abortion – what do you want?
Violet; you and others with your outlook on this subject are what is sick in America.
God help you. (John R. Hugo on Quiner’s Diner)
Surprisingly, I agree with right-wing Christians that high numbers of people having abortions is something to be concerned about. It’s a procedure that can cause physical harm to women, as well as emotional harm in the form of regret – the pain of what-might-have-been.
However, from a similar starting point, we move off in very different directions.
My opinion on abortion is informed by facts from science, history and sociology, combined with freely available statistics. Until someone can tell me otherwise, the opinions of anti-abortion Christians appear to be informed by dogma, emotion and a thoroughly demeaning attitude towards fully developed adult women, with complex lives of their own to lead. As we all know, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest the Christian god would be against abortion.
So let’s have a look at facts about pregnancy and abortion.
1. Science tells us that a fetus has no sense of awareness, and does not have the basic brain structure to even potentially feel pain, until around 26 weeks. And there is no evidence that at this point they have the consciousness to process any sensations their nerves respond to.
Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. (scientificamerican.com)
2.Statistics about abortion tell us that 98-99% of abortions are performed before week 20, well before the brain begins to make any potentially conscious connections. Later term abortions are only undertaken because of risk to the mother and/or child in most countries. In the USA, possibly because of the complications in finding and/or paying for providers, there are other reasons that this tiny proportion of terminations are undertaken later:
Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous. (guttermacher.org)
I don’t know about anyone else, but the prospect of removing access to legal and safe abortion facilities for vulnerable and likely desperate groups like those listed above, seems foolish in the extreme. Especially considering the next point.
3. Social science tells us that in every country in the world where abortion is banned, pregnancies are still terminated, and women desperate enough to the take the risk are seriously injured and dying in their thousands.
Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications (Reviews in Obstectrics & Gynecology)
4. We know that in countries where women have choice, where abortion laws are liberal, women are less likely to seek abortion.
The substantial decline in the abortion rate observed earlier has stalled, and the proportion of all abortions that are unsafe has increased. Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. Measures to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion, including investments in family planning services and safe abortion care, are crucial steps (The Lancet)
5. History tells us that humans have never been able to stop unwanted pregnancies occurring by telling people not to have sex outside marriage. In societies where this has been attempted, women were still getting pregnant, and resulting attempts to sweep the ‘shame’ under the carpet are nothing to long for.
Ireland was shocked earlier this year by revelations of the practices at Catholic-run “mother-and-baby homes” from the 1920s to the 1960s following the discovery of an unmarked grave where the bodies of up to 800 babies could be buried. Dublin has ordered an investigation into the treatment of children at the institutions, used to house children born out of wedlock, including accusations of forced adoptions and unusually high mortality rates among children housed there. (Reuters)
So, my question for all those Christians out there who are horrified by the numbers of abortions around the world: taking all the facts above into consideration, what is your proposed alternative?
Racism, the manosphere, now abortion…you don’t shy away from contentious issues Violet. You’ve pretty much hit all the big ones. 🙂
You ask a fair question. I can’t speak for anyone else, and I’m not a real strong opponent of very very early abortion either, because I recognize the cost to gains aspects. I’ve spent a long time considering those cost to gains aspects. Plus there are aborticant properties to birth control pills too and as much as I don’t like oral contraceptives (for myself) I don’t wish to see them outlawed either.
And my mother was raised in a Catholic country and lived with a “witch” in her early twenties and she pretty much told me every single woman in that village had come to the witch for a potion to pass their pregnancies…most far more than once. Also, my father in law (also a Catholic) told his wife who got pregnant on their wedding night to “go to the pharmacist and ask for something to pass it”. In Cuban stuff like that was ubiquitous, but he never thought of it as the abortificant it obviously was. In the US of course, it was not legal. But, on the flip side…..
I’ll start with this one: “I don’t know about anyone else, but the prospect of removing access to legal and safe abortion facilities for vulnerable and likely desperate groups like those listed above, seems foolish in the extreme. Especially considering the next point.”
Late trimester abortions should never be legal for elective reasons. I think we should support women in desparate positions, and allow their infants to be raised in better homes where they are desparately wanted rather than desparately unwanted, but not offer them late term abortions. Lots of desparate parents out there and we don’t allow them to poison their children either.
Let’s look at what a portion of Roe v Wade actually says (I will bold it):
“For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
Viability is getting earlier and earlier these days, and I think the laws should change to reflect that.
