[mike777]

gwnn, on Aug 6 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

For example

http://www.thelocal.se/19392/20090512/

What do you think of this?

Of course it might be difficult to determine whether a given abortion was or was not based on gender - is this maybe an argument to make them 100% legal?

(I'm against abortion and death penalty so for me this is a wtp but I wonder what pro choice people think about this.)

I dont see why this should be illegal or say assisted suicide or selling body organs.

A woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body without having to ask a man or having someone force their morals on a woman.

China alone has more than 13 million abortions a year.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/3...ions/index.html

[kenberg]

In the USA, I think the legality is not an issue. As mentioned in the cited article it is possible to determine the sex early on these days. A woman could then just go elsewhere and have an abortion. As far ss I know, she need not provide any reason whatsoever. So the whole thing, here in the US, is a non-starter. With more required health reporting and records, things may be different.

[nigel_k]

Gerben42, on Aug 6 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

I think it is unacceptable to make women prisoners of their own body if they become pregnant against their will. It is extremely arrogant to force your morals upon the woman.

Outlawing abortion forces a woman to give 6-7 months of her time when an innocent person's life depends on it. Taxes force people (mostly men) to give up as much as five years of their time and the government then wastes much of the proceeds.

Neither imposition is justifiable but abortion is much less burdensome than taxes and for much greater gain per hour spent. To be pro-choice and consistent you have to agree that taxes, and therefore government, must be reduced to a fraction of the current size.

[matmat]

nigel_k, on Aug 6 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Aug 6 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

I think it is unacceptable to make women prisoners of their own body if they become pregnant against their will. It is extremely arrogant to force your morals upon the woman.

Outlawing abortion forces a woman to give 6-7 months of her time when an innocent person's life depends on it. Taxes force people (mostly men) to give up as much as five years of their time and the government then wastes much of the proceeds.

Neither imposition is justifiable but abortion is much less burdensome than taxes and for much greater gain per hour spent. To be pro-choice and consistent you have to agree that taxes, and therefore government, must be reduced to a fraction of the current size.

this is a joke, right?

[PassedOut]

nigel_k, on Aug 6 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

To be pro-choice and consistent you have to agree that taxes, and therefore government, must be reduced to a fraction of the current size.

Would you also say that, to be consistent, anti-abortion folks must favor high taxes and big government?

[nigel_k]

PassedOut, on Aug 6 2009, 11:11 PM, said:

Would you also say that, to be consistent, anti-abortion folks must favor high taxes and big government?

You could argue that saving the life of an innocent child is more important than many of the things our taxes are used for. But opposing state-funded healthcare and also opposing abortion is hard to justify.

[OleBerg]

kenberg, on Aug 6 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

It's the poor and the scared that need the law to be on their side here.

As always.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Aug 6 2009, 10:51 PM, said:

Anyway, if suppose a woman has given birth to such a child but then at 10 murdered him/her, it would be clearly wrong, the same applies to if he/she is 1, or 1 day old... So where exactly is the line?

To answer that (other than just by reference to core values or gut feelings) I think I have to ask myself why I consider murder to be wrong. After all, since the World is over-crowded, killing a random person would on average be good for humankind as a whole, wouldn't it?

I think the main reason is that for society to function we need to be able to trust that other people are unlikely to kill us. Otherwise we would have to avoid a lot of interaction with other people because of fear. For a social species like Homo Sapiens that would be impractical.

Another reason is that most people are the loved ones of some other people, so murder tends to make some people sad.

Probably some other reasons could be added. Anyway, having written up those reasons, we can start figuring out how the rule that murder is bad applies to the case where the victim is a very young child, a fetus, a germ cell, a terminal patient in coma, a psychopatic mass murderer on death row, a "vegetable", a domestic dog, a domestic pig, a wild animal etc.

I suspect that AFAIAC the conclusion would likely be that murdering a young adult is worst, murdering a newborn child is much less bad especially if the killer is the mother, and that this is even more true for a fetus.

[OleBerg]

nigel_k, on Aug 7 2009, 06:41 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Aug 6 2009, 11:11 PM, said:

Would you also say that, to be consistent, anti-abortion folks must favor high taxes and big government?

You could argue that saving the life of an innocent child is more important than many of the things our taxes are used for. But opposing state-funded healthcare and also opposing abortion is hard to justify.

Sometimes tax-money is used to save the life of an innocent child.

I know I am in a minority position, but if you actually believe (I do, no kidding) that many tax-money are well-spent, your argument diminishes considerably.

[bid_em_up]

jjbrr, on Aug 6 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Aug 6 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Why require them to have an abortion?

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world.

