Abortion debate!

[Edric O]

Yes, we've done this several times before (I can't remember exactly how many), but enough time has passed since the last abortion topic, so we can have another one. This time also featuring a poll.

So, what do you think about the legality of abortion?

[Andrew]

It should be legal.

Medical purposes - 100% I presume if you mean the baby will harm mother.

Rape - 100% Plan b should solve this unless the woman doesn't react soon enough. But plan b is quite easy to get nowadays.

Financial - Umm, depends. If they can afford a baby and decide to have one, then near birth says frak it and aborts, well that is their right, but they are stupid. Abortions cost money. So plan ahead. But overall yes it is their right to abort.

The government should not tell someone what to do with their body. The government should be proactive and have good sex ed programs and educate people.

I always find it fun to listen to hardcore pro-life people.

I don't understand anyone who would want to wait until 2nd or 3rd trimester to have an abortion (assuming no bad circumstances surrounding it).

Making abortion illegal will not stop people from having abortions.

[Acriku]

Andrew you're right, making abortion illegal will not stop people from using abortions. It will in fact lead them to less sanitized, less sterile methods that could put the mother in harm as well.

I voted 'for any reason in (but not after) the first trimester.' Anything later than that is either neglect of the mother (which is no excuse) to get it done early, or an after-decision that seems to be a little trivial in the case of the future baby.

I could be shooting it a little early (wow, horrible phrase for this thread), I'm not up-to-date on progression through trimesters. But the gist of it is, the mother should get it aborted early if she is not going to go through with it.

The woman should do what she wants with her body, to the extent of how progressed the development of the fetus is. The extent is difficult to define. *shrug*

Quote against abortion: Ronald Reagan : "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."

Quote for abortion: George Carlin : "Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No, nothing! No natal care, no food stamps ... If you're pre-born, you're fine; if you're pre-schooled, you're fucked!"

[Andrew]

U.S. Funded Health Search Engine Blocks 'Abortion'

"We recently made all abortion terms stop words," Dickson wrote in a note to Gloria Won, the UCSF medical center librarian making the inquiry. "As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now."

It is federally funded. It is federally legal to have an abortion. Therefore they ban the word abortion...

Good old censorship. If we pretend abortion doesn't exist, no one will want one!

[Dante]

Kill 'em.

Kill 'em all.

I really don't care.

(;D)

[Wolf]

Medical reasons or the case of rape. Which is only less than 1% of actual abortions performed in real life. I'm pro-life because the reality is that women only use abortion as an ex post facto form of birth control.

[nemafakei]

"Anything later than that is either neglect of the mother (which is no excuse) to get it done early"

Not necessarily. It may not be detected until some way in. Reasonably you need to allow a certain amount of time to make a decision, and on top of that, the red tape involved, depending on how well it's catered for and other circumstances makes it a pretty close call. 'Cooling-off' periods and procrastination by pro-life doctors are well-known tactics for taking the choice out of women's hands.

I voted for the full term, on the basis that threatening the weight of the law is simply a waste of money to enforce, puts pressure on the doctors, and threatens lives.

"the reality is that women only use abortion as an ex post facto form of birth control."

Sure, there are some that do. But for mose women, having an abortion is not a casual decision, and it's frankly patronising and arrogant to assume that it is in every case women. For a start, abortions occur because of a failure of contraception, whether due to access, education, or the plain old faiure rate.

"I'm pro-life because the reality is that women only use abortion as an ex post facto form of birth control."

Um, that doesn't make sense. Being pro-life is an ethical stance and can't possibly derive from an apparent social trend. You may be anti-choice because you believe both the law must intervene to stop abortion, usually because believe that a foetus is effectively human. Just not the other way round.

Note that being pro-life doesn't mean being anti-choice. It's perfectly reasonable to be pro-life while recognising that the most ethical way to tackle abortion is by empowering and persuading women and by dealing with the underlying social and economic problems, and that getting the law involved is authoritarian, dangerous, and potentially counter-productive.

It is, of course, possible to be pro-choice and anti-life, which seems to be Dante's stance. And anti-life and anti-choice: as in the one-child policy in China. But for us, I think, the pro-life stance is a given, and it's the choice we're debating.