LikeLike
Hi Liz, I see you have a private blog. I’ve just requested access. Having just seen you over these last few posts here, I’m not clear where you’re coming from most of the time. You don’t fall into the predictable slots in terms of opinions.
I don’t find your position unreasonable. But I trust decisions made between the women themselves (who, in normal circumstances, would ‘choose’ a late term abortion of a healthy baby, when there’s visual and sensory confirmation of a growing child?) and the professionals willing to provide the service. This idea that women are flippantly ripping almost babies out of their stomachs on a whim is nowhere close to reality – it’s a fantasy anti-abortion propaganda tool.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I granted you access, Violet.
But heads up there’s nothing there!
I never got the blog going…I just gave it the title ‘Lizard’s thoughts’ and then…nothin. Decided not to do it.
I’m too prone to OCDs to handle having an active blog. 🙂
LikeLike
Then you could do it like I do mine. Few times a year. More for myself as a diary to reflect upon after a while what I have thought about things. Most of what I write into my own blog, is about my “anger management” to let of steam, on issues, that really annoy me. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Liz
So women stop being all human and stuff past a certain limit – by human I mean having control of their body and rulership of what goes on it.
Late term abortions are rare, we do not need more rules restricting the sovereignty of women with regards to their reproductive choices.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“So women stop being all human and stuff past a certain limit – by human I mean having control of their body and rulership of what goes on it.”
Well, Arbourist, even Roe v Wade disagrees with you.
LikeLike
Roe v Wade focuses on the rights of the mother but also the rights of the unborn.
LikeLike
@Liz
I’m not particularly interested in Roe v. Wade.
If our society actually thought of women as fully human – this wouldn’t be an issue.
Any abortion argument that does not start and end with the mother’s welfare and wishes is profoundly misogynistic. As soon as you place women second with regards to abortion, their subordinate place in the patriarchy is confirmed and thus further codified, enforcing women’s status as second class members of society.
Women should be in full control of their reproductive health – it is their pregnancy from start to finish – anything less threatens their autonomy and their basic humanity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, gee Arbourist, what about a mother’s rights? Why should she be expected to get up at night to feed a baby, or diaper it, or lift an arm to take care of it in the first place? It’s not healthy to interrupt her sleep schedule, and effort is exhausting.
Women should have full control over their personal health and autonomy! If she doesn’t want to take care of that kid she should feel free to throw it out into the alley and let it die of exposure. Anything less is patriarchal oppression.
LikeLike
@Liz
Conflating the situation before birth with the situation after birth is not helping your argument. Does an unequivocal statement of what should be the base level of rights and autonomy women possess seem that alien to you?
Do you see it? It is right here; we are about to shift focus away from the autonomy and humanity of woman onto another. Perhaps we should talk about near term scenarios or hypothetically when the fetus can feel pain, or when the fetus is sentient., or when the fetus…
Notice the subject change. It is exactly that easy to background women in a process that can can have serious (temporary and permanent) medical consequences (including death) for them. It is exactly what the patriarchy instills in society, a sense that women are a means to an end, their welfare, wishes, and hope & dreams must always be subsumed to another for them to be doing ‘well’ in society.
Abortion and the related debate are just another vector of patriarchal oppression in society that reinforces the idea that if you happen to be an adult human female your existence isn’t quite your own.
I reject this core assumption about adult human females (women) in our society and believe that they should be the authoresses of their destiny. Anything less is just a pale reflection of the sex based oppression that woman have been experiencing since society and patriarchy arose.
Put another way, how many Savita Halappanavar’s have to die because we are in doubt of the status of their basic humanity?
My answer is zero. What is yours?
LikeLike
Savita Halappanavar died from a medical error. Late term abortion is not (and should not be) illegal if and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
And back at you.
How many Tonya Reaves should die, Arbourist?
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/07/planned-parenthood-pays-2-million-settlement-after-killing-black-teen-in-abortion/
LikeLike
@Liz
From your article –
Past using a post from a patently anti-choice, anti-woman website what exactly, other than medical error are you trying to prove?
Did you want to compare deaths due to pregnancy to deaths due to abortion, because that won’t support your argument either.
Using your article it would seem that if abortion wasn’t such contentious issue and that if it was freely available at all hospitals maybe Tonya Reaves would have survived.
That would be an argument in favour of what I advocate.
Good show.
