Abortion, what is it about?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

as it says on the tin

[Free Palestine]

I'm pro-abortion, but I think the claim that it's about a woman's body is silly.  Most pro-lifeism is not about whether or not women have the right to their own uteri, but rather about whether or not the fetus has the right to life.

[Beet]

False dichotomy. In consequentialist terms it is about both, and in individuals it can be about both or either.

However, I would submit that there are hardly any people on the pro-abortion rights side motivated by a loathing of fetuses. Their claims to be motivated to protect womens' rights are highly credible.

On the anti-abortion rights side however, it is more split. While some are genuinely motivated by a concern for fetuses, there is a large amount of people motivated by religious reasons, or even by a desire to control womens' sexuality, which is not admitted. These people know that their true motivations are wildly unpopular in America, so they couch it in terms of protecting the life of the fetus. These are the people who, for example, insist that life begins at conception, but fail to devote one-one-thousandth of the energy campaigning for fertilized eggs that don't implant, or get thrown out at fertility clinics, or politically dissonant things that could reduce abortion (such as government-provided contraception and child care), that they do fighting abortion rights.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Concern for the child & religious reasons are not mutually exclusive.

[fezzyfestoon]

Very interesting question, I hadn't thought about it that way before. For me I suppose it's more about the baby than the woman. Then again I also think it's a given that it's ultimately the woman's choice, so I've never really been concerned with that aspect. What I worry about is the status of the baby. And considering the open-ended nature of that question at this point, it becomes an even more subjective question. That's why I support the option to choose abortion; I and no one else has any definitive idea of when life begins, so no one should be involved in the decision but the mother.

[RI]

That's why I support the option to choose abortion; I and no one else has any definitive idea of when life begins, so no one should be involved in the decision but the mother.

I don't understand this position. If we really don't know when life begins, shouldn't be "safe rather than sorry" in case the fetus is a person? I don't see how when presented with the dilemma of whether or not something is alive that we can morally opt to just kill it, especially without even bothering to try and find out.

[fezzyfestoon]

That's why I support the option to choose abortion; I and no one else has any definitive idea of when life begins, so no one should be involved in the decision but the mother.

I don't understand this position. If we really don't know when life begins, shouldn't be "safe rather than sorry" in case the fetus is a person? I don't see how when presented with the dilemma of whether or not something is alive that we can morally opt to just kill it, especially without even bothering to try and find out.

Very true, I don't know that I have a response for that. I've thought about that before and maybe I'm at the other end simply because of my tendency to fall into the camp that doesn't believe in life at conception. Maybe if there were any real suggestions of human awareness or whatever at an early stage I'd be more reluctant to support the option. At this point I don't think a giant blanket ban is necessary or appropriate.

[TJ in Oregon]

Very interesting question, I hadn't thought about it that way before. For me I suppose it's more about the baby than the woman. Then again I also think it's a given that it's ultimately the woman's choice, so I've never really been concerned with that aspect. What I worry about is the status of the baby. And considering the open-ended nature of that question at this point, it becomes an even more subjective question. That's why I support the option to choose abortion; I and no one else has any definitive idea of when life begins, so no one should be involved in the decision but the mother.

I suppose the real question isn't when life begins; it's what is a person? (I personally believe that having a human soul is the definition but that’s another discussion for another day… and it still doesn’t answer the question then of who has a human soul.) The reality is that we afford certain protections to persons that we do not afford to any other kind of life. We see other people as equals; someone like us, sharing the same perceptions of reality and experiences of life.

But what makes me a person? Is it the ability to live without another person helping me to do so? If viability is our standard, then what is the reason why that makes sense? Why is it different to be dependent on one human for that case but not for a machine in a coma? Are people in comas not “a person”? Is the fact that I am alive? But, something can be alive and not a person; eg. my skin cells are alive but not a person, not a life. What’s the difference and what does that mean?

The only answer I can find that makes sense to this question is that a person is a singular instance of human life, containing 46 chromosomes in each cell, the full embodiment of human genetics and very much alive (as any living cell can be considered). If we want to say when a life begins we must first say what a life is.

[courts]

TJ is of course, correct. I've never even really understood this way of framing the debate as "when does life begin" honestly, unless you're a staunch pro lifer. Obviously life of some kind is present after conception. We can disagree on whether or not they should be put on the same level as a fully formed baby though. I'm not sure I could justify a ban on abortion before internal organs have formed (intellectually, anyway), even if I basically oppose abortions in all trimesters.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

For the woman, sure, it's just an abortion (and of someone else at that). For the fetus, though, it's death.

