Abortion

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:58 pm

I found this article to be an interesting take on abortions.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173332,00.html

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:24 pm

If a Cat marries a griz and the wife gets pregnant you should ALWAYS abort! Otherwise that kid is really going to be messed up!!!!!!!!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:27 pm

Fox News comes through big with some good thought provoking material. I tend to agree with this guy's take -- I am eternally frustrated by efforts to block contraception options by people who are also anti-abortion. I know their answer is abstinence and only abstinence (or more poor people having more babies, and then complaining about women having babies they can't afford and going on welfare), but we have to be a bit pragmatic and go for the lesser of two evils (contraception) if we hope to limit abortions.

And whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, nobody can honestly say that abortion is a "good answer." It may be a better answer than the alternative in the minds of individuals who have to make that decision, but it is never "good."

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:35 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Fox News comes through big with some good thought provoking material. I tend to agree with this guy's take -- I am eternally frustrated by efforts to block contraception options by people who are also anti-abortion. I know their answer is abstinence and only abstinence (or more poor people having more babies, and then complaining about women having babies they can't afford and going on welfare), but we have to be a bit pragmatic and go for the lesser of two evils (contraception) if we hope to limit abortions.

And whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, nobody can honestly say that abortion is a "good answer." It may be a better answer than the alternative in the minds of individuals who have to make that decision, but it is never "good."

If abstinence is taken out of the question, then by all means contraception is the way to go.

That said, however, abstinence is 100% effective, rather than the 90% effectiveness of most contraceptives.

There is more to this issue--but I don't want to be the one to hijack the thread.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:40 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Fox News comes through big with some good thought provoking material. I tend to agree with this guy's take -- I am eternally frustrated by efforts to block contraception options by people who are also anti-abortion. I know their answer is abstinence and only abstinence (or more poor people having more babies, and then complaining about women having babies they can't afford and going on welfare), but we have to be a bit pragmatic and go for the lesser of two evils (contraception) if we hope to limit abortions.

And whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, nobody can honestly say that abortion is a "good answer." It may be a better answer than the alternative in the minds of individuals who have to make that decision, but it is never "good."
If abstinence is taken out of the question, then by all means contraception is the way to go.

That said, however, abstinence is 100% effective, rather than the 90% effectiveness of most contraceptives.

There is more to this issue--but I don't want to be the one to hijack the thread.

And if people were wired to be asexual creatures, abstinence would be the perfect answer 100% of the time. If only evolution or the intelligent designer hadn't linked sex to pleasure, this wouldn't be an issue.

Of course, as discussed in the epilouge to "The Opposite of Sex," if procreation had been linked to the instinct to share our toys, the human race would have died out long ago.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:20 am

I agree, abstinance is great in theory but not to realistic for everyone, in the long run.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:39 am

BAC wrote:And if people were wired to be asexual creatures, abstinence would be the perfect answer 100% of the time. If only evolution or the intelligent designer hadn't linked sex to pleasure, this wouldn't be an issue.

PonyCat wrote:I agree, abstinance is great in theory but not to realistic for everyone, in the long run.

You mean you two can't control your own bodies?

Well, before I get flamed, let me tell you I couldn't either. It's a choice I regret. I should have saved myself for my wife.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:12 am

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
BAC wrote:And if people were wired to be asexual creatures, abstinence would be the perfect answer 100% of the time. If only evolution or the intelligent designer hadn't linked sex to pleasure, this wouldn't be an issue.

PonyCat wrote:I agree, abstinance is great in theory but not to realistic for everyone, in the long run.
You mean you two can't control your own bodies?

Well, before I get flamed, let me tell you I couldn't either. It's a choice I regret. I should have saved myself for my wife.

Can ... choose not to. Me big kid now....

EDIT: Actually, I misspoke. I unfortunately still can not "Control [my] own bod[y]," I merely have the power to choose whether or not I will have sex. If I could really truly control my own body, I would have gone pro long ago. I just need more practice ... lots and lots of practice.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:00 am

Can ... choose not to. Me big kid now....

