TheAgitator.com
One is Enough
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004Here’s an interesting take on the abortion debate.
Not sure I can imagine what it would be like to be told you were one of three triplets, but your siblings were terminated in the womb.
120 Responses to “One is Enough”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
this is what happens when individuals are given the “right” to choose what is or isnt a human life.
Boy, do I feel yucky after reading that. However, it’d probably be best to read the unfiltered NYT mag article, as well.
“No agonizing, no hand-wringing, no tears. She simply knew that triplets didn’t fit into her plans”
Gotta call bullshit. The Techcentral piece is an article about an article written about someone else. Three times removed. Neither he, nor the author of the Times piece, have any idea about the feelings and reasons for this couple’s decision (if they even exist – it is the New York Times, after all).
Yes, some women treat this choice with the same emotional gravity as a pedicure. That is sad. But is that because of legal access, or is it a response to the perceived (arguably exaggerated) hysterics of the anti-abortion crowd?
Michael:
Who should choose, if not individuals?
The perfect description of people who choose their own self-important lives over another human being, “unfeeling narcissim.”
Here is a link to the full, unfiltered article
Use the following login as it’s required:
Usrname: goober316
Password: widget
It seems as though some folks want to start the debate.
Read the article. Draw your own conclusions.
Oops, sorry. You already have.
titus,
who or what has chosen to give you the right to live?
Individuals?
I read it, but I don’t see any particularly new take on the abortion debate.
The difference between allowing infanticide and abortion is a clear one, made many times over. I’d be happy to make it again if anyone could really convince me that they didn’t get it.
The difference between forcing abortion and allowing it is also clear. As before, if anyone really doesn’t get it. I’m happy to help.
On the selective abortions. Two things. Firstly, these have long been the norm in cases where women were carrying more children than they could physically bring to term. Occasional pregnancies result in 5 and more foetuses in the womb at one time, and not aborting at least one drastically reduces the chances of either the mother or any of the children surviving. Where there is no physical health risk, how is aborting several any worse than aborting all? The arguments for and against abortion per se have been done to death, and I don’t see where this changes them.
Finally, on this line:
‘And Roe v. Wade, contra John Kerry’s alarmist fundraising letters, is not going anywhere. ‘
Isn’t overturning Roe v. Wade precisely the goal of the pro-life movement? If it isn’t going anywhere, it’s certainly not for lack of trying.
Not I… the government forced my parents to conceive me… they told them that I would be the human race’s last hope. Little did they know that their little science experiment would go horribly awry.
I’m also reminded of a sublime quote from H.L. Mencken: “It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry.”
I can’t believe what a bunch of Gladys Kravits all of the anti-abortion folks can be at times. Why the hell does it matter if someone decides to kill an unborn child, or fetus or whatever you want to call it? Doesn’t anyone see the disconnect with folks who advocate freedom to put whatever they want into their bodies (i.e. drugs, fast food, some other guy’s penis, etc.) having a problem with those who want the freedom to take something OUT of their bodies??? Personally, I don’t care what people do with their own bodies, just so long as they don’t come running to me when the bill is due…
titus, I think you’re deriving from michael’s statement that he thinks the govt should be able to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body when it comes to pregnancy. I didn’t see that at all in his statement. I perceived his statement to be making this point, that a life is a life and at what point did we start ‘deciding’ when life begins and who do we think we are ‘deciding’ that for ourselves? Sorry michael, if I am putting words into your mouth, that’s just the way I perceived your statement.
And for the record, I would not have an abortion at this point of understanding in life, and I would not advocate anyone having an abortion, but I do not believe that abortions should be legal or illegal, I believe this type of thing should not be litigated whatsoever, but too late for that. I believe a woman or any person for that matter should be able to do whatever he/she wants to do with his/her own body, but I still think that having an abortion is wrong and will carry its own natural consequences.
why not just abort all three and try again?
it would be a cruel parent indeed who told their child that it’s brothers and sisters had been killed in the womb, deliberately.
I would be surprised if many parents actually did this: men are such emotional cowards they would leave it to their spouse, and most women would spare the childs feelings. I watched a programme on the bbc last night, “from here to paternity” which claimed that one in twenty children were being raised by men who did not know they were not the natural father of their child. If this many children do not know that daddy isn’t really daddy, it’s unlikely they would ever get to know they should have had a brother or sister…
That Self-Serving Bitch!
I always wonder how people make the distinction between life that can be killed and life that must be saved. Why is killing the baby outside the womb any worse than killing the baby in the womb? Is it like realtors always say – Location, location location? I also wonder about the arguement that it is the womans body and we have to respect her choice. What about the baby woman that is killed against her choice? It will be interesting to see where this goes in the future when test tube babies are the norm and you can eliminate any less than perfect versions. Anybody get the chills when they see the movie Gattaca?
“why not just abort all three and try again?
Posted by: on July 21, 2004 11:19 AM
How about all FOUR?
titus,
you got it individuals, plural.
not individual, singular.
I liked things better when the first trimester was the criteria. Abortion is killing/murder in my book. Still I believe with proper education abortion would never be a form of birth control. Mothers that can rationalize destroying their own flesh and blood probably don’t have the required maternal instincts in the first place.
Here’s our little starlet!
http://www.feminist.com/askamy/whois.htm
(PS- God forbid she shop at Costco, buy big jars of mayo, and move to Staten Island. If the pro-choice movement is looking for a spokesperson, she ain’t it! My dog- who has my vote for President this year- has more PR skills than this chick)
She hears the three distinct heartbeats, proceeds to think, “I can’t believe we’re about to stop 2 of them”, then goes ahead with it.
Any known health risks to the babies? No.
Any known health risks to the mother? Nope.
Any twisted, rare perversion like rape or incest involved? Negative.