LikeLike
“Past using a post from a patently anti-choice, anti-woman website…
You say this after linking to an article entitled, Savita Halappanavar’s Death- Victory for the Irish Catholic “Pro-life” Murder Brigade”?
I have to assume the above is a kind of ironic stab at self depricating sarcasm.
LikeLike
@Liz
That is a very poor analogy. You are missing the main point that, unlike in your example, we’re talking about what’s happening inside a person’s body. You, the law, society at large, has zero business telling an individual what they must house inside of their body. It is THEIR body.
Besides that, your analogy is also lacking in a few other important areas. A closer scenario would be if a woman was kidnapped and forced to attend to every single need of a child, for every second of every day, completely on her own. It’s still not as bad as the forced pregnancy, as the kidnapped woman will have to sleep sometime and cannot be feeding the child during this time. Oh, to make it an even closer analogy, the people who kidnapped her also violently tore open her birth canal, in a potentially fatal manner. As mentioned above, we’re still not quite on par with forced pregnancy, but we’re certainly a lot closer than your version. Do you still wish to say that the woman is not being mistreated? That this is ok? That this practice should be legally mandated? I certainly hope not.
On top of being dismissive of bodily autonomy, your comparison is also irreverent to the deaths of many women. Roughly 650 women die each year in the US due to pregnancy/childbirth. A more global look, WHO says 830 women die every day due to pregnancy/childbirth complications. How many people die changing a diaper?
LikeLike
This is getting increasingly absurd. First, the metaphorical “kidnapping” didn’t happen by random act of God, it was the consequence of action, “Go through this door, you take the change of getting kidnapped! Doors 1,2,3 are 99 percent unlikely but that door four and your kidnapping is virtually assured!”
Next, there’s the day after when the “kidnapping” might be reversed. Next, the subsequent 12 weeks when that woman has the legal right to walk out of that “kidnapping”. So now we’re weeks along into an event that was largely preventable in the first place. At that point, she’s holding onto a real lifeline. And she’d better have good reason to let go of that lifeline.
Yes, pregnancies go wrong. That’s why if the mother’s life is in jeopardy even the strictest laws allow abortion for medical emergencies. Arbourist’s example was a woman in a medical emergency and an act of negligence. By contrast, Tonya’s abortion, which killed her, was elective.
LikeLike
“the metaphorical “kidnapping” didn’t happen by random act of God”
The point of the kidnapping was to show that it was against her will, which is analogous to forced pregnancy. Sorry, I thought that part was simple enough that it didn’t need to be stated outright.
“there’s the day after when the “kidnapping” might be reversed…real lifeline”
So, if at first she thought she could handle the situation and tried to endure it, but then after 12 weeks of trauma and the promise of further bodily harm wear her down, you’re saying it’s too late and her body now belongs to the kidnappers. I’m saying there is no time limit on person’s right to own their body and to not be owned by another.
LikeLike
You, Violet, pull all punches. You don’t shy away from contentious issues.
Living in a place where the majority pretend no abortions take place because they are outlawed while the facts say I different thing says a lot about access.
LikeLike
Has it always been illegal? I just don’t understand how any reasonable argument can be made against providing legal access to abortion.
LikeLike
There was a time, I think, when it wasn’t legislated or it may have always been illegal. It was part of the debate in 2010 when we were rewriting the constitution where the churches and a few other loud mouths insisted that it should be illegal
LikeLike
You hit the nail on the head with this one, Violet. Late-term abortions may remain contentious, but prior to 26 weeks the fetus is not human–it is merely an organism that is potentially human. Some would go further and claim that the fetus organism is not fully human until sometime after birth, but that has implications most would rather not consider.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are wriggly little things that are best looked after and left to develop in normal circumstances. Unfortunately for many women, circumstances are often less than normal. Putting our head in the sand helps no-one.
LikeLike
President Obama wants reduce gun violence.
Restricting gun ownership is how he wishes to go about that business.
So it makes sense that restricting abortions would reduce the number of abortions.
Why do leftists use common sense to justify their program of prenatal genocide (the right to life), but reject common sense to violate the right to bear arms?
LikeLike
An absurd conflation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jim,
A proclamation is not an argument.
The atheist and other pro-prenatal genociders need to explain instead of proclaim.
LikeLike
It is you who are proclaiming and refusing to argue rationally. Your gun control and abortion proclamation remains an absurd conflation, but I do respect your honest self-description: “silenceofmind.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s an interesting comparison SOM. What common sense is there in the right to bear arms? Is that not simply illogically clinging to irrelevant tradition?