EDIT: Actually, I misspoke. I unfortunately still can not "Control [my] own bod[y]," I merely have the power to choose whether or not I will have sex. If I could really truly control my own body, I would have gone pro long ago. I just need more practice ... lots and lots of practice.

wow! this from nice, sweet Brad

and you wonder why my dad wants to meet you before i go into SF to meet you and D. You may corrupt innocent me

actually, from a female take on things, and you all know by now i'm warped, so take it for blah, blah, blah.

abortion in certain circumstances is a medical necessity for some women. they advised brian and I to have on around 7 weeks in '99 with our son because my health was being effected. obviously I didn't, and am thrilled to have a 6 year old boy to drive me crazy today.

some women like the 24 year old cited for reference in the article in my opinion shouldn't be sexually active unless practicing safe sex. if she gets pregnant and does not want to keep the baby, i say adoption is the best alternative.

i'd type more but my 2 year old squirrel is hitting my keyboard

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:43 pm

I don't usually like to debate the morality of abortion, mainly because whether aborting a child is "moral" or "immoral" depends entirely on the individual's philosophical and/or theological view of what constitutes a "life," and what rights an unborn child should be entitled to. I can see both sides of the debate well enough to know that any "right" answer I could come to on my own could be intelligently disagreed with, and thus I am not entirely sure which side of the debate I fall on. However, strictly on an intellectual level, there is one part of the pro-life argument that has always troubled me:

The pro-life argument is based on the premise that an unborn child is a human life, and should be entitled to the same rights as a person who has been born. If we accept that premise, then it follows logically that causing the death of an unborn child should be illegal, and that abortion should therefore always be banned. That's well and good; a person might disagree with the premise, but if you accept the premise, the conclusion is cogent.

However, most pro-lifers, no matter how staunchly they argue that abortion is immoral, will still agree that abortion should be allowed in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy because of the pregnancy. This is the point at which, (pardon the expression), all hell starts breaking loose in terms of logic. By agreeing that a mother whose health is in jeopardy should be allowed to abort a pregnancy, aren't the pro-lifers in effect agreeing that, however important the unborn child's life is, it is somewhat less important than the health of the mother? If we as a society truly judged the life of an unborn child to be equally important to that of a living person, then the death of an unborn child should be equally tragic to that of the mother, correct? If you follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, you have to conclude that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances, because the unborn child's life should be equal in importance to its mother's.

Of course, these questions are rhetorical; I think it's fairly obvious that the reason the pro-lifers have almost universally not taken this position is because it is simply unpalatable from a political standpoint. However, that is the point that has always bothered me about the pro-life argument.

Thoughts?

--GL

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:02 pm

Well put. The ridiculously logical next conclusion would be to let at risk pregnancies go to term and let "god" decide who lives and who does not.

Adoption is a great option - unless there is no adoptive parent.

I wonder if gene therapy will get to the point where you can just turn on and off the "get pregnant" gene as you wish?

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:14 pm

Well put. The ridiculously logical next conclusion would be to let at risk pregnancies go to term and let "god" decide who lives and who does not.

Adoption is a great option - unless there is no adoptive parent.

I wonder if gene therapy will get to the point where you can just turn on and off the "get pregnant" gene as you wish?

good post.

however, some of us "crazy" women (which many agree I'm one of) let high risk pregnancies go to term, because we WANT the baby more than anything. some women get abortions in those situations and regret feeling doctors pressured them into doing it.

i personally would never do this, but would like it to be kept a safe option for those whom choose this for themselves.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:48 pm

I can think of only one subject (in history) that draws more arguments than the abortion debate:

Cats vs. griz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lifeloyalsigmsu · Post by **lifeloyalsigmsu** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:53 am

Grizlaw wrote:I don't usually like to debate the morality of abortion, mainly because whether aborting a child is "moral" or "immoral" depends entirely on the individual's philosophical and/or theological view of what constitutes a "life," and what rights an unborn child should be entitled to. I can see both sides of the debate well enough to know that any "right" answer I could come to on my own could be intelligently disagreed with, and thus I am not entirely sure which side of the debate I fall on. However, strictly on an intellectual level, there is one part of the pro-life argument that has always troubled me:

The pro-life argument is based on the premise that an unborn child is a human life, and should be entitled to the same rights as a person who has been born. If we accept that premise, then it follows logically that causing the death of an unborn child should be illegal, and that abortion should therefore always be banned. That's well and good; a person might disagree with the premise, but if you accept the premise, the conclusion is cogent.

However, most pro-lifers, no matter how staunchly they argue that abortion is immoral, will still agree that abortion should be allowed in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy because of the pregnancy. This is the point at which, (pardon the expression), all hell starts breaking loose in terms of logic. By agreeing that a mother whose health is in jeopardy should be allowed to abort a pregnancy, aren't the pro-lifers in effect agreeing that, however important the unborn child's life is, it is somewhat less important than the health of the mother? If we as a society truly judged the life of an unborn child to be equally important to that of a living person, then the death of an unborn child should be equally tragic to that of the mother, correct? If you follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, you have to conclude that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances, because the unborn child's life should be equal in importance to its mother's.