So what was so wrong? She was afraid she’d have to change her lifestyle, possibly including such horrible things as moving to the suburbs and shopping at Costco.
What a cold, selfish bitch – She couldn’t even consider putting 2 up for adoption? It’s a crying shame her mother didn’t feel the same way about abortion.
Scotty B – If the pro-choice movement were looking for a spokesperson we could only hope she’d be the one.
Ugh. More ugly information about a person I probably wouldn’t tolerate for more than a minute.
I don’t think it changes the debate, just another talking point. From what I gathered from article she was in her first trimester (she found out she was having triplets at 8 weeks).
And the same type of thing happens at fertility clinics – more embryos are fertilized than actually are needed. This article just makes it more personal and icky.
On a lighter note: for Manhantanittes, hell is Staten Island. I mean really – half the island is a garbage dump.
On the subway, Peter asked, ”Shouldn’t we consider having triplets?” And I had this adverse reaction: ”This is why they say it’s the woman’s choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That’s easy for you to say, but I’d have to give up my life.”
This, in her own words, says about everything that needs to be said about the woman.
…and the abortion thing. Ya know unbelievable. I’m not a girl I’m a guy. But at the same time I can tell ya how to solve this abortion thing right now. Those unwanted babies that women leave in alleys and in dumpsters, leave about twelve of them on the supreme court steps. this is over like that. You guys said we had to have them, well you guys FUCKIN RAISE THEM!!! Raise them, yes, you fuckin raise them. you said I had to have it so you raise it. it’s yours, fuck. it’s yours take it.
Really, all the pro-abortion talking points I’ve heard were based on the single assumption that the life of the little human being is the property of the mother – to be discarded if desired.
The justification for acting like some Cote d’Ivoire rebel, with the professionalism of Josef Mengele is easy to argue once that assumption is made.
To all the baby boomers reading this – if you are pro-abortion, wait until the euthanasia debate starts up for real. Turn 65, 70, 75 (what ever) get a shot of Potassium Chloride in the heart and remove one free-loader from our enlightened society. You will not be able to look to the younger crowd to find ‘respect for human life’.
We are taught not to have any, we will be ‘choosing’ on your behalf.
Bill Hicks
Surely you can find another more tasteful way to kiss female booty.
Hope your comment get’s you laid.
Hope she doesn’t get pregnant.
Just to steer this argument into another tree, I’ve always wondered why the pro-choice groups never want to follow their argument to it’s logical conclusion in other areas of family law.
Namely, if the choice to abort or carry to term is soley “the woman’s choice”, as they always argue, why are men expected to financially support the child if the woman chooses to carry it to term? One can hardly be held responsible for decisions they had no part in making.
Joker, I’m happy to have both the abortion and the euthanasia debate with you if you like. Those lurid slippery slope arguments can be battered into tiny pieces without too much difficulty.
To start off with, very few people are pro-abortion (eugenics enthusiasts certainly exist, but they’re not numerous). The pro-choice camp are no more pro-abortion than opponents of drug prohibition are pro-cannabis.
Further, the assumption is not that the unborn life is property and ergo discardable. If this were the assumption, infanticide would be a-okay. The moral side of the argument is that because the unborn life depends absolutely on the incubating mother, she has a choice over whether to provide or withdraw support (in the same way, parents can choose to withdraw support from their children, but because the child is not necessarily dependent on them for life, they don’t die as a result). The practical side of the argument is that prohibition requires a gigantic intrusion into peoples’ lives, costs a lot of money and just plain doesn’t work very well.
Of course, there are counterpoints to all these, and many reasonable people are in favour of recriminalising abortion, but in order to make a case, you do have to acknowledge and address the relevant arguments.
Joe Sims — that is sickeningly callous.
As for the article, which I read in its entirety. . . I agree that it would be a nightmare at this point in my life to be pregnant with triplets. I’m married, but I’m also our breadwinner. But if it happened, I would sacrifice everything superfluous in my life to raise those children.
This Amy chick is disgusting. She mentions something about the decision coming back to haunt her, and I have no doubt it will.
“She mentions something about the decision coming back to haunt her, and I have no doubt it will”… thus one of the natural consequences of having an abortion, or er, uh, killing another human being.
Having the ability to let a human being be created and grown inside on one’s body assumes a certain level of responsibility to that child. To kill it once you’ve allowed it to be created, is the most irresponsible and disrespectful choice one can make in regards to human life.
I always like to provide this link during these discussions.
When human life begins
My definition is either #4/#5 (both are about the same time frame). Up until then it is not murder, after that it is.
As someone has pointed out before, this occurs regularly at fertility clinics and with women who have taken fertility drugs.
But Ms. Dani . . . a child has to be wanted for it’s life to be worth living, no? I like not having to rationalize when or when it is not OK to kill a human being. It’s never OK. Period.
Doggonit. I was going to stay off the soapbox.
Interesting set of links about abortion
In fact, interesting and enlightening site all around.
“(I)n the same way, parents can choose to withdraw support from their children, but because the child is not necessarily dependent on them for life, they don’t die as a result…”
…unless they put their infant in a dumpster or in a field in January. That isn’t legal, though I will admit that the penalties for that are not as strong as they should be.
Besides, when rape is not involved, doesn’t the mother bear half of the responsibility for fact that the child is even in her body? To have the child removed once the mother has chosen to conceive (or to risk conceiving) the child is a lot like a hospital asking a patient to leave in the middle of a surgery.
cat,
Which part of my post in particular do you consider ‘sickeningly callous’? Not that I’m going to argue the merits of my opinions, I was just wondering, since I was all over the map on that post…
Joe:
Perhaps cat is calling you sickeningly callous because you referred to a human being as ‘something’.
Wow, nothing like the abortion debate to crank up the comments sections on TheAgitator.
