For years, certain feminist organizations have been upset to note that support for abortion-on-demand as a no-questions-asked absolute civil right is not particularly prevalent among women generally. Worse, the younger women are, the less likely they are to view it that way. This particularly irks feminists who believed that, somehow, all those nasty reactionary pro-life women (who typically make up the majority of the crowds at pro-life rallies, by the way) would die off while the young hip women, freed from the bondage of patriarchal oppression, would see the "real truth." Unfortunately, it ain't happening: the younger a woman is, the more likely she is to consider herself pro-life, and bumper-sticker catch-phrases like "a woman's right to choose" and "women's health issues" aren't working the same magic they used to, either in opinion polls or in the voting booth.
A new survey by a (pro-choice) advocacy group now shows that the trend has finally reached the point where a small majority of women now consider themselves pro-life. The center says they aren't exactly happy about the results but they're honest enough to be willing to publish them anyway.
I'd like to see more of the survey data on that, because I'll bet it also shows another well-hidden secret: most polls show that the most reliably pro-choice group in America is men. Particularly men aged 18 to 35. Which also blows away the rabidly hateful and hurtful rhetoric of certain people, who use the tired, cliched, "men are trying to control women's bodies!" rhetoric at the drop of a hat. No, my friends, young men are quite the most reliably pro-choice crowd in America.
You libertarians might want to keep all that in mind when arguing about this in the future: the old platitudes just don't describe the various sides of this debate honestly. Also, since there are plenty of atheist and non-religious pro-lifers, I would really like to see my fellow pro-choicers become classy enough to stop posturing about "separation of church and state" and such. Yes, many religious people (mostly women--if you don't believe it, just go to any pro-life rally) are involved in the pro-life movement, just as many religious people were involved in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Which was every bit as legitimate then as it is now. That doesn't make it about "imposing religion on others," any more than religious people being involved in AIDS treatment advocacy are "imposing their religion on others."
By the way, for anyone who cares, I really am pro-choice. Just like most men. However, I think this article goes a long way toward explaining why most young people don't see the abortion issue in black and white terms, and likely never will. The radical pro-choice crowd is shrinking, not growing, and it's certainly not because evil fundamentalist religious types are taking over the country, or because men are trying to put women "back in the kitchen"--although some anti-Christian and misandrist bigots would like you to believe that.
I think continual advances in medical technology, including an entire generation of new fetal surgery techniques, will continue to humanize fetuses to the point that the pro-life/pro-choice distinction will become completely muddled. Instead, I think the majority of people will start calling themselves "pro-life with exceptions for X."
After all, how many people who call themselves pro-choice right now would be in favor of banning late term abortions? In the future, they'll call themselves "pro-life after the first trimester."
Matthew, I think you're right.
You really want to get an argument started. Admit that you are, like me, pro-choice but anti-Roe vs Wade. Its an extremely good way of getting it in the shorts from both sides.
I'm pro-choice in this sense: people make a choice when they have unprotected sex (realizing that there are instances of rape and incest where that is not the case). When another human being gets involved, the choice is mitigated. It's no longer a woman's right to choose what to do with "her" body, but with her body and someone else's.
Not to mention the thorny question of why the father doesn't have any say in the matter. It's not all *her* dna in that lump of growing human, after all.
And yes, new ultrasound technology is really amazing, especiallly the 3D stuff. Anti-abortion pregnancy centers report consistently that the number of women who choose abortion declines dramatically if they see the ultrasound first.
An excellent post Dean, and a good comment by bryan. As a former president of a Right to Life group the issue to me is very black and white. The choice IS before conception. During my more active years in the cause and in discussions with younger men, I found them to be verbally pro-choice but in beliefs pro-life. Many younger men will say "it's not my body" and have a misconception that the majority of younger women are pro-choice - so why make waves. All in all I think many men just do not want to be "dragged" into the foray. It's a shame because their voice needs to be heard...I think the ones who follow the polls then would really be shocked.