Of course, these questions are rhetorical; I think it's fairly obvious that the reason the pro-lifers have almost universally not taken this position is because it is simply unpalatable from a political standpoint. However, that is the point that has always bothered me about the pro-life argument.

Thoughts?

--GL

Great post. I can fully understand that regardless of which side you sit on, there's an intelligent point (or points) that can be made to counter your reasoning. On a side note, the pick of Samuel Alito by Bush will be very interesting over the next few months as we see the 2 major parties go to war again.

With regards to the flaw you find in the pro-life stance, it's obviously not an area they will address. If a to-be-mother's health is in jeopardy secondary to her pregnancy, then performing an abortion is pretty much the only viable option if the situation of the mother can't be handled medically. Maybe the only solace taken in that situation (with the full assumption she's pro life regardless) is that she would have given birth to the baby if her health wasn't compromised. Maybe that's good enough in the eyes of the pro-lifers. I really don't know; just throwing it out there. On the other hand, you might have a hardcore to-be-mother who is pro-life and regardless of her pregnancy-induced medical condition, she will bring the baby into the world even if she (or the baby) doesn't make it.

In my experience, and I could be shredded for this, I've learned that many many people are pro life until the pregnancy directly affects them (i.e. whether the woman gets pregnant or the guy himself gets a girl pregnant). I say this only from the perspective of a young 20-something though.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:54 am

both GL and LLSig make good and intelligent points. guess I just fall into the category of happy little broodmare not really ever been a card carrying "pro-lifer". i'm more for keeping it safe and legal if ever needed.

i do think that GL made a good point of how now matter what side of the fence you sit, both sides have legitament reasons for what they believe.

i am really interested in Alito's record and how this appointment will influence the panel as a whole.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:14 am

Great point by BAC on opposition to contraception. If the church and pro-lifers would drop this opposition I think it would swing the balance of opinion in the abortion debate.

As for Grizlaw's riddle, let's suppose the unborn child has the same rights as a 10 year old child. Now let's suppose that 10 year old is mentally deranged and is angry with mom and pointing a gun at her, getting ready to kill her. Certainly you see no contradiction in ethics if the mother defends herself? Standing alone they both have equal rights, but no rights are universal, and if the actions of 1 person infringe on the rights of others, the rights of one person can be taken away. If someone steals from you they can lose their rights and go to jail. If someone is trying to kill you your right to defend yourself superceeds their right to act as they please.

If someone is in the act of killing someone, and the police don't say "they are equal people, and have an equal right to live, so we can't kill the aggressor to save the life of the person being killed", obviously that is ludicrous. So why should the ethics be any different for a mother being threatened by her un-born child? I don't see any breakdown in logic, in fact it is in accordance with everything our justice system is about.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:03 pm

mother being threatened by her un-born child

as a mom I personally don't view my life as "threatened" by an un-born child. i think if one deems themselves mature enough to have sex, than they should deal with the results in a mature manner. if it is an oops, both HC93 and I can vouch for having wonderful oops kids, and you are not in a financial positiob to raise the child, I say adoption. Not an easy road, but who ever said doing the right thing is ever easy.

abortion for any reason than deemed medically necessary is pure selfishness on the part of the mother. I say mother, because men don't carry a baby 9 months, and can not get pregnant. don't spread your legs if you can't handle being mom. cras I know, but that's my 2 cents.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:04 pm

briannell wrote:
mother being threatened by her un-born child
as a mom I personally don't view my life as "threatened" by an un-born child. i think if one deems themselves mature enough to have sex, than they should deal with the results in a mature manner. if it is an oops, (both HC93 and I can vouch for having wonderful oops kids in marriage), and you are not in a financial position to raise the child, I say adoption. Not an easy road, but who ever said doing the right thing is ever easy.

abortion for any reason than deemed medically necessary is pure selfishness on the part of the mother. I say mother, because men don't carry a baby 9 months, and can not get pregnant. don't spread your legs if you can't handle being mom. cras I know, but that's my 2 cents.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:37 pm

grizbeer wrote:As for Grizlaw's riddle, let's suppose the unborn child has the same rights as a 10 year old child. Now let's suppose that 10 year old is mentally deranged and is angry with mom and pointing a gun at her, getting ready to kill her. Certainly you see no contradiction in ethics if the mother defends herself? Standing alone they both have equal rights, but no rights are universal, and if the actions of 1 person infringe on the rights of others, the rights of one person can be taken away. If someone steals from you they can lose their rights and go to jail. If someone is trying to kill you your right to defend yourself superceeds their right to act as they please.

Ooh, excellent point. I love these types of debates.