Keep in mind:A good comment/discussion is like a miniskirt, it should be short enough to keep interest and long enough to cover the subject.
picture of baby smiling in the womb… thumbhttp://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12773312,00.html
Future Agity Thread Policeman Award goes to….. FRANK N! Just kidding Frank:)
Joe Sims and Danno49:
Why the hell does it matter if someone decides to kill an unborn child, or fetus or whatever you want to call it?
To break it down, Joe Sims:
1. “Why the hell does it matter?”
2. “Kill”
3. “Fetus”
4. “Child”
5. “Whatever”
Actually until it is human life, it is only ‘something’.
To clarify, the “something” remark didn’t bother me.
Life sure is cheap, eh, Lee?
cat . . . sorry, didn’t mean to speak for you. I should have guessed it was that one but wasn’t paying attention when I re-scanned the comment for the offending verse.
Interesting case for many reasons. But while everyone uses this to debate the usual arguments for or against abortion in general, another obvious point to me is:
These were twins. Or more precisely, in this case, “multiples”.
Twins have a long cultural identity of being special and magical. How much of this is based in science and how much is superstition is still debated, usually by those with their own ‘nature vs nuture’ viewpoints to defend. But a large amount of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, exists to show that the psychological relationship between twins is something unique and which us “onlies” can’t really understand. The situation of the “twinless twin”– i.e., a twin that has had their counterpart die before them– is particularly traumatic and can have long-reaching effects. Do a google on the subject. Even breaking up twins while they’re growing up due to divorce or other circumstances has ramifications.
Twins and multiples (fraternals, and especially identicals) are also in great demand for research studies, both as control groups for physical disorders and for studying genetic influences on things like personality.
I would think that if Amy had gone ahead with the triplets and had put them up for adoption they would have been greatly desired by some foster parents.
So, given these circumstances, does anyone else think that this was a PARTICULARLY cruel thing to do? I mean, compare a mother explaining later in life to her child that “…Well, we had you first. Later on I got pregnant again, but because we weren’t economically able to handle another child, I had an abortion” to “Well, there were three of you together in the womb. But we could only economically handle one child, so we killed your two other identical siblings right then. You got lucky because you were on the right side of the sonograph,” or some other arbitrary reason.
Sounds like a real good way to inflict enduring psychological damage to me.
Ms. Dani – I cleaned up your link a bit:
Smiling Baby In The Womb
Hope you don’t mind. When I first saw this, it blew my mind. Beautiful.
Stormy Dragon asked: “why are men expected to financially support the child if the woman chooses to carry it to term? One can hardly be held responsible for decisions they had no part in making.”
Perhaps no one has explained this to you, but the man’s seed fertilizes the woman’s egg which sometimes causes a fabulous chain reaction resulting in a new human being. This does not happen without the man’s participation! A man can choose to:
A) not have sex with the woman
B) wear a condom
Hope this helps!
Ms. Dani – I hope you don’t mind that the clean link I created from cleaning your link needs cleaning.
Rassa-frassa fat fingers . . . .
Smiling Baby In The Womb
In general yeah, life is cheap.
But human life is not.
That is why it is important to decide where human life begins.
You believe it begins at conception, I do not.
Lee, when exactly does it begin and how did you come to that conclusion? No sarcasm at all intended. I truly want to know the logical reasoning behind your belief.
cat,
I’m just glad you aren’t calling me ‘sickeningly callous’ over the Mencken quote. Or the disconnect some people appear to have over demanding freedom from government intrusion regarding putting stuff IN their body versus taking stuff OUT. Or the fact that I don’t want to be forced to pay for the mistakes of others…
Thanks for clearing that up for me!
(p.s. when you broke my question down to a Top Five, was that list in order of most ‘sickeningly callous’, with one being the most ‘sickeningly callous’, or did you do that because you think I’m mentally challenged and can’t parse my own sentence?)
The link that I posted earlier
When Human Life Begins
Gives a brief description of the various definitions (with biblio). Read the various topics, decided.
I think #3 (identical twinning at 12 days post conception) is why I do not believe that human life does not begin at conception.
Lee:
The difference between you and I is that I know that life begins at conception and you believe it does not.
Here is an atheist’s POV on the matter:
At conception, the fetus consists of genetic material contributed by both parents: the unique DNA combination of an individual. This DNA code is the exact same code the fetus will have when it passes through the birth canal nine months later (or sooner). – Randy Balsom
Hmmmmm . . . even a Godless heathen can see that life begins at conception.
= :)
Danno49,
I read Lee’s position as him believing that life begins at conception, due to the double negative. Of course, I could be mistaken…
Joe:
Grammarian would be proud.
= ;)
Having the appropriate DNA does not constitute human life. That would make every cell in our body qualify for human life. I would hate to think that the next time I get my hair cut that I would be accused of murder.
It is the same as looking at an acorn.
An acorn is not a tree. It has the potential to become one, but it is still not a tree.
Funny, I also know when human life begins and my definition is different that yours…I wonder why that is?
D’OH busted by the grammar police ;-)
Next up will be the spelling police (which I think have a warrent out for me ’cause I suck at it).
Hell, Lee, I do it all the time; it’s not a big deal, I just wanted to make sure that I understood your point, because earlier you stated your position succinctly, and it seemed odd that you would do a 180 in a matter of hours.
Coincidentally, my wife asks yes/no questions like that, with too many negatives. You’d think she was trying to trick me during cross-examination on “Perry Mason”!
I do it to my wife (errrr that did not sound right…but anyway) She’ll ask
“Do you want X or Y” and I’ll just answer “yes”.
Usually she does not throw whatever she has in her hands too hard LOL
Well off to the house…don’t decide anything while I’m gone.
Danno and Ms. Dani-
That’s just gas, babys don’t smile.
:)
Lee:
Having the appropriate DNA does not constitute human life. That would make every cell in our body qualify for human life.
