abortion

[CollectiveInterest]

My list of questions on abortion.

For all:

By defining when abortion is and isn't permissible the state has continued its encroachment into issues previously the domain of the church. (Legalizing gay marriage is another example of this encroachment.) In the past the church had much more control over things that are now the purview of the state. Organized religion's opposition to abortion rights can be interpreted as the church trying to assert itself as the state takes more and more turf from the church.

To what extent is this interpretation valid?

For Democrats:

Democrats complain it's the anti-abortion activists that insert abortion into U.S. politics. But Democrats love to raise money on the abortion issue. Clinton showed how to use abortion and gun control to win votes in suburban areas. Democrats like to allude to "big issues" they would be campaigning on if they didn't have to make the case on "narrow bore" issues like abortion. But the Dems basically in their comfort zone arguing these "narrow bore" issues because they don't have a bold domestice agenda. Until recently they were completely hazy on foreign policy. And due to the fact the Dems have taken in the affluent Neo Liberals (wealthy and progressive on social issues) the Dems never criticize the Neo Liberal trade regimine.

Do the Dems basically like campaigning on abortion and other social hot button issues because it provides cover for the flimsiness of the rest of the Dem agenda?

For abortion opponents:

Why should abortion be illegal?

Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? What about a pregnancy when the fetus is known to have a problem that is 100% lethal by 24 months?

What should the prison sentence be for women who get abortions? Doctors that provide abortions?

Do you favor reducing abortion through education and making contraception more widely available? Are you opposed to contraception that renders a fertilized egg non-viable?

Should miscarriages be investigated as potential homicides?

How willsociety be better if abortion is illegal?

Why do anti-abortion politicians like George W. Bush tend not to get asked detailed questions about their opposition to abortion? Has Russert ever grilled W the way he grilled DeMint? Why not?

[AuH2O]

More importantly, abortion is the reason Tom Daschle will return to Washington as a lobbyist, not a Senator.

[CollectiveInterest]

More importantly, abortion is the reason Tom Daschle will return to Washington as a lobbyist, not a Senator.

Can you answer the questions?

There's no way to prove or disprove your statement which may be based on an incorrect premise anyway. Daschle may win. And he may not become a lobbyist if he loses.

Do you support abortion rights?

[J-Mann]

For abortion opponents:

Why should abortion be illegal?

Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? What about a pregnancy when the fetus is known to have a problem that is 100% lethal by 24 months?

What should the prison sentence be for women who get abortions? Doctors that provide abortions?

Do you favor reducing abortion through education and making contraception more widely available? Are you opposed to contraception that renders a fertilized egg non-viable?

Should miscarriages be investigated as potential homicides?

How willsociety be better if abortion is illegal?

Why do anti-abortion politicians like George W. Bush tend not to get asked detailed questions about their opposition to abortion? Has Russert ever grilled W the way he grilled DeMint? Why not?

First, a note about my thoughts on abortion.  I'm pro-life (or anti-abortion, whichever you prefer), but don't talk about it much.  I think it's a dead issue as far as trying overturn Roe v. Wade, etc.  I think abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, but it's still destroying life.  Many don't believe that, but working on a dairy, I've had to see and perform abortions.  If a cow's life is in danger, we abort the calf, and that's very, very hard.  Sometimes the calves are quite far along in development, and it's rough to see them laying there, gasping for breath with underdeveloped lungs, their organs crushed because their bones aren't developed enough to hold things in place.  Abortion should be an absolute last resort, never a birth control method.  If I got drunk, got in my car and drove, and killed an entire family, I'd have to live with those consequences.  There's no aborting something like that.  Likewise, I would hope that folks my age wouldn't think of abortion as an easy way out; sometimes we've got to live with the consequences of our actions, even if it's a child that we don't want.

Now, as for your questions pertaining to me:

1) Murder is illegal.  Unless unfortunate circumstances dictate otherwise, I think that abortion is murder.  It's taking a life.  If it were fully legal and available everywhere, it would become the number one "birth control" method.  Instead, we should focus our efforts on other birth control methods and promote the merits of adoption.

2) I think my views on this have been made clear above.  I think there are circumstances that can arise that make abortion acceptable.  When the life of the mother is in danger is one of those circumstances.  Women who were "forced" to conceive - through rape, for instance - shouldn't be "forced" to carry a child to term.  Hopefully, those women who have sex willingly and conceive would WANT to carry the fetus to term.  Sometimes that's not the case, and hence why abortion should be illegal.