In my view, though, our situations are not quite analogous. You actually hit on the key distinction in the way you phrased the rule, which is why I bolded the word "actions" in your quote above. In the case of a child who is threatening the life of the mother with a gun, then you are correct to note that the mother would be justified to kill the child in order to save herself. In that scenario, the mother is in jeopardy because of the willful actions of the child, and therefore, the child's right not to be killed is superceded by the mother's right to protect herself.

I do not think the ethics are the same, however, in the case of an unborn child. The unborn child has not committed any willful act to place the mother in jeopardy; rather, it is the child's mere existence that places the mother in danger. Let me propose another hypothetical situation that I think is more analogous to the abortion debate: suppose a low-income mother is raising a child, and although the mother has sufficient resources to feed herself, she does not have enough to adequately feed both of them (i.e., the mother is in jeopardy of starvation because of the mere existence of the child, and not because the child has committed any wrongful act). In such a situation, the law would not protect the mother who chose to kill the child so that she could eat, and in my view, the morality of the situation is also not the same as in the case of a child threatening the mother with a weapon.

If we accept the premise that an unborn child is equivalent to a breathing person, wouldn't the morality of killing an unborn child who was placing the mother in jeopardy seem more analogous to this situation than to the one you raised?

--GL

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:52 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
grizbeer wrote:As for Grizlaw's riddle, let's suppose the unborn child has the same rights as a 10 year old child. Now let's suppose that 10 year old is mentally deranged and is angry with mom and pointing a gun at her, getting ready to kill her. Certainly you see no contradiction in ethics if the mother defends herself? Standing alone they both have equal rights, but no rights are universal, and if the actions of 1 person infringe on the rights of others, the rights of one person can be taken away. If someone steals from you they can lose their rights and go to jail. If someone is trying to kill you your right to defend yourself superceeds their right to act as they please.

Ooh, excellent point. I love these types of debates.

In my view, though, our situations are not quite analogous. You actually hit on the key distinction in the way you phrased the rule, which is why I bolded the word "actions" in your quote above. In the case of a child who is threatening the life of the mother with a gun, then you are correct to note that the mother would be justified to kill the child in order to save herself. In that scenario, the mother is in jeopardy because of the willful actions of the child, and therefore, the child's right not to be killed is superceded by the mother's right to protect herself.

I do not think the ethics are the same, however, in the case of an unborn child. The unborn child has not committed any willful act to place the mother in jeopardy; rather, it is the child's mere existence that places the mother in danger. Let me propose another hypothetical situation that I think is more analogous to the abortion debate: suppose a low-income mother is raising a child, and although the mother has sufficient resources to feed herself, she does not have enough to adequately feed both of them (i.e., the mother is in jeopardy of starvation because of the mere existence of the child, and not because the child has committed any wrongful act). In such a situation, the law would not protect the mother who chose to kill the child so that she could eat, and in my view, the morality of the situation is also not the same as in the case of a child threatening the mother with a weapon.

If we accept the premise that an unborn child is equivalent to a breathing person, wouldn't the morality of killing an unborn child who was placing the mother in jeopardy seem more analogous to this situation than to the one you raised?

--GL

This is pretty interesting. I had thought about the food/starving angle when I wrote my original reply, so I will respond to that, but first I think if the child is putting the health of the mother in danger it must be by some action, regardless of if it can be controlled or intent, even if that action is simply growing. The same would be true if a severely retarded child was killing his mother (or sister or brother), even if by simply sitting on them and suffocating them, and the child had no intention to cause injury, and in fact wasn't aware they were causing injury. Of course in this situation hopefully the behavior could be stopped without injury to either party (just as hopefully whatever ailment the unborn child was causing to the mother could be cured without abortion), but we are dealing with theoretical here.

The food angle is interesting because if a mother starved her child (or willfully killed it) because she didn't have enough food, she would certainly be charged with murder. The difference, of course, is that there is an alternative to starving to death - namely social services and/or adoption. With an un-born child that is threatening the mothers life there is no reasonable alternative to aborting the child to save the mother, unless the child is developed enough to survive outside the womb.

It would be an interesting argument if the mother and child were in a situation, such as trapped in a mine shaft, or deserted on an island alone after a plane crash, and only had enough food/water for one to survive. Of course in the case of a very young child (such as an un-born child) if the mother dies then the child dies also, so there is an substantial argument that could be made that saving the life of the mother is more important than saving the life of the child in order to save at least 1 life (lessor of 2 evils).

Usually when I get to the "stuck on a deserted island" part of a philisophical debate I get a fresh pitcher of beer.