I know that and you know that. There’s one facet to this issue that we do agree on. I posted that viewpoint because I feel that most people do know that life begins at conception, not just Christians or other like-minded folks. I think the feeling is innate and that people tend to rationalize serious issues like this away like so much garbage so that they don’t have to deal with the horror that abortion is. This fellow, due to his atheistic convictions, was strapped with the lack of a religious argument. So he used natural ethics, as he understood it, in a way of justifying his position. Which is fine by me, even though he doesn’t need to justify himself being against murder.
Funny, I also know when human life begins and my definition is different that yours…I wonder why that is?
I don’t have to rationalize baby murder, I know it’s wrong. You are on the ‘choice’ bandwagon. That’s why.
So ‘choice’ occurs at conception for the man, but not for the woman? That seems a rather blatant double standard.
So ‘choice’ occurs at conception for the man, but not for the woman? That seems a rather blatant double standard.
Stop it, Stormy. No one wants to be confronted with that. It might actually give the father some rights that he doesn’t currently enjoy. Bad men, bad. Keep them down.
Danno, i’m happy to help you out here.
I don’t believe that life begins at conception. I’m not rationalising anything away :).
The projection of ones own beliefs onto others is quite a common one. Lots of christians will swear blind that atheists ‘know God exists really, and are just wilfully resisting’. Lots of atheists, in the same vein, will claim that christians ‘know that God can’t exist, and are just clinging to anything that will stave off their insecurities.’
Your ‘we all know that life begins at conception, even those of us who don’t’ position is of this order.
And on your ‘you may believe but I know’ sentence. ‘Know’ and ‘believe’ are just different ways of saying the same thing. When people knew that the earth was flat, it did not make it so.
Stormy, with regard to your earlier question, there is no difficulty for me. I think that if men choose not to be a part of things from the start, the state has no business obliging them to something they cannot make the choice on. That’s more of a liberal wing-ding.
Hope this helps.
I’m not rationtalizing murder because it is not human life. Once it is human life, then it is murder.
You rationalizing it into murder because of your beliefs.
Stick a fork in me, ma! I’m done!
Why is it that the same people who are anti-abortion think the PETA people are NUTS, when their arguments are remarkably similar?
Hey Lee, it was concieved by humans, its being nurtured, its breathing, it has blood flowing through it and its alive. If its not human life would you please explain what type of life it is.
animals and people are not equal, apples and oranges man.
bernard, I hate relativism. Life is life. It begins when it begins. Why not err on the side of caution when it comes to risking someone else’s life? Oh yeah, I remember, “unfeeling narcissim.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126516,00.html
Lee -
“I’m not rationtalizing murder because it is not human life. Once it is human life, then it is murder”
The fact is, it is human life. It cannot be any other life form.
What you mean is, it is not self-sustaining life. The babies that this woman killed had individual heartbeats. Only a fool would fail to see that as life.
Since the issue seems to be more about self-sustaining life, what should we do about my mentally retarded brother-in-law? He sure as hell isn’t self-sustaining; he’s been completely dependent on his mother before and after leaving the womb. When did he become an actual human life?
Perhaps we can just bump him off to make our lives easier? After all, lifestyles hang in the balance.
manuel,
An embryo does not have blood flowing thru it and it does not breath. The lungs are not formed enough for even rudimentary breathing until (mmm I forget I think it is around) 20 weeks and the vascular systems starts at 8 weeks.
Ms Dani,
It has nothing to do with ‘unfeeling narcissim’, I would err on the side of caution and have human life not be defined as starting at conception. Are you ready to make sure that every ovulating, sexually active female is taking care of any ‘babies’ she may or may not have?
If we define human life as starting at conception, wouldn’t a female with a treatable condition that prevents the embryo from attaching to the uterus be guilty of negligent homicide?
roger,
I’m not a fool and I still do not see it that way.
I’m just not confusing the potential for human life for actual human life as many of you are doing.
You’re brother does exist outside of your mothers womb. A 8 week old embryo cannot.
Ms Dani,
I don’t understand the ‘I hate relativism’ comment in this context. Which absolutes are you suggesting we stick with?
With respect to the ‘why don’t we err on the side of caution’ sentence, it all depends what you mean. I’m happy to agree that we should think hard before declaring definitively that something is or isn’t human life (and, as usual, it’s vital to point out that by necessity we have precious little respect for life in general – the bugs we squash, the animals we eat etc.). I’m much less happy if your idea of ‘err on the side of caution’ refers to prohibition or a government intrusion into womens’ private lives (in your case, having read what you’ve said, I don’t believe it does, so in terms of practical policy we probably agree on more than you might think).
Roger, on ‘my brother isn’t self-sustaining’, let’s work through this.
Your brother may well not be able to look after himself but he is not specifically reliant on your mother. If she became unable or unwilling to look after him, others would be able to take up the burden. The family choice is whether to sustain or withdraw support, and it is a choice you have. If you choose to withdraw support, it becomes a matter for wider society to choose whether to take up the slack. Should government be obliged to look after people who can’t look after themselves? This is a flashpoint issue for libertarians, and one i’m happy to discuss, but my point is simply that there are clear grounds for discussion.
Now, the reason why pregnancy is a particularly thorny issue is because, in the early stages at least, it simply is not possible for women to decide not to support without the life dying. Whatever your take on the morality of this decision, the key questions are:
1. Should women be legally obliged to support pregnancies to term? If so, does society have an obligation to provide them with resources sufficient to do so?
2. If ‘yes’ to question 1. How can society detect pregnancies and ensure that they are protected? How far should miscarriages be investigated? How many resources should be allocated to this, and what should the penalties be for infringement?
Anyone care to indulge an unfeeling narcissist?