LikeLike
Restricting gun ownership would be comparable to restricting baby-making ability.
Restricting abortions would be much more comparable to restricting gun owners from firing their guns.
Now that that’s straightened up and you’re no longer comparing apples to oranges, please try again with your argument.
LikeLike
Plants have no consciousness yet are still alive and fulfill their nature as plants.
Bacteria have no consciousness yet are still alive and fulfill their nature as bacteria.
Just-conceived human beings have no consciousness yet are still alive and fulfill their nature as human beings…
…if allowed to remain alive.
The right to life has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is conscious.
If the right to life was dependent on consciousness then anyone could be murdered in their sleep and it would not be against the law.
After all, the person wasn’t conscience when they were murdered.
LikeLike
“Just-conceived human beings” are not human beings until they have a human way of being-in-the-world, i.e., until they begin to exist as humans shortly after birth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim,
Your explanation of how a human being isn’t a human being unless he acts the way you think he should, is another explanation that violates simple common sense.
The reason human rights are human rights is because they are unconditional.
Murdering someone because they don’t act, look, feel or express awareness, the way you do is a crime against humanity.
Thus, your justification for murdering the unborn is a justification for crimes against humanity.
LikeLike
My explanation was ontological, silenceofmind. It had nothing at all to do with a human being “acting” a certain way.
LikeLike
Jim,
Here is an example of a proclamation, in your own words:
“’Just-conceived human beings” are not human beings until they have a human way of being-in-the-world…'”
Pure, unadulterated gibberish is not a rational argument for anything
LikeLike
Education is the key, silenceofmind, not assuming automatically that ideas you do not or cannot understand are “gibberish.”
LikeLike
The controversy has little to do with the life of fetuses. For if this were true, at least one child under the age of 5 wouldn’t be dying from starvation every 3 to 5 seconds. Except for the Roman Catholic Church, who were against abortion because they wanted a FAT Church ($$$), the Protestants, including evangelicals, were perfectly OK with abortion until it became a political tool.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133
Neuro,
There is no over population problem.
And even if their were, genocide is not the answer.
LikeLike
There is a human overpopulation problem, and your statement is a non sequitur: no one here is advocating genocide.
LikeLiked by 5 people
@SoM
(There is no over population problem.)
And even if their were, genocide is not the answer.
I am glad you think so. I realise that It’s too late now, but could you pass this message on to those Christians who support Divine Command Theory?
Thanks, awfully, SOM.
LikeLike
Fascinating stuff, I had no idea! Thanks for the quotes and links, I’m sure they’ll come in handy.
It’s a difficult discussion. I think there is a genuine problem when people are using abortion as a regular form of birth control. There’s something about high levels of unintended pregnancies that really needs to be addressed. But the arguments and conclusions by Christians (based on what? magically beamed anger from the god God) make no sense at all. I notice no-one has attempted to answer my question here, perhaps I didn’t frame it in a way that caught anyone’s attention, but I’m more inclined to think that SOM’s irrelevant distraction bombs are the best arguments that anti-abortion Christians have to offer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Violet, the question, the alternative. At present I see no reasonable alternative. It may be that in the future, we shall have more control over the process, and then it will cease to be controversial. Every historical epoch has its “issues.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quiner, just now, on his abortion post: My response is that the pre born have equal dignity to the born. Violence is immoral towards persons just because they are inconvenient. If someone desires to engage in sexual intercourse, he and she have a moral obligation to be responsible for the outcome. If they don’t want to raise their son or daughter, then adoption is the answer.
I had asked, what weight do you give to the hurt or fear of the woman who can’t have a child, in her circumstances? Is your response merely, “Suck it up: you should not have sex if you can’t have children”? and the answer is, none compared to the right to life. The mother has an obligation to her child, and nothing matters besides that. If she uses a coat-hanger, the answer is to charge her with attempted murder, not to seek to relieve the desperation of people like her.
“inconvenient”. It is not mere inconvenience. I am sure, over the years, he has heard all I could say and more about how it is not mere inconvenience; and it has had no effect on him.
LikeLike
Thanks Violet. You wrote: “I think there is a genuine problem when people are using abortion as a regular form of birth control.”
