Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[michaeledward]

I heard the idea on the radio when a conservative and a liberal were talking about it and both seemed to think it was a pretty good idea.

I'm curious about the radio program. Most conservative radio programs do not allow a 'liberal' voice. Was the 'liberal' voice a caller, on whom the 'conservative' could hang up whenever he chose? Most 'conservative' radio shows are 'non-guested confrontation' ... think about it.

 

[loki09789]

Who draws the line?

Well, for individual choice, we each do for ourselves(whether morally established by your freely chosen religious values or some other standard).

For citizenry, we still influence the legal/legistative decisions by who we vote into or out of office.

The practical, application of 'who/what/when...' goes beyond the philosophical stance but the legal/monetary use of taxes issues, what is to be done with the aborted fetus/life - as in stem cell research....

should abortion be acceptable/legalized/justified because the stem cell harvesting mean that you have made that death/abortion meaningful and useful?

I don't really think that I have the right as a citizen to tell another citizen what to do (and can't as long as they are not violating safety and such), but if I had to look a rape victim in the face with the money in my hand for her abortion and tell her "NO" I don't think I could. Emotional AND Social reasons for that:

1. Her mental welfare AND the upbringing of a child concieved like that could be VERY dysfunctional and reduce the quality of life for both.

2. Perpetuating a genetic pool that demonstrates a predisposition for that kind of behavior is not something I am a fan of.

I think I/we should have the right to choose on this issue. Personally, my choice is life over abortion (adopting out the child instead of keeping it if you don't want it).

I think life is precious and should not be taken or created casually.

 

[michaeledward]

should abortion be acceptable/legalized/justified because the stem cell harvesting mean that you have made that death/abortion meaningful and useful?

...but if I had to look a rape victim ...

2. Perpetuating a genetic pool that demonstrates a predisposition for that kind of behavior is not something I am a fan of.

Paul, usually, you are very thoughtful, but I can not allow these two items to pass unchallenged.

The process of 'stem cell harvesting', as you describe it, does not require an aborted pregnancy. The blastocyst can be created in a petri dish, by combining a human sperm cell, with a human egg cell. This is done all the time in fertility proceedures. The fertilized eggs are then frozen for future use, if required. Often fertilized eggs are discarded, if not needed for further fertility treatments.

To think that there is a genetic pre-disposition to rape is something I think you are going to have to back up with some evidence.

Come'on ... you know better.

Mike

 

[Feisty Mouse]

A few comments, although I am trying to remain cool and calm and collected, this is a very passionate topic for me....

1) Please note the "neurological view" above. Cerebral EEG pattern acquistion at 27 weeks, not 10 or 12, postconception.

2) I am interested to hear everyone's views on abortion. I think the main distinction I try to make is what I believe for myself, and what I would impose on others. If I had an "accidental" pregnancy, I would not choose to have an abortion. For me, that is just not something I would choose. Other people, however, may be very different people, or in very different circumstances (i.e. young girl from an abusive household - how will she survive/raise the baby/get prenatal care/keep from getting kicked out of her home?) One friend I know went from a difficult home situation into a very very abusive marriage, because of an accidental pregnancy.

3) Abortions are actually not that easy to come by right now. I have to find some data on it, but I think it's only like 14% of all counties (??) have facilities for abortions. I live in a town with a mix of liberals and conservatives, in a pretty conservative state. A friend of mine was asked to help a visiting student from China who had accidentally gotten pregnant, and who wanted to get an abortion. In China, the attitudes towards abortion is much different - and, I would say, too far in the other direction from the US. Anyways, this woman needed help because the closest place that could perform the technique she needed (I don't know if her health was in danger, or if this was a second-trimester abortion) was a 6 hour drive away. A young girl who is a victim of incest or rape and pregnant may not be able to get to a place where she can have an abortion, period. And I think that is a crime, too.