“Are you ready to make sure that every ovulating, sexually active female is taking care of any ‘babies’ she may or may not have?” Hell yes.
Relativism – the belief that the conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but relative to the persons or groups holding them. This I wrote of, in regards to when you believe life begins. A baby is a person. And no, I do not believe that the govt should have any say into whether or not a woman carries a baby full-term. I do not believe that the govt should be litigating morals, and that coming from a me, a christian. But, by the time a woman determines that she is pregnant, ususally no sooner than 4 weeks along, that baby is far enough along to be called human and alive. Stop trying to convince yourselves that it’s ok to kill. Have regard for human life.
I’m not entering the debate, but here are some facts for one side or the other to twist to their liking:
* 49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; 1/2 of these are terminated by abortion.
* In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2000, more than 39 million legal abortions occurred.
* Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion and 61% have had a previous birth.
* Each year, an estimated 46 million abortions occur worldwide. Of these, 20 million procedures are obtained illegally.
* 52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19%.5
* Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.6
* 43% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% identify themselves as Catholic.7
* 2/3 of all abortions are among never-married women.8
* Over 60% of abortions are among women who have had 1 or more children.9
* On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Some excerpts from the Supreme Court decision:
“We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion.
[...]
“[The] right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
[...]
“Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.
[...]
“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
[...]
“n a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”
So, primarily, the Supreme’s decision had little to do with when life actually can be said to begin. Primarily, the issue was one of privacy that the 14th amendment (and precedents) have decided upon.
Maybe that contributes something, maybe not. Either way, it’s a fascinating read into the thinking that went behind the original decision.
That having been said, my only experience directly with abortion is that my great-grandmother had to have her fourth child killed as it was being delivered so she could live. She was out of it, and my great-grandfather was asked whether to save his wife or the child. He solemnly replied, “These children need their mother…save her.”
So, without offering my position, here are the facts. Do with them as you will.
John
narphonax.com/blog
With all of the arguments trying to convince pro-lifers of the validity of the ‘pro-choice’ cause, I don’t see anything but rationalization.
I second Ms. Dani – stop trying to convince yourselves that it’s OK to kill children.
Conversly, stop trying to convince yourself that its children that are being killed.
Ms Dani, I see what you meant by relativism now. The reason I missed it the first time was because you misread my position. Truth is, by definition, absolute. Your perception of it, my perception of it and even Danno’s perception of it are not. Many people ‘know’ many things which are untrue. As I said earlier ‘I know…’ and ‘I believe…’ are ways of saying the same thing.
No relativism there.
On the ‘stop trying to convince yourself..’. I’ve already addressed this with Danno earlier. The assumption that everyone is thinking the same thing as you, but that some people are just resisting it is an easy trap to fall into. It hasn’t escaped my notice that pro-lifers tend to back off into these kind of emotional appeals whenever the debate gets to specifics.
So, i’ll repeat my questions :)
1. Should women be legally obliged to support pregnancies to term? If so, does society have an obligation to provide them with resources sufficient to do so?
2. If ‘yes’ to question 1. How can society detect pregnancies and ensure that they are protected? How far should miscarriages be investigated? How many resources should be allocated to this, and what should the penalties be for infringement?
Happy to discuss responses.
>I would err on the side of caution and
>have human life not be defined as
>starting at conception.
The consequence of putting the limit too early is normally just inconvience to the mother.
The consquence of putting the limit too late is death to the baby,
Taking that into consideration, it seems to me that ‘erring on the side of caution’ would be to put the limit earlier and not later.
>If ‘yes’ to question 1. How can
>society detect pregnancies and ensure
>that they are protected?
This is like arguing we can’t outlaw murder unless we put cameras everywhere in order to detect them.
Dani,
You said that “at 4 weeks…” but your belief is that human life begins at conception.
So before 4 weeks it is ok to kill? but after it is not?
And actually they can determine pregnancy as quick as 2 weeks.
1. Women should not be legally obliged to carry a pregnancy to full-term, but the govt should also not condone the behavior of aborting babies by making it legal. In summary, abortions should not be litigated at all but left to the mother and the community to deal with.
2. If I were to answer “Yes” to #1, then I would say, the moment a woman recognizes that she is pregnant beyond a shadow of a doubt, ie doctor’s examination, then she should no longer choose to abort. I didn’t say that she should no longer be allowed to abort, but that she shouldn’t CHOOSE to abort. And yes, I think if she does not want it, then her local community should help support her while she is pregnant and the child after it is born. No punishment if she chooses to abort. A person should not be criminalized for doing something with his/her own body. This is where our govt has succumbed to Nannyism, as Radley has pointed out so many times on this blog. When the govt tells you what you can or cannot do with your own body.
Lee -
The babies each had a distinct heartbeat. You seriously believe that it is not a human life at that point? I suppose it’s not a human life, just some generic life form, right? We must be just lucky that human mothers seldom give birth to cats, squid, and eggplants.
“You’re brother does exist outside of your mothers womb. A 8 week old embryo cannot”
Sure, he exists – nobody’s ever debated that. However, he is not self-sustaining, i.e. he will die if left alone, much like the 8 week old fetus.
Can’t we just speed up the process and legally kill him, particularly since it would be inevitable if left up to nature alone? After all, as I said before, lifestyles hang in the balance.
Bernard -
“If she became unable or unwilling to look after him, others would be able to take up the burden”
So we shouldn’t be able to kill my brother-in-law because society would be able to take up the slack if his mother failed to provide for him? Personally, I think we shouldn’t be able to kill him simply because murdering another human being is wrong.
At least you are consistent. You see all non-self-sustaining life as less than fully human.
Stormy, the question was not rhetorical. I would certainly expect to have to explain the practicalities of a legislative position I advocated. If I found I couldn’t, I would think twice about it.