[Wolf]

The majority of abortions occur in the first week or two of pregnancy. I wouldn't call that an agonizing decision, Nema, and ultimately, it's just as patronizing and arrogant for you to assume that it isn't a decision that a woman can take lightly. Speaking for them in any respect is fairly chauvinistic. Which is why I avoided that altogether, and pointed to the fact that the vast majority of abortions occur as a form of birth control -- not as a result of rape, incest or medical reasons -- and that they occur in the very first few days of a pregnancy. That fact speaks to me. Do you know how many abortions are performed in the United States, Nema? 1.3 million. For the people who view the fetus as a human life from conception, that's four times the number of people America lost in all of World War Two being lost each year. That's the source of the emotional entrenchment on the pro-life side. Quite frankly, given the numbers, I think my worldview (that, whatever they think, they have no problem doing it) is more accurate than yours (that we're a bunch of chauvinists). What, women are the gentle, innocent creatures of 19th-century lore? I think you underestimate the emotional fortitude of the 21st-century woman to abort her child with such frequency. My problem really is that, in the countries where you find abortion legalized, Western Europe and the United States, you find negative birth-rates. Our societies are dying. This is the cause. [EDIT: That may be hyperbole, it's not the cause, but it's certainly a contributing factor.] But, you are correct -- my stance isn't so much pro-life as anti-choice, and my reasoning for that isn't grounded in morality as it is in practicality; our civilization is in deep trouble.

[chatfsh]

::) ::)

I voted for any reason during the 1st trimester.  Doesn

[Wolf]

Ultimately, Hwi, I think you're right. When it comes to it, the only men who should have a say in an abortion are the sperm contributors to the fetus. And even in the United States, a woman does not need her spouse's consent to perform an abortion. (I think the reasoning behind this has more to do with the likely possibility that the husband isn't necessarily always the father.) The problem is that, if this behavior becomes something that ultimately damages society (too few young people to work, too many old people collecting benefits, smaller populations being subsumed by larger, foreign populations), then I don't know. It's upsetting to think that my country is only getting smaller and smaller while others are getting bigger and bigger. I'm not so much of a nationalist (at least I think), but this is something that bothers me. And I still can't shake the perception that most of these abortions being performed are, for the lack of a better word, rather frivolous. Again, I'm not so much a moral Crusader (as Nema pointed out) as a grumbling naysayer.

[chatfsh]

I wonder if even the sperm contributor should have a say.  It

[nemafakei]

"it's just as patronizing and arrogant for you to assume that it isn't a decision that a woman can take lightly"

Read again. Of course it would be arrogant, to make such an assumption. That's why I'm not. For some it is, for some it isn't.

"is more accurate than yours (that we're a bunch of chauvinists)"

Well, I only said that your statement was patronising, i.e. you are presuming to make decisions for other people when, for many of them, you have no clue what they're going through. I'm further unnerved again by how you continue: "whatever they think, they have no problem doing it". What makes you think you know precisely how every woman who's had an abortion thinks about it? Now I don't think that anyone is free of sexism, but that's getting rather off track. The point is whether the government should be empowered to who decide and enforce laws on the issue, or the women who've, you know, got the child in the first place.

"Which is why I avoided that altogether"

Um, no, you specifically stated that women only use abortion for birth control.

"Which is why I avoided that altogether, and pointed to the fact that the vast majority of abortions occur as a form of birth control -- not as a result of rape, incest or medical reasons -- and that they occur in the very first few days of a pregnancy. That fact speaks to me."

OK. Do you want to make it clear why that means it must be illegal? I mean, it's telling me are that a lot of women are quite sure that they don't want children in the circumstances in which they are faced with the decision.

"For the people who view the fetus as a human life from conception, that's four times the number of people America lost in all of World War Two being lost each year. That's the source of the emotional entrenchment on the pro-life side."

Granted. The question is whether it's more effective, all things considered, to make abortion illegal, or to make it unnecessary to begin with.

The massive personal costs of having children suggests to me that getting rid of the financial dicinsentives, you make the choice to have a child much more attractive. Incidentally, I seem to recall that the abortion rate is higher among those who describe themselves as "pro-life". I also seem to recall that many pro-life organisations also oppose contraception. Those facts, too, speak to me, and they say that "in the fight against needless abortions, awareness and acceptance of contraception is on the front line".

----

"It's upsetting to think that my country is only getting smaller and smaller while others are getting bigger and bigger."

The US population is rising pretty fast, actually. The demographic changes you mention that are happening are more because of people living longer. Perhaps you should be speaking for euthanasia instead?

Actually, this is an effect of access to contraception (/abortion). Generally speaking, the poorer you are, the less access you have to education on how to use contraceptives safely, the less you can afford to for, the more red tape you may have to go through to get abortions.