ETA: And snaps to michealedward for his comments above. Stem cell harvesting does not require abortions, nor will stem cell research mae abortions "profitable". No woman would want to put herself through that illness, anyways. (Abortions don't "feel good"!) And no one has demonstrated rape is genetically-determined. However, I can certainly understand why a woman would not want to bear the child of her rapist.

 

[loki09789]

Paul, usually, you are very thoughtful, but I can not allow these two items to pass unchallenged.

The process of 'stem cell harvesting', as you describe it, does not require an aborted pregnancy. The blastocyst can be created in a petri dish, by combining a human sperm cell, with a human egg cell. This is done all the time in fertility proceedures. The fertilized eggs are then frozen for future use, if required. Often fertilized eggs are discarded, if not needed for further fertility treatments.

To think that there is a genetic pre-disposition to rape is something I think you are going to have to back up with some evidence.

Come'on ... you know better.

Mike

Challenge away mickey. No, I won't provide evidence of genetic predisposition. If you disagree with it the 'burden of proof' to discredit it is on you if you disagree with that issue - but it is a tangent that probably deserves its own thread if you do.

I don't feel like rifling through my old MP days/self defense research material in order to distract from the topic of abortion.

No, abortion is not a requirement for the process per se, BUT given the current trend of abortion/stem cell research mentioned in election debates and before, the two topics are being linked politically/scientifically as a rationale for moralizing abortion to those are sitting on the fence...

I was making an observation about WHAT people are saying/doing around the issue of abortion not a scientific analysis of the process involved.

 

[loki09789]

I've mentioned this idea briefly in another thread, but I'd like opinions from both sides on how to fix the abortion disagreement.

Currently, the law says that someone is dead when their brain waves stop; not when their heart or lungs or anything else stops, but when their brain waves stop. So why not say that when the brain waves start, human life legally begins? Conservatives say it happens at 8 weeks; liberals have said 12, so let's call it 10 and be done with it. Personally, I am not in favor of abortion; I think it devalues human life, but I am willing to compromise the idea without compromising my principles. But until it has brain waves, maybe we should consider it as something other than alive and allow the woman to decide. Once the child has brain waves, however, I think it's up to us to protect it. It's always been an issue of woman's rights versus child's rights, as I see it, so let's get consistent with the law, which will take the morality out of it and make it a legal, constitutional issue.

What do you think?

If the law is going to specify a 'human' definition to life in the womb, it is going to be for legal purposes. That does not mean that I have to agree with it, but it does mean that if I do something stupid (DWI, manslaughter/murder, assault) that leads to the injury/death of an unborn child after the 'brain wave definition' is passed that does mean that I am subject to the legal definition and can be charged for the injury/death to that child. I believe there is already a legal precedence set about that involving a football player/athlete that conspired to murder his pregnant girlfriend. Not totally sure though.

If you were to impose/support a law that makes abortion 'illegal' what would that do to the psych damage of a person who was pregnant because of incest, rape? Or if the child was clearly going to be diabled to the point of dieing during or shortly after birth (I don't mean 'well there is always the chance' type of disability - I mean missing life sustaining organ function type of things)? If they already feel bad enough about the predicament, isn't it more 'civil abuse/socially imposed morallity' that will add to the already existing guilt/trauma/grief of the issue?

Sorry for the back to back posts, hot button topic.

 

[Tgace]

To think that there is a genetic pre-disposition to rape is something I think you are going to have to back up with some evidence.

Come'on ... you know better.

Mike

Actually, the idea that there is a genetic disposition to rape has been a topic for a while. There is much debate over the topic, but it does have some support from some in the scientific community.

http://www.ishipress.com/rapeevol.htm
http://www.freeessays.cc/db/44/smu50.shtml
http://www.douglas.bc.ca/psychd/courses/Con%20Rea/Reading%20Assignment%203.htm
http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/2/2004/03/30/story105.html

 

[Lisa]

Or if the child was clearly going to be diabled to the point of dieing during or shortly after birth (I don't mean 'well there is always the chance' type of disability - I mean missing life sustaining organ function type of things)? If they already feel bad enough about the predicament, isn't it more 'civil abuse/socially imposed morallity' that will add to the already existing guilt/trauma/grief of the issue?