Because what do you do about 13-16 year olds who decide to "experiment" with their boyfriends and end up pregnant?

I assumed you were referring to adults, not children.

[jjbrr]

bid_em_up, on Aug 7 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Aug 6 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Aug 6 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Why require them to have an abortion?

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world.

Because what do you do about 13-16 year olds who decide to "experiment" with their boyfriends and end up pregnant?

I assumed you were referring to adults, not children.

Touche. Teenagers who get pregnant probably aren't important to this thread, nor relevant to the OP.

In that case, I like your solution.

[Gerben42]

Quote

The group of pro-life people is diverse so this is sort of a straw man. Not everyone who opposes abortion think women must give birth after rape/incest (assuming that's what your first sentence means).

That is one example, yes. You're not really pro-life if you accept that there are situations where the woman can choose abortion, even if giving birth wouldn't endanger her life.

Quote

I think this is complicated, though. Anyway, if suppose a woman has given birth to such a child but then at 10 murdered him/her, it would be clearly wrong, the same applies to if he/she is 1, or 1 day old... So where exactly is the line? Why do you think it is so clear cut? You could say that the fetus is a "part of her body" but I don't think it is a really immediate fact that this distinction is real (just 1 minute before giving birth there are two bodies not one). So if one person thinks terminating the life of a fetus 1 month old should be stopped then one is arrogantly forcing one's morals upon others, but if someone else thinks terminating the life of a human 1 month old should be stopped, he/she represents good, solid moral grounds.

I mean exactly what I wrote. There is a boundary somewhere, but it should be after the point where the women knows that she is pregnant. For reasons you mention, it should also be well before full-term. That is the grey area. I'm not talking about the grey area.

Pro-lifers are those who are, by definition, against all abortions in cases where the woman's life is not endangered by continuing the pregnancy. They want women who abort the pregnancy to be persecuted. I think this is not an acceptable position, as I wrote in my post.

The whole point is that the pro-lifers are really saying not only "I am against abortion", which is fine with me. They are saying "YOU also cannot have an abortion because I am against it", which is not fine.

A simpler and less controversial example: Sex before marriage. In many religions, you are not allowed to have sex before marriage. I'm totally OK with: "I stand to my moral code and will not have sex before I marry".
I'm not OK with: "My moral code says that one should not have sex before marriage, so if you break that rule, you should be punished."

Coming back to the opening post: I think that the woman did something I firmly disapprove of and if she were a friend and told me this, I doubt that afterwards she would still be my friend. But there should be no law against it, assuming that it was early in the pregnancy.

[Lobowolf]

Gerben42, on Aug 7 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

The whole point is that the pro-lifers are really saying not only "I am against abortion", which is fine with me. They are saying "YOU also cannot have an abortion because I am against it", which is not fine.

A simpler and less controversial example: Sex before marriage. In many religions, you are not allowed to have sex before marriage. I'm totally OK with: "I stand to my moral code and will not have sex before I marry".
I'm not OK with: "My moral code says that one should not have sex before marriage, so if you break that rule, you should be punished."

Your "simpler and less controversial example" is a poor analog, as premarital sex doesn't directly harm any third parties.


They are, of course, saying what you say they're saying. A closer analogy to the pro-lifers' beliefs on the matter would be, say, killing 5 year-old children. Most people who are opposed to killing 5 year-old children don't just mean that they personally wouldn't kill any 5 year-old children; they mean that "YOU also cannot kill 5 year-old children."

A less silly example would be something like slavery. The abolitionists didn't "agree to disagree" about slavery, because they believed that there were vulnerable third parties who needed to be spoken up for.

That doesn't mean they're necessarily RIGHT, but if you're pro-choice (as I am), and you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to acknowledge that the pro-life stance is principled and goes beyond the typical moral issues involving government interference, such a censorship, recreational drug use, etc.

[Gerben42]

Quote

They are, of course, saying what you say they're saying. A closer analogy to the pro-lifers' beliefs on the matter would be, say, killing 5 year-old children. Most people who are opposed to killing 5 year-old children don't just mean that they personally wouldn't kill any 5 year-old children; they mean that "YOU also cannot kill 5 year-old children."

Reciprocal ethics "do not onto others as you would not want others to do onto you" is of course the basic rule on which society is based.

Pro-lifers are making it unfair by taking the statement that a fetus has a soul (whatever that is) and is a human being from conception onward, and thus has human rights. And you cannot discuss that with them since that's their belief, can't touch that. That may be their belief, but there is no reason why it should be like this. And since it's a belief, to which others (with a different belief) may disagree, it should not be the basis of a law.