Thought you might find this interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Victoria, it’s amazing the ideas we suck up and spout out. I did write that based on absolutely nothing. However, I’m in two minds about it. I don’t mean it in a judgemental way about the women making the choice, more in terms of how people are educated about sex and the less invasive forms of birth control they should be able to easily access. There are some interesting comments about it here:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/24/politics.topstories3
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating stuff, I had no idea! Thanks for the quotes and links, I’m sure they’ll come in handy.”
Except the premise of the article is untrue.
1) Carter was an insanely unpopular president with the oil embargo and a bunch of hostages in Iran, so there was no need to “drum up issues” to make him less popular. There were a plenty.
2) Desegregation busing was extremely unpopular, and in fact a nightmare. And people were NOT afraid object to it, in fact it was a huge issue.
(I liked the post accidentally when quoting, sorry Violet I don’t agree with that post)
LikeLike
What about the suggestion that evangelicals have changed their position on abortion?
LikeLike
I’m not informed enough to answer that one, Violet.
I only know that the anti-abortion movement was not inspired by segregation (as the article and title would imply). People were as coy about that issue in 1979 as Trump is coy about his feelings on immigration.
LikeLike
“I notice no-one has attempted to answer my question here”
I thought I answered it in my first post above.
It starts with Roe. The real Roe decision, not the politicized version taken out of context.
“Viability” is the key term in a responsible abortion debate and there is room there for discussion and debate on both sides when considering abortion legislation. Roe v Wade addresses that in the opinion of the court at length from a variety of different sources and viewpoints. Their conclusion? They don’t know.
They know viability happens at some point, but they don’t know when. They leave that wide open for debate within the state legislatures.
What the court does do in Roe v Wade is to provide a framework for that debate. It specifically states that the unborn has rights and that the state has a compelling interest in protecting those rights. So, there is a wide open door there for reasonable abortion legislation. That’s why the pro-choice exteme doesn’t talk about that part of Roe v Wade. They instead focus strictly on the part of the decision that talks about the rights of the mother which Roe v Wade addresses as well. But, like the rights of the unborn, the rights of the mother are not absolute either.
So there is an enormously fertile ground for reasoned debate on this issue that I think most people on either “side” (exception fanatics) would be willing to have and that debate could result in legislation that would regulate abortion in a responsible way. Wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be close enough for government work
LikeLike
Thanks Liz. But you’re not anti-abortion. You stated in your opening comment that ‘letting a pregnancy pass’ is completely acceptable. The right-wing Christian anti-abortion movement considers taking the morning after pill, to interrupt even potential pregnancy before implantation, to be murder.
I think when you move into late term abortion territory people start to lose their focus and wander off into nonsense territory. The Arbourist gets on a high horse about women’s rights trumping everything else in the world and the anti-abortion camp claim it’s the same as dumping a newborn baby because you can’t be bothered.
People generally don’t chop viable babies out their bodies for frivolous reasons. Medical professionals generally do not chop viable babies out of people’s bodies for frivolous reasons. Do we need laws to ensure the very occasional psychopath health professional doesn’t encourage vulnerable people to do so? Possibly. We’d need to look at examples round the world for evidence. I’m given to believe that in most countries with liberal abortion laws self-regulation, common sense and respect for life prevails.
As an aside, I find the American obsession with Roe v Wade to be odd. Surely the reference point should always be the latest that science has to offer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But you’re not anti-abortion. You stated in your opening comment that ‘letting a pregnancy pass’ is completely acceptable.”
I didn’t mean to imply it’s completely acceptable to me…I intended to say it shouldn’t be illegal very early on, for practical reasons (birth control pills/IUDs and so forth have abortificant properties, for starters, and I wouldn’t want to see those eliminated. I also recognize abortificants have been used for a long, long time and quite legally). I don’t think acceptions for incest and rape would be legitimate legal exceptions if early term abortions were illegal either (if it’s a life it shouldn’t matter how it came to be)…so I can foresee a LOT of very desperate people and probably a lot of damaged babies from botched attempts, too.
LikeLike
@VW
It’s a pleasant rarefied view from up here – wacky notions about women’s oppression and their rights and all that ‘stuff’.
Noted.
Advocating for women to be though of as fully human is a most definite nonsensical approach.