I have had the experience of seeing my son Jacob moving around in his mother's womb, and hearing his heartbeat at the same time.
I deeply, deeply, DEEPLY resent people who tell me I have no right to an opinion on this matter because I "just can't understand what it's like," or who suggest that I'm some sort of frothing fundamentalist fascist simply because I am unwilling to make a religious issue out of "a woman's right to choose."
And by the way, for those of you who make "a woman's right to choose" your formulation for all that is right an djust in the world? Thank you so very much for marginalizing the fathers of the world so callously. We all appreciate that. No really, we do. We can't get pregnant, so what we think is utterly irrelevant, right? We matter not a whit. We're really, seriously, glad to know you think so little of us. It makes us feel very special.
Yes, I'm pro-choice. But I am utterly sick of the notion that I have no right to an opionion on this matter.
i care how you feel. it's good to know why so many YOUNG men say they are pro-choice, but so many young women (myself included) are pro-life. my generation of women are becoming more "traditionalist" too. with the women staying home with the kids and such. it's like we've all got the "Alex P Keaton" syndrome. the only way to rebel against our Happy moms is to become conservative.
it should be Hippy. Hippy moms
As the father of three grown daughters, I favor post-partum abortion up to the age of 18. Think how much more peaceful parents' lives could be.
Dean - what a thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I am one of those "pro-choice with exceptions for X, Y, and Z" people. While I am fundamentally libertarian and have a hard time with legislation on this issue at *all*, the idea of partial-birth abortion is repellent to me. Late-term abortion, to me, is only acceptable when the life of the mom is at risk. Personally? Wouldn't have an abortion, period. But I have a really, really hard time with the idea of legislating against abortion (likewise, I have issues with Roe v. Wade).
Anyway - great post. I'm really glad to hear men stand up for themselves on this side of the issue. After all, it does take two to tango.
Dean, I don't know if you caught this, but Barbara Bush was on Larry King Live the other night, and Larry asked her about her "controversial" pro-choice position.
Bush said that she supported abortion rights for the first trimester, but believed in banning late-term abortions and also favored requiring parental consent for minors. Is this a deviation from a pro-choice position? Yes. Is Bush's belief consistent with the beliefs of the pro-choice movement? Absolutely not.
The reason why the movement is so bloody unpopular among thoughtful young people is that the activists favor abortion for whatever reason and at any time up to the point of birth. (Or after the point of birth in the case of Peter Singer.) They oppose widely supported measures like notification, counseling, the D&X ban, and legal protections for the fetus in criminal cases.
That these measures are supported by a public that keeps abortion legal is not a contradiction, but rather, a reflection of the public's understanding that abortion is not a fundamental right. Instead, the public endorses "safe, legal, and rare" abortions (to borrow the Clinton phrase) as a compromise between two competing fundamental rights -- the fetus' right to life and the woman's right to liberty.
With this as the public mindset, it's not hard to see why, in addition to the technological trends mentioned above, more and more women choose to identify with the pro-life position when they see self-proclaimed pro-choice activists zealously opposing any and all restrictions on abortion.
Just seems like another elitist vs. populist issue to me. Many people just can't wrap their minds around the idea the the people most likely to make a responsible decision are those who are personally, directly affected by that decision.
"But they might make the wrong choice!"
Yeah, because communist and socialist nations have amply demonstrated that central control of decision making leads to dynamic, progressive societies.
Or not.
Most women disagree with you, Owen, because they are elitists?
Many tell people they can't beat their children to the point of bleeding or breaking bones, Owen. Is that because they believe in central control of decision making, and don't trust parents to make the right choices?
I'm really tired of the people on my side of this debate generalizing so irresponsibly about pro-lifers, dehumanizing their arguments in such a demeaning fashion. Maybe that has something to do with being married to a pro-life woman?
Here's the link to the full story, including the actual questions used in the poll, their methods, and the trends over time:
http://www.advancewomen.org/womens_research/PartOne.pdf
I am against abortion on demand but for what may seem to some a rather bizarre reason...