----

"I think that there should be a legislative body of women to determine what laws should be enacted concerning abortion"

Agreed. There's a slightly tricky element here in that it also affects transmen. That said, I'm guessing their inclusion in the numbers wouldn't be significant to this particular decision.

"none of my close associates have either"

That you know of...

"It

[Dante]

It is, of course, possible to be pro-choice and anti-life, which seems to be Dante's stance. And anti-life and anti-choice: as in the one-child policy in China. But for us, I think, the pro-life stance is a given, and it's the choice we're debating.

I do love being unusual.

Definition and perspective, I feel like a broken record but it always boils down to these...

The woman may be carrying the child, but the child is not just hers. It may be her life turned upside down and her hormones going spoony, but the tiny person growing inside of her is someone else's child as well, and that person might be a tad upset if they do not wish their child to die. In this case, treating all lives equally, the child should be brought to term. Father + child > mother.

If one treats the mother's priorities as more worthy than the child's or the father's of course, this does not apply. I'm not sure how one could justify nine months of inconvenience against a very permanent death though.

Furthermore, does one count a foetus as a human, or simply a collection of cells that has the potential to be human? And if the latter, when does potential become actual? If something is not human yet, does it have the same rights or interests as a human? Importantly, does it matter?

Personally I find the whole debate tiresome and, considering global overpopulation, rather pointless. I do think that women should have the greater clout when it comes to legislating abortion, but I also believe that while the mother's medical interests take precedence, her personal interests are of equal standing with the father's. I'm pro-choice, and not so much anti-life as extremely life-ambivalent. It's all the same to me whether a baby lives or dies, regardless of development stage. But if I were the parent, I imagine I'd feel a bit differently. And I dislike the thought of someone, anyone taking the choice out of my hands.

In that respect I'm rather fortunate. If I ever decide I'd like a child (...scary thought, no?), it will be possible only through a long and complicated series of legal hoop-jumping and expensive clinic-visiting. The chances of an accidental child, medical problems, or legal questionability are *very* small.

As a side note, I choose not to draw a line between potential and actual humanity at all. At some point a collection of cells becomes a human, and I really don't care when. Emotive phrases like 'defenseless life,' 'tiny person,' 'human baby' even, are used to engender sympathy for something that will have all the higher consciousness of a monkey for at least a year, probably more. And we kill monkeys all the time.

[nemafakei]

"I'm not sure how one could justify nine months of inconvenience"

Mm, intense pain, small risk of death, high risk of infection, in many cases having to deal with it all yourself...

"her personal interests are of equal standing with the father's"

Well, that's all very well in theory, but if you're suggesting that the father should have some right to prevent an abortion, that's a different story. She *has* to deal with it, the father has the option to leave at any time - or just be really useless at helping - at any time. Legal guarantees of maintenance are a long way from reality, and in practice, a mother often need support as well as just the money.

[Dragoon Knight]

I voted in this thread a wee while ago, but couldn't be bothered voicing my full opinion at that time.  Mostly because the options given were far too widely spaced, and none of them accurately represented my views.  So I chose the one that is closest: Only for medical reasons, or in cases of rape or if the mother can't afford to raise a child.

Now, to clarify: I believe that if a woman is raped or has to abort the child for medical reasons (heart weakness, child has extreme disability, etc.), then that's alright.  Life should not be forced upon someone unwillingly, nor should it be at the potential cost of another life.  However, I am of the firm belief that there is a certain degree of responsibility required when it comes to sex.  For heterosexual sex, the risk of pregnancy ever-present, and the aforementioned responsibility lies with both the male and the female.

If both people having sex are consenting adults (and by that, I mean over 18), then they have the responsibility to use contraception if they do not wish to procreate.  Whatever method this comes in, there must be something in place.  Now some countries (the UK included) allow sex at the age of 16, but do not consider people adults until 18.  Other countries differ, too - I'll come to that later.  But if adults do not have the sense or foresight to use contraception, then they must deal with the consequences.

They should be given options, with stresses on alternatives to abortion.  You don't want the child?  How about adoption?  Childbirth may not be a bed of roses, but it's your own damned fault.  You knew the risks and you paid no attention to them.

Or perhaps you did, and the condom broke?  Or the pill didn't work, or you were out of your face on alcohol, or some other reason where you weren't able to control the situation - sure, abortion should be an option here as well.  But again, it should not be treated lightly and certainly not to the extent that some women do.