LikeLike
I could have sworn I replied to this. Yes, yes, you’re fighting for women, I get it. The nonsense in your approach is when you to try to sweep every other relevant factor in an abortion decision to the side to make way for the right of a woman to do whatever she wants in a moment, at any stage in a pregnancy. What if, because of the patriarchy, she’s not in possession of all the relevant facts to make her decision? What if, because of the patriarchy, she doesn’t feel equipped to cope with something that would transform her life for the better? What if the underlying male bias in society is making her feel she’s not good enough, she’s not worth enough, to be a parent on her own? Abortion is not a good thing. The removal of any unwanted organism from our bodies with man-made instruments is not a good thing. They are necessary procedures that hopefully improve our lives. But the complexity of decisions relating to pregnancy and abortion are not best served by shutting out pertinent facts from the discussion, or denying that anyone other than the individual woman has a relevant vested interest in the outcome.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@VW
Hi VW,
I argue only the conditions that would present if men could get pregnant. Abortion wouldn’t be an issue, there would be no question about bodily autonomy or reproductive rights. It wouldn’t be an issue because men already have full human being status in society.
Thus the answer is paternalistic treatment – those womanfolk just aren’t ready for full human being status we need some rules for them to follow that delineates what they can and cannot do with their body? Are there other minorities that are not quite ready for full human being status and thus require stewardship over their base humanity?
I argue that women must have the choice to what they want with their bodies. If they think the fetus has ‘personhood’ they can choose to regard it as so, if they do not then that again is their choice. If individual women think that abortion with man-made instruments is a bad thing, then those women should not get abortions via those instruments, other women may have different thoughts. Those women who want to involve their partner in their pregnancy can do so, those who do not want that involvement should also have that option. Trusting women to do what is best for themselves and their family should not be a contentious issue, it really shouldn’t.
This, Is. What. Agency. Is.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 6 people
The difference could come from right v left (politics) ways of thinking. The right-wing way is to consider right or wrong individual behaviour, arguing that a woman, having conceived, should nurture her foetus. The left-wing way is to consider group action: so reduce abortions by evidence-based practices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or, the right-wing way is to keep women busy and run down in a state of constant pregnancy so that men can continue to rule the world unimpeded, while the left-wing way is to consider that women are autonomous humans too.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Subbing
LikeLike
One thing I have learnt overtime is that a man only ventures into an abortion debate if he is prepared to go where Angels fear to tread.
LikeLike
It depends what you want to say, Peter. 🙂
I get where the conflict comes from. Men are expected to take full responsibility for children once they’re born, but if they give their opinion on a developing fetus they get their head bitten off. Having experienced four awful pregnancies with only two live children to show for it, I’m a candidate to bite the head off any man who suggests a woman should go through with a pregnancy they don’t want.
LikeLike
Haha! Peter, either I am an exeptionally brave man then, or maybe it is just my fever talking. Why would I shun away from this question because I am a man? Who then, if not an adult person regardless of their gender, or reproductive ability, could take part in this discussion?
However, as far as I can see the morals of the abortion issue is not different from any other moral questions. To me, morals has to be based on logic and the best information awailable to us, or it is not based on anything and becomes totally arbitrary.
We do not demand organ donations from any person, even though they could save the life of a nother person. Why? Because logically the rights of one person do not extend over the rights of a nother person. Same applies to abortion.
Even if the early term pregnancy was some sort of planted soul within the mother, instead of what it really is – a somewhat parasitic clump of cells, this would not make anything different from an ethical point of view. The mother is in no more ethical responsibility to host that “soul” in her physical body, than she is to provide an organ donation to a person, that might require a new kidney to survive.
At wich point should we start to consider new life as a human individual with human rights? We are not born with human rights, nor were we concieved with any. We grant such to each other and they only exist as long as we decide to continue to do so. But we do not consider all human life to have the same human rights, do we? We do not consider our toe nails, or our dissected appendixes, milk teeth to have human rights regardless of their very human origin. We do not consider the even the human sperm cells, nor ovum cells to have human rights despite the very obvious potential for new human life in them. Why not? There are different stages to human rights we grant within the society to each other. Children are not considered eligable to vote, drive cars etc. The traditional point of human life to be considered as beginning is their date and hour of birth. Why is it, that those who call themselves conservatives are against this one of the longest standing, most natural and universal traditions to human culture? We do not celebrate conception dates, do we? Hence, claiming we should consider a fetus as a person, is hypocricy as long as we do not mark into their papers, their conception dates, and celebrate their conception dates as opposed to their birth dates.