Ms Dani, i’m happy to respect the position that abortion should be considered immoral but not illegal. As I’ve said more than once, my problem is squarely with prohibition.
Lee,
Do you have anything else to offer me besides turning everything I say to it’s opposite? You’re beginning to remind me of the John Cleese character in the Monty Python Argument Sketch.
“Yes, it is.”
“No, it isn’t.”
I am retiring from this discussion. It pains my heart to read how low human beings have sunk in their values of life.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again:
May God have mercy on us.
Roger, I don’t recall defining human life. I’m not at all sure where that conclusion of yours sprung from. My position was pretty simple. Noone can be forced to sustain anyone else without Government intervention. If you advocate that intervention I’m interested to know how you propose to do so. If you don’t, then you haven’t made it clear what position of mine you actually disagree with.
Care to share?
Danno, I won’t feign surprise that you refused the opportunity of a proper discussion on this :).
Bernard -
I asked earlier why I couldn’t just kill my mentally retarded brother-in-law, since he is not self-sustaining, much like a fetus.
You responded by telling me that if his mother was unwilling to take care of him, “others would be able to take up the burden”. Since you didn’t actually answer my question, I could only infer that you felt he could not be killed becasue somebody else would be able to take care of him, if not his mother.
If he was really a full human, killing him would simply be murder, not wrong because “others would be able to take up the burden”.
Dano49 -
Ditto on the mercy. We’re gonna need it.
Roger– would kicking your mentally retarded brother-in-law out of the house be considered murder on his mother’s part, should he die as a result?
Bernard:
What are you inferring? That because I don’t want to continue to participate in a fruitless discussion with amoral individuals that somehow my arguments for the preservation of life don’t hold water? That because of my backward, old-fashioned way of thinking, I am unenlightened to the cheerful propositions of today’s relativistic vision? That I am weak because of I have to rely on a non-existent God for comfort, protection and a moral code that not everybody holds?
Did that about cover it?
Roger, you didn’t read what I said properly. I’ve helped by highlighting the key passages below:
Your question was ‘what should we do about him? Perhaps it would be easier just to bump him off?’
My response was: ‘Your brother may well not be able to look after himself but he is not specifically reliant on your mother. If she became unable or unwilling to look after him, others would be able to take up the burden. THE FAMILY CHOICE IS WHETHER TO SUSTAIN OR WITHDRAW SUPPORT, and it is a choice you have. If you choose to withdraw support, it becomes a matter for wider society to choose whether to take up the slack.’
Nowhere did you ask ‘why shouldn’t I just kill him?’ which goes some way to explaining why I never gave you an answer. You shouldn’t just kill him because deliberately killing him would be murder. Withdrawing support, on the other hand, would not (otherwise everyone who refused food to a beggar who later starved would be a murderer).
Clear enough? Now, about my questions……
Danno, when people build strawmen and then gleefully knock them down while playing the moral highground I assume from long experience that they don’t have anything remotely relevant or useful to contribute. If you’re interested in proving me wrong, I’m more than happy to play, but you’ll understand why i’m not holding my breath.
Fact is, Bernard, you are being disrespectful. We’re done. Good day.
My foresight is almost prophetic. I best remember to buy that lottery ticket.
Insert Monkey Butler Joke Here –>
Joe Sims —
You are absolutely hilarious. I like the bit where you repeatedly use my words in a mocking way, so that you can focus on my poor choice of words, instead of your repulsive approach to the value of human life. You’re so clever!
Regardless, admitting the existence of a child during a pregnancy, and then claiming it doesn’t matter if it is killed — again, your word — is callous and sick. (Is that a better way to communicate my point?) As for the other things you mentioned, like your Mencken quote (ooh, Mencken. . . impressive!) — I don’t have to disagree with them in order to disagree with your indifference toward murdered children.
And, yes, I did feel the need to break it down for you. It’s none of my business whether or not you are mentally challenged.
>Stormy, the question was not
>rhetorical. I would certainly expect
>to have to explain the practicalities
>of a legislative position I advocated.
>If I found I couldn’t, I would think
> twice about it.
You question seems to come from a misunderstanding about the basic role of law enforcement. It doesn’t matter whether abortion can be detected and prevented. The job of law enforcement isn’t to figure out a crime is about to occur and intervene to prevent it. There job is to investigate and prosecute criminals _after_ the crime has occured.
You seem to think abortion requires some sort of ‘Minority Report’ style police force. Unlawful abortions would be handled like any other crime. If, sometime after they occur, it’s comes to the police of DA’s attention, it would be investigated (and assuming sufficient evidence is found) prosecuted.
scared stiff -
“would kicking your mentally retarded brother-in-law out of the house be considered murder on his mother’s part, should he die as a result”
I would certainly hope so.
Bernard, define the strawmen that you accuse Danno49 of building.
100
Bernard -
“1. Should women be legally obliged to support pregnancies to term? If so, does society have an obligation to provide them with resources sufficient to do so?
2. If ‘yes’ to question 1. How can society detect pregnancies and ensure that they are protected? How far should miscarriages be investigated? How many resources should be allocated to this, and what should the penalties be for infringement?”
1.a Yes, barring life-threatening situations for the mother.
1.b No, the mother has the obligation.
2.a Society can’t detect, it can only react after the fact.
2.b As far as necessary.
2.c Have no idea.
2.d Various degrees of murder.
Sorry I don’t have the specifics of the big plan already worked out for you – I wasn’t aware that today was the due date for my Illegal Abortion Detection and Punishment Plan.
“My foresight is almost prophetic”
You are a god among men. After all, a mere mortal couldn’t possibly have seen where this conversation was headed.