That is, the abortion affects the individual being aborted to a much greater degree than the individual getting the abortion. So option 2.

[angus]

An unborn child, to be sure.

For those who have abortions, that's the whole point of getting one.  For those who object to abortions, that's the whole point of objecting to them.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

For the woman, sure, it's just an abortion (and of someone else at that). For the fetus, though, it's death.

That is, the abortion affects the individual being aborted to a much greater degree than the individual getting the abortion. So option 2.

...just an abortion? If you seriously think most women think like that, you're quite mistaken.

[dead0man]

Indeed, for many women it's a devastating life (death?) choice that stays with them forever.  For other women it's like changing underwear.  Those women should be fixed like a dog.

[angus]

Those women should be fixed like a dog.

Will assume that this is sarcasm.  Or sardonism.

But it's a good point.  Some women take it more seriously than others.  Most fret over it, but a few don't fret over it so much.  Is it your place to judge them? 

Nevertheless, it is clearly about an unborn child.  Of that there can be no doubt.

Let's say I'm pregnant.  Do I carry the pregnancy to term?  Do I terminate the pregnancy?  What factors affect this decision?  If I decide to terminate the pregnancy, it will be because don't want/can't afford/don't need/am not ready for a baby.  This is always the way.  Every single person I've talked to about her abortion says these things.  No one talks in terms of human rights or body-sovereignty or that sort of thing.  Come down to earth.  Those who get abortions are getting it precisely because of an unwanted pregnancy.  Now, we don't have to call it a "baby" or an "unborn child."  I'm aware of the political correctness.  I lived with a nurse for many years in Boston, and once we were discussing pregnancy and I referred to the "child" and she quickly corrected me.  "It's a fetus.  Never call it a child or a baby.  Call it a fetus.  That's what they teach us.  Only a fetus."  Okay, fine, a fetus.  In the poll, I assumed "an unborn child" is politically incorrectspeak for fetus.   Whatever.  The point still stands:  it is the fetus that inspires the abortion.

Similarly, it is the fetus that inspires those who object to abortion.  Those who object to abortion generally do so because of deeply held moral beliefs.  They think that abortion is tantamount to murder.  While I do not share their conclusion, I understand it.  Clearly they think of the fetus as a person with all the rights and privileges thereunto appertaining.  By the way, from what I can see, they're more likely to be okay with calling it an "unborn child" but whatever you want to call it, it's the fetus, once again, that inspires their objection to abortion. 

So, whether you see the baby as a drag, a cramp in your lifestyle, an economic burden, or whether you see it as a person in need of protection, it is the "unborn child" that inspires.  Either it inspires you to terminate, or it inspires you to protect.  In any case, it is the source of inspiration.

[Cincinnatus]

Very interesting question, I hadn't thought about it that way before. For me I suppose it's more about the baby than the woman. Then again I also think it's a given that it's ultimately the woman's choice, so I've never really been concerned with that aspect. What I worry about is the status of the baby. And considering the open-ended nature of that question at this point, it becomes an even more subjective question. That's why I support the option to choose abortion; I and no one else has any definitive idea of when life begins, so no one should be involved in the decision but the mother.

You know, the body worlds exhibit I went to last year had a great exhibit on this.  The room had a video explaining different time frames of pregnancy.  It also had fetuses and embryos on display.  It showed what a fetus looked like after something like 4 weeks, 8 weeks, on and on.  If I can find a picture later I'll post it.  It was really quite an interesting exhibit, and I would encourage anyone to go to it if it ends up coming to a nearby city. 

[nclib]

It's definitely mainly about the woman. As Beet said, pro-lifers may have other goals that are less popular (controlling women's sexuality, etc.) so they package it as being about when does life begin.

Bills that attempt to require a married woman to get her husband’s permission before having an abortion, undermine concern for the fetus, since the fetus’s alleged rights are just as violated. Perhaps they could consider it insult to injury, but then that would imply that a woman killing her child is less wrong if she had her husband’s permission.

If pro-lifers were concerned about the mother’s rights trumping the child’s, they would be less strict on discipline and less supportive of corporal punishment, on average it’s the opposite.

If pro-lifers were concerned about the children’s rights in general, they would be supportive of children’s health care, on average it’s the opposite.

Support for abortion rights is correlated with support of other women’s rights issues that have nothing to do with the issue of when life begins, such as equal pay, acceptance of equal roles for husband and wife, women’s admission to all-male clubs, etc…