A girlfriend of mine was pregnant at the same time I was with my first child. At about 5 months gestation the doctor's discovered that the fetus had no brain, just a hypothalmus (please forgive me if I am not exact, it was about 15 years ago). Anyways, the doctor's were surprised that the fetus had not aborted itself earlier in the pregnancy, which is often the case when there is something "wrong" the body sometimes takes care of that on its own. My girlfriend of course of devastated and the doctor's gave her a choice. Since the child had no chance of living after birth they would induce labour early. I watched her go through hell making that decision. Does she wait and go full term just to have the child die anyway or does she induce labor and essential terminate the pregnancy. She chose to terminate. She had other children at home to think about and consider the effect on them of going full term and then having to explain to them what happened and also she felt she could not "put on a happy face" for the next 16 weeks knowing what the end would bring. She would rather start dealing with the inevitible and start the healing process for herself and her family. Knowing how this effected her, her relationship with those around her and family I shudder to think what would have happened if she had not been given the opportunity to do what she did.

 

[raedyn]

It's my understanding that when a woman gets an abortion in (this part of) Canada, part of the release she signs says that she agrees to the use of what they collect in research - including stem cell research. I'm not sure what happens if the woman has an issue with that, but still wants the abortion.

 

[Tgace]

An illustration of why Im not "anti-abortion" to the extreme. Life presents too many variables to be "all or nothing".

 

[loki09789]

A girlfriend of mine was pregnant at the same time I was with my first child. At about 5 months gestation the doctor's discovered that the fetus had no brain, just a hypothalmus (please forgive me if I am not exact, it was about 15 years ago). Anyways, the doctor's were surprised that the fetus had not aborted itself earlier in the pregnancy, which is often the case when there is something "wrong" the body sometimes takes care of that on its own. My girlfriend of course of devastated and the doctor's gave her a choice. Since the child had no chance of living after birth they would induce labour early. I watched her go through hell making that decision. Does she wait and go full term just to have the child die anyway or does she induce labor and essential terminate the pregnancy. She chose to terminate. She had other children at home to think about and consider the effect on them of going full term and then having to explain to them what happened and also she felt she could not "put on a happy face" for the next 16 weeks knowing what the end would bring. She would rather start dealing with the inevitible and start the healing process for herself and her family. Knowing how this effected her, her relationship with those around her and family I shudder to think what would have happened if she had not been given the opportunity to do what she did.

That is a horrible position to be in, I know it is long after the fact, but I sympathise (though, honestly can't empathize). Think about how compounded her emotional trauma would be if it were not only socially 'wrong to kill' but considered 'illegal' by the standards of American society (even if her circumstance was an exception) for her or her doctor to take action given the circumstances.

One of the 'big issues' that I think should be developed in martial arts training (since this is a MT site ) is a clear personal understanding of the responsibility one has when they have the power to take or perserve life - which every person has even if they don't take martial arts.

Train responsibly/intensely/accurately to ensure that you don't 'use your powers for ill/irresponsibly.' In cases like this or other abortion/life ending situations, the importance isn't that we do the 'black or white' moralizing but that we make sure we make responsible decisions about these situations by weighing out all the options and reasons and then COMMITTING to a decision.

It is interesting to me how many 'it depends on the situation' comments will come up in a 'use of force' discussion but when it comes to abortion absolutes run the roost. Change the gun to a vacuum machine and it is the same thing.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Our present compromise--as I've explained twice--is this: the government takes a, "hands off," approach (as it should), and nobody is allowed to either a) require anybody to have an abortion, or b) require anybody to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. If you'll look at the history of reproductive rights in this country, this is a compromise among a) the government's history of such interventions, b) religious groups' history of dictating; c) the fact that reproductive services have been extremely hard to come by for most Americans.

