "caused" the baby to be there. This implies a conscious decision that a competent person made. Many of thes situations are accidents. Many more of these situations are, as Jesse Jackson said, "babies having babies." The women who are pregnant often do not even had the legal right to consent to sex.

True, that's one reason why I have never been against a humane abortion law.

Thanks everyone for the great comments . . . Gene, Ash, Jussi, Newarts.

I actually have been a little disturbed at myself for siding with conservative elements in the ways I mentioned. I think my discomfort is that of society becoming callous about abortion, to see it is just the removal of a hunk of flesh when we aren't totally sure that is true.

What if, for example, a body is a conduit for a soul to enter this world, and the soul is already hooked to the fetus even though not awake in it yet since the CNS is not developed. I know what the atheists will say, but for the rest of us I don't know how we can be sure exactly how God has set it up to work.

In one of Castaneda's books he describes Don Juan killing a rabbit, and thanking the rabbit for giving his life. Some might see that as silly Indian superstition, but to me it reflected a caring, conscientious attitude toward life. Similarly, if we have to do abortion, it feels better to know that we have done everything possible to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and that a respectful, thoughtful, careful decision is made about destroying the fetus. Anyway, I suspect that is why I like some of the laws states have implemented, even if it is being done by those who'd take abortion away if they had the chance.

[GeneV]

True, that's one reason why I have never been against a humane abortion law.

Thanks everyone for the great comments . . . Gene, Ash, Jussi, Newarts.

I actually have been a little disturbed at myself for siding with conservative elements in the ways I mentioned. I think my discomfort is that of society becoming callous about abortion, to see it is just the removal of a hunk of flesh when we aren't totally sure that is true.

What if, for example, a body is a conduit for a soul to enter this world, and the soul is already hooked to the fetus even though not awake in it yet since the CNS is not developed. I know what the atheists will say, but for the rest of us I don't know how we can be sure exactly how God has set it up to work.

In one of Castaneda's books he describes Don Juan killing a rabbit, and thanking the rabbit for giving his life. Some might see that as silly Indian superstition, but to me it reflected a caring, conscientious attitude toward life. Similarly, if we have to do abortion, it feels better to know that we have done everything possible to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and that a respectful, thoughtful, careful decision is made about destroying the fetus. Anyway, I suspect that is why I like some of the laws states have implemented, even if it is being done by those who'd take abortion away if they had the chance.

I have pondered the question about souls before birth and when they descend. What if by aborting the fetus, the soul gets to descend to a being with a greater chance of happiness? It is quite mind-boggling. Interesting, though.

I would feel better about where some of the abortion laws are coming from if the parties involved really wanted people to use birth control methods. Most of the time the proponents of abortion restriction want birth control prohibited or discouraged, too. What some really want is to effect God's punishment on the sinner who has sex when no baby is desired. We read the same kinds of statement about HIV as punishment. This is one reason why, despite my personal reservations about abortion in many cases, I am pretty firm about the law staying away from the inside of our bodies.

[ihasa]

what if, for example, a body is a conduit for a soul to enter this world, and the soul is already hooked to the fetus even though not awake in it yet since the CNS is not developed.

This is a pretty good argument for leaving religious ideas out of the law-making process.

If someone wants to believe such notions, they can take it on board when they decide whether to have an abortion or not. But such ideas mustn't be 'pushed onto people' any more than the practices of Jain Buddhism. 'What if's' can't really be accommodated by the law, which needs to take account of demonstrable facts like the age a fetus is viable outside the mother. Clearly abortion after that point is a no-no unless there are truly exceptional circumstances.

[mikemike]

I am really just trying to change the legal paradigm for discussing this. I pick the example of someone whose injury one causes, because, like the pregnancy, it could be said to result from the action or inaction of the person asked to give a portion of her body. The current law does not require you to contribute any part of your body to remedy the situation, and no one questions it. Yet we assume it is the legal responsibility of a woman to do so. Perhaps it is because of the perception of the laws of nature.

My understanding of the law is that everything that is legal isn't always right and everything that is illegal isn't always wrong. The difficult decision of legislators and judges is to define the law in such a way that they draw a firm line through the gray area which exists when seemingly diametrically opposed stances, such as preserving life and ending life, overlap. They will never please everyone but the goal is to draw that line somewhere that reflects society's consensus.

When you choose to be a parent either before you start to conceive or when you decide to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term you should begin holding yourself to a higher standard than that set by the law because ensuring the well being of your offspring is your social responsibility. It might be legal for a pregnant woman to chain smoke while eating swordfish sushi and taking sake bombs to celebrate a fun day of motocross but that doesn't make it moral. Maybe I am just an overcontrolling man but willfully being negligent to the care of a child born or unborn is reprehensible.

[les3547]

This is a pretty good argument for leaving religious ideas out of the law-making process.

If someone wants to believe such notions, they can take it on board when they decide whether to have an abortion or not. But such ideas mustn't be 'pushed onto people' any more than the practices of Jain Buddhism.

I didn't say anything about pushing beliefs, nor "believing" it at all. Secondly, it isn't necessarily a religious idea since no one knows how existence works. I was simply describing a respectful attitude toward life. Besides, there are plenty of people pushing the theory that a fetus is nothing but a hunk of flesh, do they "know" that?

[GeneV]

My understanding of the law is that everything that is legal isn't always right and everything that is illegal isn't always wrong. The difficult decision of legislators and judges is to define the law in such a way that they draw a firm line through the gray area which exists when seemingly diametrically opposed stances, such as preserving life and ending life, overlap. They will never please everyone but the goal is to draw that line somewhere that reflects society's consensus.

When you choose to be a parent either before you start to conceive or when you decide to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term you should begin holding yourself to a higher standard than that set by the law because ensuring the well being of your offspring is your social responsibility. It might be legal for a pregnant woman to chain smoke while eating swordfish sushi and taking sake bombs to celebrate a fun day of motocross but that doesn't make it moral. Maybe I am just an overcontrolling man but willfully being negligent to the care of a child born or unborn is reprehensible.

From a moral point of view, I agree. Furthermore, I think that when society adopts a habit of looking to law for morality, we are in trouble. We pass laws to make society work well. But if law is to prescribe the "right" decision in every circumstance, it will be quite voluminous and onerous.