Now, as for the under-18's (i.e. non-adults) that become pregnant - I believe that abortion should be recommended in these situations.  It is a rare case when a teen pregnancy is wanted, even rarer that the family can handle such a burden.  Again, offer adoption as a possibility, but teenage girls aren't always physically ready for pregnancy, mentally or physically.

So you can see where my stances differ depending on the situation.  I believe that abortion should be dealt with much differently than perhaps a lot of others.  For example, adults who choose to abort their child (i.e. in the "own damned fault" scenario) should be made to fill in birth and death certificates for their child, naming him/her.  I won't be as macabre as to suggest they should see their own fetus, but definitely view pictures of aborted children before making their mind up about what they're doing.

That about sums up my views on abortion.  In case you're wondering, I'd probably say I'm more Pro-Life than Pro-Choice, but I'm not extreme either way.  There has to be flexibility in legislation like this - there should never be a set rule that says yes or no.

[Dante]

"I'm not sure how one could justify nine months of inconvenience"

Mm, intense pain, small risk of death, high risk of infection, in many cases having to deal with it all yourself...

"her personal interests are of equal standing with the father's"

Well, that's all very well in theory, but if you're suggesting that the father should have some right to prevent an abortion, that's a different story. She *has* to deal with it, the father has the option to leave at any time - or just be really useless at helping - at any time. Legal guarantees of maintenance are a long way from reality, and in practice, a mother often need support as well as just the money.

This is true, but largely qualitative. There are many shades of grey, and problems are not always without solutions.

Death, on the other hand, is rather quantitative. And once it's done, it's done for good.

And the inconveniece is bad, but when compared to death it does pale somewhat.

Of course one could argue, and not without justification, that one baby is much like another and that aborting one does not preclude the possibility of having another. This is treating lives as transient of course, or put another way treating foetuses as objects. I have no problem with either of those things.

But again, a parent might.

Dragoon seems to be using qualitative distinctions as well. I'm afraid they're only so much quibbling over semantics to me.

[chatfsh]

I agree somewhat with what Dragoon Knight suggested.  If one decides to have an abortion where there are no medical issues and rape is not involved, there should be some consequences associated with the decision, particularly if it

[Wolf]

Dragoon has a lot of good points, I also agree. But I also want to address the fact that I think the morality of abortion shouldn't be the question we're looking at... I think we should be looking at the reality of why/how abortion is practiced and tailor laws to suit it. I think that, as things stand, abortion is performed all too often, for all too unimpressive reasons. The rape/incest/medical reasons really do occupy about 1% of the abortions performed today, of the rest, there are well over a million. To me, that says that abortion is something that is not taken as seriously as it should be, and we should legislate in response. I think a woman should demonstrate that she has a reasonable need for wanting to have an abortion, to a court, a lawyer, or some other official entity, and then, if that entity finds that she has correctly demonstrated her need, then she can have one. This would mean that a woman can have an abortion for almost whatever she wants (economic means, psychological needs, anything), so long as she can show that the cause reasonably justifies an abortion, and it means that frivolous abortions cannot be performed. To me, its the best of both worlds. You're giving women more power to choose when/why they can have abortions, but you allow the state to intervene and you put a layer of control and discourse involved, so as to make sure that things don't get out of hand.

[Anathema]

I voted for any reason in first trimester. And additionally, at any time in case of danger for the mother.

Frankly I'd prefer to live in a world where sex education reaches everyone, and women can be held responsible for getting pregnant in the first place. I.e. if you're stupid enough to have (voluntary) sex without using a contraceptive of some kind, no abortion for you.

The reality is that even a good sex ed program won't reach everybody. Kids skip classes, don't pay attention or even start having copulating before the age that sex ed is taught (Britain's youngest mother is 12, or so I've heard)

Besides, even a grown woman can forget to take her contraception pill for a day. A condom, a spiral implant (don't know the exact translation) or even a contraception pill in a slight number of cases can be inneffective. But being able to prove that to whowever decides who can or cannot have an abortion is another matter.

So limiting it to health cases or more generally to the first trimester seems like a good compromise.

[nemafakei]

"I think we should be looking at the reality of why/how abortion is practiced"

Yep.

"and tailor laws to suit it"

AND look for solutions beyond just the law.