Let me clarify my position.
As a medical procedure, when subjected to medical judgement (life of the mother is in danger) there is no question in my mind that an abortion is the correct procedure.
But... and this is a very large but...
This is not the equivalent of cosmetic surgery. Someone wants to get a facelift, it's no skin off any else's nose... you don't like the inconvience of having six fingers on your left hand, by all means, have that extra finger removed.
Your hand, your choice and no one else should have a say in the matter.
That lump of meat in your womb is not totally you (or yours)though. Someone contributed a part of it's genetic material and has a stake in it living or dying. You can court order a genetic test for the suspected sperm donor and, if there is a match, the court will require monetary contributions from him for 18 to 25 years. That is one hell of a lot of inconvience.
So, I think that in the interest of fairness to all, all sperm donors should be allowed the right to a financial abortion. If the mother has a right to abort a fetus for her convience, the sperm donor should be afforded the same right.
Within some set period of time after a positive pregnancy test, the mother would be required to decide whether to keep or abort it. Then, if the decision is to keep it, she would be required to inform the sperm donor so he could make a decision on whether or not he wanted to support a child. He would then have the right of refusal.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
He is barred from any control over the decision on abort/no abort, she is barred from any control over the decision about his financial future.
What about the children?
The villiage will take care of them...
btw. I am not a Christian, rabid, conservative or otherwise. Taoism is the only ism for me.
I favor abortion with no restrictions, writing as a father of three sons and a daughter, and husband of a woman who is both by partner and my wife.
To my mind, there is no "right to life" that I am bound to respect, other than as defined and supported by the United States Constitution, and I regard human life as that which begins only at birth. Therefore, I afford no more status to the concept of the "unborn" than I do for that of the "undead".
How could it be otherwise for me? If I would with equanimity put to death a criminal convicted of first-degree murder by a court of the United States -- and I surely do just that -- then how could I show greater concern for acquiesence in the termination of a pregnancy that is tormenting the life and rights of woman who is bearing it?
In any case, the ubiquitous and growing availability of Mifepristone (RU-486) and probably other chemical compounds that can safely by ingested by women to abort a pregnancy, all adds up to an argument that will be won in the privacy of one's bathroom by hundreds of million of women. These women will never allow their basic rights to be dictated by the Roman Catholic Church and its priesthood of sexual perverts. Nor by any other Christian "believers" and those who purport to speak for them.
And if it ever comes down to it, and these rights shall be stripped from American women, and should my daughter so require it, then I will gladly pay her round-trip airfare to and from a yet-civilized country where the fundamental right to an abortion is guaranteed. Catholic Spain, for example. Not only is the weather there fine, but I am informed there are numerous abortion clinics openly operating there. regardless of what I imagine are the screechings of their priests.
If you want to put it in these terms, then long live liberty, and if necessary, long live death.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Most pro-lifers are not Catholic, and countless numbers of them are not even particularly religious. Some are atheists.
Couching this in religious terms has long struck me as a good way for my fellow pro-choicers to avoid addressing the issue head on. The tactic doesn't seem to be working though: they're still losing the hearts and minds of countless women.
Perhaps more rational discourse would be in order, rather than angrily fulminating about religion and how the people who disagree with us are unthinking barbarians and closet fascists?
Dean,
You may well be right about a large percentage of anti-abortion opinion stemming from non-religious or athiests.
But the last time I tried to join in one of your extended dialogues between Christians and homosexuals, you excluded me because I am neither, leaving me feeling all the more peevish about both.