Okey doke. In order of appearance:
Stormy, my question was based on a long-standing gripe I have about the tendancy of legislators to bring in laws which are unenforcable and then using them as either moral or social filters. Murder is, on the whole, tough to get away with because citizens are known members of society, and people tend to notice when they go missing. My concern with criminalising abortion is that it will make women much cagier about seeking medical advice or seeking any kind of help in their decision making, while leading the rich to secluded or foreign abortion clinics, the poor to back alleys, coat hangers or hot baths and the police to spending a lot of time following up cases which are basically unwinnable. If I saw more than just a reflexive ‘I don’t like that, therefore it should be illegal’, in the pro-life arguments here I’d listen and think more carefully, but it’s taken a while, and a good deal of cajoling to even draw people into discussing it.
Ms Dani, there were a number, my favourite was the assumption that we all agree really, and that those who appear not to are just trying to rationalise away what they know (because he does, therefore they must).
Then there was the atheist who sees a unique dna code and (he infers) therefore must see human life beginning at conception.
The casual dropping in of sentences such as ‘I don’t have to rationalise baby-murder’ was another key sign of the great respect he held for those who disagree’d (and which I callously failed to show in return).
Roger:
Thanks. I asked 1a and b because I personally don’t see how society can legitimately make demands on women without providing for them in return.
I asked 2a-d because I’ve never managed to get specifics on exactly how the law should sit from any proponents before now. I see so many loopholes in any of the abortion laws i’ve seen in action that the social filter/bloated government arguments all come squarely into play, but if you’re prepared to explore the costs (social, as well as fiscal, of course) and still come out in favour of law enforcement, I have to respect that.
b-
how does a mother withdraw support from the (thing, baby, etc.) without killing it, him/her? If you can answer that I’ll go along with your line of thought. Otherwise, it’s quite irrational.
If you withdraw support from the brother-in -law he’s dead without support. Same goes for the thing/baby growing in the mother. But society can step in for the adult. How does society step in for whatever you want to call what’s in the mother? Or is dying/murder ok if society physically cannot step in?
‘Your brother may well not be able to look after himself but he is not specifically reliant on your mother. If she became unable or unwilling to look after him, others would be able to take up the burden. THE FAMILY CHOICE IS WHETHER TO SUSTAIN OR WITHDRAW SUPPORT, and it is a choice you have. If you choose to withdraw support, it becomes a matter for wider society to choose whether to take up the slack.’
Yeah, but maybe we need a better example, because the obligations of parents to their children are not like the obligations, or lack of obligations, that we have to each other. If an able-bodied, able-minded person and the retarded brother-in-law were stranded in the middle of a desert, or in any place where no one else could help the brother-in-law, would the able-bodied person be justified in refusing to help him? As much as I would advise helping him, and as wrong as it would be to choose to let the other person die, I don’t think a libertarian would hold the able-bodied person responsible for helping the other person, just because he/she can. As far as I can tell, this mirrors your position on abortion (it is supposed to). However, what if the able-bodied person was the one who brought the retarded person into the desert? Doesn’t the responsibility for meeting the needs of others come with causing those needs to exist?
As odd as it may seem — since the parents are responsible for giving their child life in the first place — I think it is because they are responsible for their child’s state of helplessness (surely they knew that babies are born into this condition) that parents cannot simply abandon their (born) children on the side of the road, or ignore and neglect them in their homes. Though the burden can be accepted by others, through adoption, the parents are still held responsible for driving their children to a place where they can be cared for and put up for adoption, or for getting their child to the point where the burden could be accepted by someone else. The only difference I can see between that car ride and pregnancy is the length and difficulty of the trip.
Just so it has been said, I want to point out that this discussion is only relevant when the objective of the abortion is to remove the child carefully, not to deliberately kill, as it often is.
However, what if the able-bodied person was the one who brought the retarded person into the desert?
I think that should have read, “However, what if the able-bodied person were the one who brought the retarded person into the desert?” Sorry.
Bob. The (thing, baby, etc.) dies because it/he/she can’t survive on its own or with the support of others after being flushed out by the mother. The mother is, at least up to a certain stage, the only hope.
Now, my position is that given the above the woman is the only one with a choice here. As you’ve said, if society could help, it would be able to choose whether or not to.
Now, this may be callous (certainly a label i’ve been given once or twice) but I don’t think it’s irrational.
Interested to listen though.
Born, interesting. I’ll have a think and come back to you on that.
doesnt murder include some sort of intent.
if the mother stopped caring for the mentally ill brother-in-law with the intent to murder him then its murder.
Born. I think the issue you’ve raised is one of how far someone should be obliged to go to ensure that others have the opportunity to assume care. I’m not sure the intent issue you raise is relevant (primarily because the kind of pregnancies which result in abortion tend to be unintended) but the obligation question certainly is. Personally, I still don’t think it’s desirable to demand that a mother remain pregnant against her will, although I also don’t think abortions should be easy to get. I’d be interested to hear where you stand on this though.
Michael, the specified intent in this hypothetical case is simply to stop caring. If the brother-in-law were deliberately led away from the possibility of other care to ensure death, you’d be absolutely right.
I don’t think that the ‘desert scenario’ can truly be compared to abortion…it’s more illustrative of a newly born child. Try this, though it will seem rather silly…
Our able-bodied person, let’s call her Jane, is going to trek out into the desert, for whatever reason. She has a large parking lot of automobiles that she can choose to take. These cars have enough fuel to get her out into the desert for her unknown purpose, but she must walk back, and she has a very high probability of survivng the trek back. Now, in some unknown percentage of the cars, there is a comatose parapalegic in the trunk, but no way of knowing this fact for sure, although there is a mechanism that will open the trunk when the fuel is fully expended.
If Jane gets to the middle of the desert and finds a comatose parapalegic in the trunk, is she obliged to bring him back?
If we assume that bringing him back will significantly increase her own chances of harm or death, is she still obliged?