"I think a woman should demonstrate that she has a reasonable need for wanting to have an abortion, to a court, a lawyer, or some other official entity, and then, if that entity finds that she has correctly demonstrated her need"

Won't work. Richer women who can afford lawyers to either represent them or write their case for them, more assertive women who are better able to make the case, will generally have the freedom to do what they want, while poorer women, less assertive women, and those who fail to guess precisely what information this mysterious panel will and won't accept will more likely be forced to carry to term by whatever bureaucratic body decides. Many will be forced to carry because the application took too long to process, or they'll have to use more dangerous methods. The bureaucracy will be costly and in practice it'll either be an ineffective rubber-stamping body or it'll be a deeply hypocritical and inconsistent in how it applies its standards. That will become the new reality of how abortion is practiced and I don't think that's something we should be tailoring the law to create.

Also, does anyone here actually know someone who treats abortion lightly?

"If one decides to have an abortion where there are no medical issues and rape is not involved, there should be some consequences associated with the decision"

OK, onto the rape question. It is intimidating to be asked if you've been raped, especially if you have been raped, or if you're in a partly abusive relationship. Many people never admit to it. If you were raped but haven't come to terms with it, let alone dealt with it, then forcing the question so early on (as rape abortions are generally early), it can be pretty devastating from a psychological point of view. Thus, any abortion policy that doesn't apply in the case of rape is in practice going to affect women who have been raped but can't bring themselves to admit it, and it's also going to be traumatic for many others.

(And before someone comes out with it, that reluctance is not the problem of the rape survivor. It's a social stigma.)

As to this "consequences" business, I'd like to point out that it's always the woman who's going to be suffering the consequences, and never the man.  Generally the latter is just as responsible!

"For example, adults who choose to abort their child (i.e. in the "own damned fault" scenario) should be made to fill in birth and death certificates for their child, naming him/her."

You wouldn't do that for a miscarriage, so doing it for an abortion seems a little morbid. I don't see why the state should spend time and money on intimidating women. In reality, this will only make women who have little choice feel worse about themselves; I can't see it putting off the "frivolous aborters". Same with the pictures.

-----

"women can be held responsible for getting pregnant in the first place"

And men for getting them pregnant.

"a spiral implant"

Intra-Uterine Device or IUD is the name of the thing, though 'coil' is another term used.

[Dante]

"women can be held responsible for getting pregnant in the first place"

And men for getting them pregnant.

It may not be important, but this hints at an issue that was already touched on above. That is that men and women are of equal culpability when it comes to pregnancy (which I agree with), but while men bear equal responsibility, fathers do not seem to have the same rights regarding a child as the mother.

This seems unfair to me. Granted it is the woman who has to undergo childbirth, which is no picnic by any means, but we are talking about killing someone's son or daughter here. Is nine months of inconvenience of equal value to even a single life?

I love playing my own devil's advocate.

Edit: the pro life ads at the bottom of this page are now hilarious.

[Andrew]

Edit: the pro life ads at the bottom of this page are now hilarious.

Odd I thought Gob disabled ads for forum members.

[nemafakei]

I'm getting cutlery ads.

"That is that men and women are of equal culpability when it comes to pregnancy (which I agree with), but while men bear equal responsibility, fathers do not seem to have the same rights regarding a child as the mother."

Ok, both are supposed to be equally responsible for providing for a child once it's born - that's the culpability - and both should have equal rights with regard to access in the case of, e.g. separation - that's the rights part. How well that's done is one issue. A separate issue, what we're dealing with here, is rights over an embryo/foetus, which is a potential danger to whichever parent is carrying them. The parent who would have to undergo the risk of childbirth must be the ones making the decision. For the parent who does not have the risk to have not only rights with regard to the embryo/foetus, but also what amounts to power over the other parent does not strike me as 'fair'.

[chatfsh]

Bravo, Nema! Simply bravo! 

You really seem to get it. 

More to come later, just wanted to say that for now. :)

[Dante]

Maybe I'm putting too much faith in modern medicine, but while childbirth still carries some inherent risks, describing it as dangerous seems a little too far. Painful, inconvenient, humiliating, expensive, potentially risky and psychologically traumatic, but for the vast majority: not dangerous.

What I meant about equal responsibility is that if a woman gets pregnant, it is not just her fault. It's the father's fault as well. And in the case of a child brought to term, as pointed out, a father is expected to provide care.

However, it is the woman who holds ultimate control in cases of abortion.

"For the parent who does not have the risk to have not only rights with regard to the embryo/foetus, but also what amounts to power over the other parent does not strike me as 'fair'."

Neither is it fair for the mother to carry a baby to term when the father wants an abortion, thus dooming him to spending the rest of his life caring for a child that he did not want and in all probability will fiercely resent. This is also holding power over the other parent, and while there is no risk factor involved, there is a lifetime of writing cheques.