If religion so strongly affects one's opinion about homosexuality as alternately a fun thing or an outright perversion, why shouldn't religion play as large a role in the argument over abortion. If I believed that there was such an entity as "soul" -- and note that I use subjunctive tense because I believe in no such concept -- and if I therefore believed that a fetus has a soul from the very moment it is conceived, then what justification could I have for this belief other than religion?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Well on that particular thread I did specifically ask that only gays and Christians be part of the discussion, and asked others to be silent. I had to nuke a few comments from people who didn't get the message. My house, my rules. But I am certainly not in the habit of deleting messages otherwise, unless a person is engaging in ad hominem attacks or obviously trollish behavior.
Open dialog is generally treasured here, as I think you know.
Dean,
Thank you for your unequivocal answer, which are the only ones I truly respect.
Now it would please me to get another unequivocal answer; this one, to the question about religious belief -- especially belief in the concept of an immortal soul -- and all questions pertaining to abortion.
If you believe in such a concept, and if you further believe a fetus has a soul from the time of its fertilization, then how can you in good conscience destroy that fetus, either purposely through any variant of abortion, or through neglectful behavior in regard to its care?
If you or anyone else believes in this stuff, then how can you favor choice in matters of abortion? I do not so believe, and therefore I have no ethical problems in regard to destroying a fetus. Can some of you say the same?
I ask some of you to address this question truthfully and direct, or explain why you cannot do so.
"If there is a soul, and if it is immortal, and if each fetus has one from conception, then how can you ethically destroy it?"
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Mr. Harris, you state a number of "by fiat" terms that define your arrogant reasons for support for the right to abortion that are no better than those you deride among the "perverted priests" and "believers." You must be a "bright."
For instance, you state: " I regard human life as that which begins only at birth." Why? A baby *can* live outside the mother's womb at six weeks (and sometimes longer) before full gestation. At this point, the only thing dividing the "fetus" from the "baby" is the short trip through a birth canal and a snip of the umbilical cord. And what of those who enter the air via caesarean section? Does that count as "birth."
Your distinction of "human life" as beginning at birth is arbitrary and ignorant of scientific reality.
Likewise your simplistic attempt to equate the death penalty to abortion here: "How could it be otherwise for me? If I would with equanimity put to death a criminal convicted of first-degree murder by a court of the United States -- and I surely do just that -- then how could I show greater concern for acquiesence in the termination of a pregnancy that is tormenting the life and rights of woman who is bearing it?"
Simple, the baby growing in the woman's womb is innocent of any crime. Unless being the offspring of two people who disregard the potential consequences of their lust is considered a crime.
Such callous disregard for life: "tormenting the life and rights of woman who is bearing it?"
So now this growing human life is the equivalent of a murderer, or a sadistic tormenter who must be put to death to spare the mother from more "torment." Will the abortion itself alleviate that torment? Care to wonder how many women suffer from post-abortion regret for their decision even years later?
Honestly, "enlightened" folks like you frighten me.
I was born in 1968. I know for a fact that I was an accident, and that my parents were on the verge of divorce when I was born. If I had "happened" five years later, it is very likely that I wouldn't be here now. Abortion is very personal to me, even though I am a male.
Well honestly, I am not sure I see why the question of the soul enters into it.
Not all Christians even believe in souls--some believe that nothing exists outside the physical body, and that the whole miracle of Christianity is the promise of "resurrection of the body."
That's a very specific belief of countless Christians: not some airy-fairy ghostly heaven in the sky, but the notion that we very physical humans simply die, but if we believe that Christ is God's son, then on the day of judgement our bodies will be brought back from the dead, and we will be physically immortal. Not spirits in the sky: physically brought back to life. You will find that very concept in the Apostle's Creed which countless Christians recite: "I believe in the holy ghost, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." (Note that in saying "Catholic," most of them simply mean "Universal"--Presbyterians, Anglicans, and many others say those same words even though they aren't Roman Catholics.)
Mind you, I'm on record: I don't believe this. I'm sorry to my Christian friends and loved ones, but I just don't. Indeed, it strikes me as an awfully callous, even childish God, who puts the onerous burden of my ability to accept a concept on His willingness to offer me immortality. Especially a God that plans to torture me for eternity if I don't accept the intellectual premise of Jesus' paternity.