[Lobowolf]

Gerben42, on Aug 7 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

And since it's a belief, to which others (with a different belief) may disagree, it should not be the basis of a law.

Is this really your general position? A belief that others may disagree with should not be the basis of a law?

[luke warm]

Gerben42, on Aug 7 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

Pro-lifers are those who are, by definition, against all abortions in cases where the woman's life is not endangered by continuing the pregnancy. They want women who abort the pregnancy to be persecuted. I think this is not an acceptable position, as I wrote in my post.

this is not true - at least it isn't true of anyone i know

Quote

The whole point is that the pro-lifers are really saying not only "I am against abortion", which is fine with me. They are saying "YOU also cannot have an abortion because I am against it", which is not fine.

again, this is not true... i grant there are many, on both sides of this and other arguments, who think that way... imo it's not a defensible position

Quote

And since it's a belief, to which others (with a different belief) may disagree, it should not be the basis of a law.

i don't think this is what you meant

[Winstonm]

Claiming the tag "pro-life" rather than the more accurate "anti-abortion" was one of the great all-time marketing ploys for the Christian Right Wing IMO. It immediately places those on the other side of the discussion on the defensive as implied "anti-life".

Staunch anti-abortionists are no different from fundamental Muslim groups like the Taliban in that they want to foist their interpretation of religious beliefs onto the rest of the world - to save the world from itself, of course.

IMO, controllers and their need to control is the ultimate mental illness. The thinking that "if only everyone would do as I say everything would be perfect" is simply delusional.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Aug 7 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

Claiming the tag "pro-life" rather than the more accurate "anti-abortion" was one of the great all-time marketing ploys for the Christian Right Wing IMO. It immediately places those on the other side of the discussion on the defensive as implied "anti-life".

Staunch anti-abortionists are no different from fundamental Muslim groups like the Taliban in that they want to foist their interpretation of religious beliefs onto the rest of the world - to save the world from itself, of course.

IMO, controllers and their need to control is the ultimate mental illness. The thinking that "if only everyone would do as I say everything would be perfect" is simply delusional.

Quote

Claiming the tag "pro-life" rather than the more accurate "anti-abortion" was one of the great all-time marketing ploys for the Christian Right Wing IMO.  It immediately places those on the other side of the discussion on the defensive as implied "anti-life".

Similarly, "pro-choice" plays better in the media than "pro-being-able-to-kill-fetuses-without-legal-repercussions."

Quote

Staunch anti-abortionists are no different from fundamental Muslim groups like the Taliban in that they want to foist their interpretation of religious beliefs onto the rest of the world - to save the world from itself, of course.

Are they different from the Christian groups who opposed slavery in the 19th Century?

Quote

IMO, controllers and their need to control is the ultimate mental illness. The thinking that "if only everyone would do as I say everything would be perfect" is simply delusional.

Again, in principle, the logical extension of this line of thinking to slavery would make for an extremely unpalatable argument: "Well, if you think slavery is wrong, don't own any slaves. But why the pathological need to impose your moral beliefs on me? I'll just continue to own my slaves, and we can agree to disagree."


The fundamental question isn't one of who wants to control other people more. Lots of non-Christians and pro-choicers want to exerts all sorts of control over others with respect to different issues. And, again, the slavery context (hopefully) makes pretty clear that there are issues over which the vast majority of us would certainly impose our moral beliefs on others. The fundamental question is simply (??) whether or not unborn fetuses are entitled to the same level of legal protection as the rest of us.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The fundamental question is simply (??) whether or not unborn fetuses are entitled to the same level of legal protection as the rest of us.

The fundamental question to answer is at what point are fetuses individuals. IMO, your question about "unborn fetuses" presumes that from conception until birth there is no difference in the nature of the fetus.

Societies certainly have the right to answer this question legally and impose their decision through laws.

Quote

Similarly, "pro-choice" plays better in the media than "pro-being-able-to-kill-fetuses-without-legal-repercussions."

Absolutely correct. We have become such a sidebar society that only thing we can repeat is the bumper sticker slogans.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Again, in principle, the logical extension of this line of thinking to slavery would make for an extremely unpalatable argument: "Well, if you think slavery is wrong, don't own any slaves. But why the pathological need to impose your moral beliefs on me? I'll just continue to own my slaves, and we can agree to disagree."

Sorry a bad example... As the slaves get their say too, it would only be fine with it if the slaves also think it is a good solution. If that were the case, one would probably consider them as servants, as they have the right to quit at any time.

Quote

Is this really your general position? A belief that others may disagree with should not be the basis of a law?

Perhaps I should make it more precise. The religious belief of any group should not be the sole basis to make a law that forces their beliefs upon others. Please teach me a counterexample.