Incidentally, the Court of Roe v. Wade was a conservative Court, not dominated by liberals.

Missing this point repeatedly, and claiming that such arguments are off-topic, are good signs of underlying belief systems that admit of no compromise. Similarly, invoking science and then refusing to consider that the science appears to allow for late-term abortion has a symptomatic look to it.

I might add that it is often instructive to look at the constellation of ideas and images that appear together in a discussion, rather than simply attending to the overt statements and stories. As in dreams, always pay attention to the way that certain ideas--like rape, abortion, pseudo-science, in this case--are glued together in a discursive structure.

 

[heretic888]

I would agree that there should be no legal repercussions for abortions. The issue is far too 'gray' (who knows when life starts?) to form legislation around it.

I disagree with abortions post-5 months, but honestly?? Its her (and the doctor's) decision. Not mine.

Of course... I also disagree with moral arguments centered around ideas like "well, if you don't agree with me, then there must be something inherently, fundamentally, clearly wrong with you" --- whether that be you're a bigot or you're projecting or you're caught up in capitalist ideology or you're just uneducated. The "if you don't believe this, then I'm better than you" arguments just leave a bad taste in my mouth...

.... especially since, as sweeping generalizations, they have absolutley no logical or empirical basis whatsoever.

 

[Tgace]

How about 3 days prior to the due date (minus some pressing medical reason) ???

At some point I do believe it becomes "wrong"......

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Is this a hypothetical question? I think it's impossible to get a third-trimester abortion in this country now without demonstrating risk of health to mother or fetus - or that the fetus will die soon after birth.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah its a "where do you draw the line" question....some folks wont even commit to saying that killing a baby 1 hour prior to birth is wrong. If there is going to be a "line" where is it?

 

[rmcrobertson]

How 'bout the vaunted "line," is that you and I don't get to step across the line that separates us from the woman involved, her doctors, her beliefs, her family?

Again, it is useful to note that one's formulation of the question is often revealing. Here, the word, "baby," allows access to the underlying ideology.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Well, I tend to prefer some of the definitions I posted a little ways back - but it's a personal preference.

I don't know of anyone who is pro-choice and would say something like "3 days before due date is OK" or anything like that, to seek out an abortion.

I think one of the things that plays into this issue is that it is often such a delicate/taboo topic, that women (esp. young women, who may be terrified of what is happening) don't have access to walk into a women's clinic, get a pregnancy test, and be able to get a "morning after" pill or what have you.

I believe in France there are incredibly few abortions - and you may not be able to get one in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters at all. But you can walk into a clinic, get tested if you think you might have gotten pregnant, and get the morning-after pill to take.

 

[Tgace]

How 'bout the vaunted "line," is that you and I don't get to step across the line that separates us from the woman involved, her doctors, her beliefs, her family?

Again, it is useful to note that one's formulation of the question is often revealing. Here, the word, "baby," allows access to the underlying ideology.

So if a woman chooses to abort her "Fetus" (happy?) on her due date for no other reason than changing her mind thats OK? If thats what you believe fine...at least make a clear stand. Its just not what I believe to be right.

 

[Tgace]

Well, I tend to prefer some of the definitions I posted a little ways back - but it's a personal preference.

I don't know of anyone who is pro-choice and would say something like "3 days before due date is OK" or anything like that, to seek out an abortion.

I think one of the things that plays into this issue is that it is often such a delicate/taboo topic, that women (esp. young women, who may be terrified of what is happening) don't have access to walk into a women's clinic, get a pregnancy test, and be able to get a "morning after" pill or what have you.

I believe in France there are incredibly few abortions - and you may not be able to get one in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters at all. But you can walk into a clinic, get tested if you think you might have gotten pregnant, and get the morning-after pill to take.

Very good points...Im just trying to determine what "pro-choice" people think about where the "too late" (again minus medical reasons) point is. Seems like there is no consensus....