But hey: it's a difference between us. I accept that they believe what they do, and since most of them are good people, I'm not in the business of telling them they're all a bunch of stupid jerks. Hey, maybe I'm wrong, and God plans to torture me forever because I found this whole, "some guy in Israel got up out of the grave 2,000 years ago because this book here says it" hard to swallow. Okay, then I'll be tortured, along with many of my loved ones. That sucks, and makes me believe that God is evil, but hey: live and let live until then.
Hell, if I were to take certain Christian concepts seriously enough, I might suggest that abortion is a merciful concept. Baptize the infant while it's in its mother's womb, then abort it, so it could be assured eternal life. After all, it would be baptized, clearing away the Original Sins of Adam and Eve, then it dies before it has any chance to commit sins that would send it to eternal torment in Hell. So really, shouldn't a Christian, if he were truly caring, advocate baptizing the baby while it's in the womb, and then killing it before it could be born, so it would be assured a place in the afterlife?
Am I being provocative? Not really. Seems to me that these questions are as implicit in the faith as anything else. Christians who oppose abortion aren't opposing it because they believe the baby has a soul per se. They're opposing it because their faith says they have a duty to oppose killing innocents.
Well shit Arnold, I've got a problem with killing innocents too.
Notably, not all Christians are even opposed to abortion. Indeed, many on the Religious Left are quite firm on their pro-choice stance on abortion. So really, why should any of this enter into it? The bottom line is that some people think there's something kicking and moving and alive inside that girl, and that casually snuffing it out goes beyond questions of "personal choice" because it involves more than one human being. They didn't tell her who she could fuck or not fuck, they're just worried because they think a third somebody got made in the process. And I really don't see how religion enters into that process for most, except that their religion says they have to protect the innocent. Well I'm all for that.
So why can't we concentrate on the practical matter, instead of making this whole thing into the "godfearing vs. the skeptics" or whatnot?
Pregnancy is by definition an enslavement which takes the female hostage to a construct; without the female, nothing else will sustain the growth of a fetus. That said, in this country, any woman will always be free to continue the pregnancy/bondage.
However, to take away the right of a woman to free herself from this bondage/enslavement, free, also, from governmental enforcement of the continuation of that bondage against her wishes is wrong. Any woman who chooses to continue the pregnancy faces NO obstacles. Any woman who, for a myriad of valid reasons, opts to be free from enslavement must retain that right.
Why do I reiterate this, again and again. These are blunt facts, totally unrelated to any emotion, faith, or any other thing philosophical. The law should ONLY deal with factual things, not intellectual, emotional, or non-factual matters in this regard.
Dean, your point is completely lost on me unless you can show me somebody who actually believes that child-maiming is a complex subject that may be justified in some circumstances and that reasonable people can disagree on.
Though I admit I could have been less disrespectful. Sorry about that.
Fact- Dean, you have every right to have a position in this matter. You go forth having your right to have opinion
You are a father, a son, a brother. Even more so for seeing your son Jacob with his beating heart in your wifes womb.
I know you must have come in on the side of pro-choice after considerable thought in this matter.
Your wife Rosemary is pro-life and what is important here is when your children grow up and maybe one of them is facing an unplanned pregnancy, both you & Rosemary will be of great value to your children in that most intimate decision.
I believe it is very personal and agree that religion is brought into this in a public debate. Why shouldn't it be. It depends on how we were raised and that is why I believe it is important to those that take a religious view.
We are a diverse nation and each religion has it's beliefs.
Each of us have individual morals and rights. I have grown children that I believe have strong morals and know they have their opinions and I respect either side they are on. I would give them my thoughts on it but never a judgement.
Back to you and your opinion. I am glad that you are giving yours and it is there that I respect you.
It would probably help a man and woman if religion was cast aside but, that is a truth that it will always have it's opinion.