If Jane has a device that will tell her with 99% certainty, that there is no comatose parapalegic in the trunk, but still finds herself with one, is she still obliged?
Is Jane aware some of the cars have a comatose parapelegic in a trunk?
Cat,
I now feel compelled to defend my viewpoint on reproduction (such as it is), as you have reduced me on this board to a mentally challenged amoral child killer apologist, solely from some glib comments I made a couple of days ago which were taken out of context. Such character assassination is what is truly sickening and callous on a discussion board. Are you going to call me Mengele next?
You have me mistaken. And perhaps I inadvisedly used incendiary words that clouded my main point for you, and for that I can only say “too bad”. For the record, the quote you have passed judgement on my character is, “I can’t believe what a bunch of Gladys Kravits all of the anti-abortion folks can be at times. Why the hell does it matter [I should have added 'to anyone not directly involved with the situation' here, for clarification. Once again, too bad.] if someone decides to kill an unborn child, or fetus or whatever you want to call it? Doesn’t anyone see the disconnect with folks who advocate freedom to put whatever they want into their bodies (i.e. drugs, fast food, some other guy’s penis, etc.) having a problem with those who want the freedom to take something OUT of their bodies??? Personally, I don’t care what people do with their own bodies, just so long as they don’t come running to me when the bill is due”. Meaning that, in my opinion, it is immaterial what word one feels compelled to attribute to a collection of cells growing inside another person’s body (child, fetus, zygote, tumor, etc.); what’s of utmost importance is that, unless you were there to assist in the creation of these cells and/or are paying the bills for the outcome, it’s NOBODY ELSE’S F*&#ING BUSINESS WHAT THE CARRIER OF THESE CELLS DOES WITH THEM!!!
I’m not advocating nor condoning the killing of children there, and for you to infer such is a huge leap away from civil discourse, to put it mildly. Your out of context interpretation has little to do with what was actually said or meant. And unlike your sour, condescending attitude toward me, I’m not about to presume that you are incapable of or not familiar enough with the language to be able to infer the true gist of my question. Even if my question was harsh in its delivery (which I will freely admit to), you know what it’s asking, and to twist it around like you have is being intellectually dishonest.
I myself was a child once, and it probably would have saddened me if I had been destroyed before I got the chance to destroy my own life. But my FEELINGS on the matter of reproduction are not a good enough reason to force a complete stranger to give up their liberties so that my will (and the deity that I am presuming to represent) shall be done.
This does not mean that I’m some sort of Margaret Sanger-following eugenics freak who is advocating abortions for all… If I were to advocate sincerely for any position in the reproduction fight (and I guess now would be a good time to do so, as my character is being besmirched), it would be for people to have the opportunity to think and act responsibly in any decisions regarding their stance on reproduction. And if they can’t or won’t think and act responsibly, whatever they decide to do, it should be on them to live with the consequences, whether it’s eternal guilt for having an abortion or raising a bunch of kids because they are following some antiquated belief system that forbids them to have any modern control over their reproductive functions (and when I say modern, I mean prophylactic methods that were used during the T’ang dynasty or the Age of the Pharaohs, by people apparently more enlightened than the entirety of the Vatican). The important thing is, it remains their choice in how they are going to live with the consequences of their actions. If we the people step in and take away one or more of their choices (either way), or choose to subsidize one choice over the other, then we the people have effectively made the choice for those who cannot or will not live responsibly. And frankly, that is counter to the libertarian ideals that most readers on this site profess to subscribe to. At least I’m assuming such, otherwise why do they bother reading this site on a daily basis?
So, that’s it for me on the whole reproduction fight. And I practice what I preach. My wife and I made our decision on where we stand with reproduction prior to getting married, being that we are trying to be responsible people. So far, our decision has worked out well for us. But, then again, the specifics of our decision are nobody else’s f*&#ing business, either. And I mean that both figuratively AND literally…
Yes, Jane is aware.
Jane is not obliged to care for the parapalegic if she just happens to find him in a trunk, but if she brought him into the desert, then yes, she is obliged, but not required. She is obliged out of respect for what is right and respect for human life.
Would she be equally obliged if she just found him helpless in the desert?
Is this analogy still connected to anything, or has it floated off of its own accord?
I think it’s still on-topic, although it hasn’t really sparked much discussion. Given Ms. Dani’s statement, I’m wondering if simply finding another human in need of care obliges one to provide that care out of respect for human life.
Do any of these arguments really contribute anything? I mean, aren’t all of these (on both sides) just the same ole, same ole in a shiny new package?
Come to think of it, I have a better question: Since the beginning of this thread, has anyone had any changes of heart concerning abortion, one way or the other? If so, that would justify all this exposition.
John
narphonax.com/blog
I’m back. Bernard, my answer to your question may depend on whether by “desirable,” you mean that forcing her to do this against her will is in itself desirable, or whether I believe justice requires people to care for those who they bring into a state of helplessness. I do believe this, but I can’t say that in most situations, forcing someone to do something against her will appeals to me, even if she is obligated to do it. However, I do believe that this is something that she must do.
Also, since you have brought up the possibility that my argument might require the mother to take the time to put an unwanted child up for adoption, but would not require her to be pregnant for nine months, do you have any thoughts on where the line would be drawn, on how far parents are obligated to go to arrange for their children to be cared for? I had been thinking that if they, for some reason, could not arrange this, that they would be obligated to get the child to the point where he could take care of himself (or she/herself).
JS, I am not sure that I can shed much more light on my thinking on this by answering your question, since my answer is based on what I have already written, but yes, I do think this person would be responsible for helping those brought into a state of helplessness by her trip to the desert. Again, I realize that it may seem strange that parents should have to compensate their children for their helplessness, as though the parents had hurt them somehow, but I assume that most of us here would argue that parents, if they give life to their children and neglect them until they die, they cannot really call it even.