Then there are the parasitic twins. Should we consider the person who has one responsible to support and bear their parasitic twin regardless of possible health issues? The parasitic twin was once a fetus and if we have decided to consider fetuses as human personas, then that parasitic twin should enjoy all the human rights as well, if we extend them to the fetuses as well, should we? Does the parasitic twin have a soul? Why would any god create parasitic twins with or without souls, unless it is an utterly evil god?
As the topic post suggests, there are good reasons for the possible mothers, to not have abortions and the best known ways to have less abortions, is by sex education and the awailability of contraception. The best way to have less late term abortions are the same and the awailability of early term abortions. The religious right wing demand of punishing people for having sex, is like a demand from the fish that breathing of air should be punished – everybody knows the fish breath too, but they just do it underwater. However, I am not surpriced, there is very little in the views of the religious right wing, that was not as morally corrupt. And the reason is also obvious, their tribally moralistic views are mostly based on rather their gut feeling and ignorance, and excused by similar or totally contrary gut feelings and ignorance of ancient people who were considered clever within their own cultural context, because they could write and make claims that their writing was of divine origin.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I tend to try to avoid conflict and I have found that my personal view that abortion should be discouraged and adoptions encouraged instead to be not well received by most women.
LikeLike
Raut gave you a thoughtful and excellent reply that should make you feel embarrassed to write something like this.
Why should one thing be encouraged over another? Both should rightfully be presented as options with the advantages and drawbacks clear for each individual woman to apply to her specific circumstances. The reason your opinion is not well received by most women is that you assume you, the man, who apart from anything else will never have to go through a pregnancy and can never experience what this entails, knows what is best for all women in all situations. Raut, another man, has recognised that:
“We do not demand organ donations from any person, even though they could save the life of another person. Why? Because logically the rights of one person do not extend over the rights of another person. Same applies to abortion.”
LikeLike
Violet I see this as a complex issue. The right of a women to control her body is a very relevant factor. But it is not the only factor. Perhaps it is my years of religious conditioning, but I continue to see abortion as a tragedy.
No doubt I have shown myself to be a fool but it is hard to ignore what one feels.
LikeLike
I’m sure many other atheists feel the same way – female and male. I don’t think it’s a tragedy as such but I certainly think it’s a waste of time and resources that is best tackled by facing the causes of unwanted pregnancies with a realistic attitude towards sex. I might do a post on sense of tragedy.
LikeLike
Re: abortion regret
A recent study shows that 95% of women who had abortion do not experience regret, neither short- nor long-term.
Can’t post links now, but you can easily look it up — the chief researcher is Rocca.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A recent study shows that 95% of men who committed rape do not experience regret, neither short- nor long term, provided they were able to achieve orgasm and not get caught and punished.
Can’t post links now, but you can easily look it up — the chief researcher’s name started with an “L.”
Larry…? As in, Solomon? Yes, he should know.
*********
The research I mentioned is here:
Decision Rightness and Emotional Responses to Abortion in the United States: A Longitudinal Study
Corinne H. Rocca , Katrina Kimport, Sarah C. M. Roberts, Heather Gould, John Neuhaus, Diana G. Foster
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128832
LikeLike
Surprisingly, I agree with right-wing Christians that high numbers of people smothering infants is something to be concerned about. It’s a procedure that can cause physical harm to women if the baby bites their fingers during the procedure, as well as emotional harm in the form of regret – the pain of what-might-have-been.
However, from a similar starting point, we move off in very different directions.
My opinion on smothering infants is informed by facts from science, history and sociology, combined with freely available statistics. Until someone can tell me otherwise, the opinions of anti-smothering Christians appear to be informed by dogma, emotion and a thoroughly demeaning attitude towards fully developed adult women, with complex lives of their own to lead and insufficient intellectual capacity for understanding how they might have ended up caring for an unwanted child or how putting up with that child would ruin their social calendars. As we all know, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest the Christian god would be against smothering infants, as it is never once mentioned.
A recent study shows that 95% of men who committed rape do not experience regret, neither short- nor long term, provided they were able to achieve orgasm and not get caught and punished.
Can’t post links now, but you can easily look it up — the chief researcher’s name started with an “L.”
LikeLike
On the off chance that people are still reading Violet’s blog, as well as for future reference and the glorious make benefit of humanity (h/t Borat), I’d like to encourage all to read this chapter, from Paul Tobin’s superb book, on the Catholic church’s position on abortion:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/abortion.html
The companion chapter on contraception is a must, too:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/contraception.html
As is the rest of this fantastic book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Respect | Clare Flourish