I had an interesting conversation earlier today with my son Max Harris, who is a well-read and active affiliate of the objective society in the local University of Wisconsin community in Madison, on the topic of homosexual marriages and the degree of equality of their recognition under vis-a-vis marriages involving one man and one woman.
Max, knowing that I am on record in opposition to recognition of homosexual marriages, asked me:
"Why should government have any role whatsoever in the business of marriage?" My immediate thought was about tax considerations, and I told him this. His response:
"Why should taxes be rendered or tax breaks be given to anyone based on marital status?"
I thought these question were interesting, which is the way I characterize any question for which I have not previously researched a reasonable answer. It could make some sense on a number of grounds. Example: Is the purpose of the taxation to raise revenue for necessary governmental expenditures, or to push social policy in one direction or another?
Because I regard religion as a perversion of the human mind, I am not interested in so-called sanctification of marriage. Because I regard homosexuality as a perversion of the human sexual functions, I think it disgusting, with or without a longterm relationship. But it is not my place to interfere with any consenting relationship that involves neither me nor members of my immediate family.
Perhaps this does not reverse what I wrote earlier, but it may redefine the issue to some degree.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
"Objectivist society", not "objective society".
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Wow, a debate about abortion and from what I can count, only one fanatic has shown up...terrific to see people discussing this issue in a civilised manner.
My view on the initial subject matter of this debate is that you can divvy people up four ways: anti-abortion, pro-life, pro-choice and pro-abortion - on both ends you get a strong tendency to fanaticism (though the worst fanaticism is on the pro-abortion side). I am pro-life - life, to me, is entirely to precious to be wantonly destroyed and if we are to err, we should always err on the side of letting a person live - even if the person is yet unborn. In my view, the more reasonable pro-life and pro-choice people should be working together to grab back the debate from the fanatics.
The worst thing that ever happened politically in the United States was the Roe decision - aside from being a constitutional abomination, it also turned what was a mildly contentious issue into a Frankenstein's monster...this is what one gets when one tries to cut to the chase in a democratic society; political fireworks. Things like this can only be decided by consensus. Right now, the consensus is that abortion should be legal, but have varied restrictions placed upon it (namely a ban on late-term abortions and parental notification for minors seeking an abortion) - perhaps (and I hope) one day we'll have a consenus that abortion should only be allowed to save a mothers life...but if I were to try to get a SC decision making this happen then I'd only be doing a reverse Roe and I'd still have the same contentious political problem.
MommaBear:
Pregnancy is by no means an "enslavement," except possibly in the case of rape. Slavery involves forcing someone to perform a task against his or her free will.
The existence of a slave implies the existence of a master. In your mind, who is this master, who by mission of action denied the pregnant woman her right not to conceive?
The fact that a female is (at this technological juncture) necessary to sustain the growth of the fetus has nothing to do with slavery.
"I'm pro-choice in this sense: people make a choice when they have unprotected sex (realizing that there are instances of rape and incest where that is not the case). "
There still need to be much better and less intrusive birth control options. Many many people are allergic to spermacides and latex and have bad physical reactions to the pill.
If the medical industry paid 1/10 as much attention to birth control as to viagra, the abortion rate would drop considerably. Not to mention the scandal that health insurance plans readily paid for viagra the minute it became commerically available and some still do not pay for birth control.
That being said, being pregnant is no piece of cake. The guy doesn't get pregnant. It's like mandating that someone donate an organ to you. In a free society, even if you are genetically related, even if the operation would save your life, you can't force another person to undergo a physically life-changing procedure for you.
The best way to reduce abortion is to improve birth control so that it is as transparent as possible. No woman says "I'm going to get preganant so I can have an abortion."
"I was born in 1968. I know for a fact that I was an accident, and that my parents were on the verge of divorce when I was born. If I had "happened" five years later, it is very likely that I wouldn't be here now. Abortion is very personal to me, even though I am a male."
This type of argument is ridiculous. If you were never born you would not be around to know or having feelings about not being born. There are much better anti-abortion arguments to be made.
"The existence of a slave implies the existence of a master. In your mind, who is this master, who by mission of action denied the pregnant woman her right not to conceive?"
The society that makes it impossible for her to reverse her condition of slavery by denying her the means to reverse it.
Mommabear wrote: Pregnancy is by definition an enslavement which takes the female hostage to a construct... [...] These are blunt facts, totally unrelated to any emotion, faith, or any other thing philosophical. The law should ONLY deal with factual things, not intellectual, emotional, or non-factual matters in this regard.
What's wrong with this picture?
ACD
I've always been torn on this issue. I'm pro-life, in that I believe that people should not use abortion as delayed birth control. I'm pro-choice, in that I don't think abortion is the business of the federal government. I'm practical in that I think some abortions are for medically valid reasons (danger to the mother), and I'm cautiously in favor af allowing abortion "on-demand" because frankly, sometimes it is the lesser of two evils (rape & incest are two good examples.)
I cannot countenance late-term abortions for any reason other than medical danger-- it's just absurd that D&X can be performed in the same hospital where they are fighting to save a preemie of the same age. There's just something deeply wrong about that. Likewise, abortion should not be treated as minor surgery, but as something fairly serious.
I think the best counter to abortion is, as stated above, good sex-ed and contraceptive education (including NFP, which is *not* the rhythm method but instead a measurement of the body's fertility.) An educated person tend to make better decisions-- that is, IF they've been educated about the proper things...
"The existence of a slave implies the existence of a master. In your mind, who is this master, who by mission of action denied the pregnant woman her right not to conceive?"
"The society that makes it impossible for her to reverse her condition of slavery by denying her the means to reverse it."
That just doesn't work, logically. If someone chooses a condition by mission of action, that person is not a slave. The most sympathetic characterization you could claim is that the person is an "indentured servant."
Think further about what you're saying. A parent's obligation to a child hugely outlasts the child's gestation period. Is any adult justified in relieving him- or herself from child support payments, soccer practices and interminable laundry disasters with the careful application of a 9mm slug?
Unless you subscribe to Arnold's casually arbitrary theory of juxtapositional humanhood (can you see the SNL skit? "Fetus . . . baby . . . fetus . . . baby . . . ") you have to struggle with the legitimate and competing interests of two human beings.
If there were easy answers, we would have found them already.
As an unmarried mael, some may feel I should not even formulate an opinion on this matter, and I will admit that the position I hold is not an absoultist one. But I was raised with four older sisters by a liberally-minded Republican mother, and I can remember that a woman in the neighborhood who supported herself and her three children by different fathers (done deliberately by her, after careful consideration) was admired in private (though in public just ignored: this was the mid-fifties), so I have had some exposure to such questions.
So.
I seem to be largely in agreement with Mrs. Bush, as her stance has been reported, in thinking that first-trimester abortion should be a matter of (hopefully informed) personal choice. Third-trimester abortion should be a medical decision of danger to mother/fetus. Second-trimester... each case is probably near-unique, so I have only a morass of unarticulated feelings (think train wreck).
It seems to be that first-trimester stance that causes the most difficulty, despite the hype about third-trimester: while limited, my acquaintances both anti-abortion-at-any-time and pro-choice agree that third-trimester should not be simply on-demand. First, though, rapidly degenerates into emotional name-calling. Strip away those emotions, and as far as I can see what remains is the anti-abortion group saying that at conception there exists a life that has the capability of becoming an adult human and should be protected as a child while pro-abortion group says a child can exist on its own while a blastomere cannot but must exist as a parasite. My own, as already stated, is pro-choice here: the fertilized egg is not the only cell of which that potential can be said, even if our current knowledge does not extend to other totipotent cells. Yes, folks, the infamous "slippery slope" shows its horrid self. I simply do not think that a cell whose genetic makeup includes pieces from more than one donor is thus more special than a cell with pieces from a single donor. That is an opinion, same as its obverse. It may not in truth qualify as an argument, but if not neither does the other. Come to that, I read some time back that there are at least six acknowledged cases in the last two hundred years of what may loosely be called "virgin birth", at least in the sense that a women's egg was apparently accidently fertilized by another of her eggs rather than a sperm. Given this possibility, should menstruation be illegal? Far-fetched, sure, but it fits.
I've read all the posts but no one here has said they have had an abortion. So i thought i'd give my two cents.
I had an abortion in 1997 at 6 weeks. I was a college senior working part time with enough money for rent. I was getting drunk at least 3 times a week. My nutrition was terrible and having dizzy spells from my poor eating habits (lack of protein). I had unprotected sex with my boyfriend once!
If I couldn't support myself, how could I support someone else? Welfare was not an option nor was running to my family. I knew I had already exposed the fetus to multiple birth defects, which have a lifetime of repercussions, from the alcohol and poor diet. How fair is it to bring into the world a child that I couldn't support and already endangered. To me, it would of been selfish choice to continue with the pregnancy.
Over the years, I've thought about it. If I could do everything over and had to choose again, I'd still choose the abortion. Had there been the "Morning After Pill" at the time, I would of gotten it and prevented the whole "choice". I think Morning After Pill should be ready available to every women with a doctors or nurses supervision.
I agree with Dean that the religious angle is overblown. The whole thing can be quite simplified:
Is the baby human?
If no, what is it?
If yes, when is it okay to kill innocent humans?
Answers will vary, but I think this approach gets to the point.
Abortion is murder. You will have to give an account to God if you have an abortion. God will forgive a person who has had an abortion but you have to repent. Its not birth control it's taking a life of a child that God created. It's not just a blob of tissue. In psalm 139 God says that he created us and knew us before he created us in the our mothers womb. God has a purpose for the unborn child. If you cant have a baby,for some reason put the baby up for adoption. It's not your right it's Gods creation.
God Bless You
Jesus Loves You and so doI.
Abortion is murder. You will have to give an account to God if you have an abortion. God will forgive a person who has had an abortion but you have to repent. Its not birth control it's taking a life of a child that God created. It's not just a blob of tissue. In psalm 139 God says that he created us and knew us before he created us in the our mothers womb. God has a purpose for the unborn child. If you cant have a baby,for some reason put the baby up for adoption. It's not your right it's Gods creation.
God Bless You
Jesus Loves You and so doI.
Abortion is murder. You will have to give an account to God if you have an abortion. God will forgive a person who has had an abortion but you have to repent. Its not birth control it's taking a life of a child that God created. It's not just a blob of tissue. In psalm 139 God says that he created us and knew us before he created us in the our mothers womb. God has a purpose for the unborn child. If you cant have a baby,for some reason put the baby up for adoption. It's not your right it's Gods creation.
God Bless You
Jesus Loves You and so doI.
Abortion is murder. You will have to give an account to God if you have an abortion. God will forgive a person who has had an abortion but you have to repent. Its not birth control it's taking a life of a child that God created. It's not just a blob of tissue. In psalm 139 God says that he created us and knew us before he created us in the our mothers womb. God has a purpose for the unborn child. If you cant have a baby,for some reason put the baby up for adoption. It's not your right it's Gods creation.
God Bless You
Jesus Loves You and so doI.
I'm not in favor of abortion especially that you already knew that its long time in your womb. But on the hand you can have it but not really I dont called it as abortion if you stop being pregnant doing 1-2 mons. I think that's not we called abortion right?Coz it's just a blood not a fetus.I admitted that I made it to the point of so much scared coz I'm still student here. I took medecine which very familiar to anyone for getting abortion. I dont mean to do it coz my boyfriend want us to be marry sooner. But I can't and I think about for a near future can I have. The problem is now that I'm thinking maybe God don't bless me to have a child later, or side affect of medicine I took coz of what I did. Is it possible? That's why until now I'm still confuse of might happened to me.