Um, as for the "100% fatal within 24 months" part of this question...I don't get it.  Likely a typo.  But like I said, if the woman's life is in danger, abortion is acceptable.

3) The staunchest of abortion opponents would say that the sentence for the respective parties to the abortion should be on par with sentences for murder and accomplice/accessory to murder.  I don't know if I'd go that far, but I do think that abortion for selfish, birth control purposes is murder.

4) Yes.  More education on contraception is needed.  Abstinence is a noble goal, but it's not going to happen.  Effective contraception and access to it is needed.  If it renders the egg non-viable, so be it.  The egg itself is only one half of the life, as far as I'm concerned.  Periods render eggs non-viable, and masturbation renders sperm non-viable.  That's not taking a life.  Destruction of a fertilized egg is.

5) Er...no.  I see where you're trying to go with this, and...no.  Miscarriages are natural; unfortunate, but natural.  Abortions aren't.

6) Fewer abortions in total is good enough for me; that's a societal improvement right there.  I'd hope that through abortion being made illegal and subsequent education concerning adoption that more babies are carried to term, and more families who are seeking children through adoption will be able to get them.

7) The questions that you've just asked are not "grilling".  They're normal, inquisitive questions often posed to pro-lifers.  I don't know how much more grilling you could get, unless it was a pro-choicer berating a pro-lifer.  And then it's not asking valid questions, is it?

The President's position on this, like so many others', is not going to change because someone talks fancy to them.  They'll still believe abortion is wrong.

-----------

To wrap this up: I don't know where you stand on abortion, CollectiveInterest.  If you're pro-choice, none of my answers will convince you.  I don't expect them to change anyone's minds.  But that's how I feel about the issue.  Berating me about it in return won't change my mind, either.  You posed valid questions for both sides; perhaps this answered at least a few of them.

[??????????]

Abortion is a barbaric practice and I see very few exceptions to even allow it to occur.

[angus]

My list of questions on abortion.

For all:

By defining when abortion is and isn't permissible the state has continued its encroachment into issues previously the domain of the church. (Legalizing gay marriage is another example of this encroachment.) In the past the church had much more control over things that are now the purview of the state. Organized religion's opposition to abortion rights can be interpreted as the church trying to assert itself as the state takes more and more turf from the church.

To what extent is this interpretation valid?

To the extent that you believe that only The Church  may define morality.  That is, if one presumes only religion may inform one's judgement as to what constitutes, say, murder, is it valid.  And since we do not live in Medieval Europe, sovereignty over this domain does not lie solely with The Church.  Moreover, one may be entirely irreligious and still come to the conclusion that aborting a human (or bovine) fetus constitutes illegally taking another's life.  That is, there are probably many who believe that it is simply immoral to take life before it begins.  You must respect their beliefs, whether or not you share it.  I do not believe that many on the Kerry side do, and it is this general narrow-mindedness, in part, that led me to change my voter registration to Republican some time ago.

For Democrats:

Democrats complain it's the anti-abortion activists that insert abortion into U.S. politics. But Democrats love to raise money on the abortion issue. Clinton showed how to use abortion and gun control to win votes in suburban areas. Democrats like to allude to "big issues" they would be campaigning on if they didn't have to make the case on "narrow bore" issues like abortion. But the Dems basically in their comfort zone arguing these "narrow bore" issues because they don't have a bold domestice agenda. Until recently they were completely hazy on foreign policy. And due to the fact the Dems have taken in the affluent Neo Liberals (wealthy and progressive on social issues) the Dems never criticize the Neo Liberal trade regimine.

Do the Dems basically like campaigning on abortion and other social hot button issues because it provides cover for the flimsiness of the rest of the Dem agenda?

Possibly, but as a tactical matter, they made a *huge* mistake years ago when it was decided to pursue abortion as a civil rights, or women's rights, issue, rather than a humanitarian one.  Polls will show that there was, in the 50s and 60s a fairly substantial gender gap when it came to the question about whether abortion should be legal.  That is, more men thought it should, naturally, by virtue of darwinistic manliness, and more women thought it should not be.  (mother's instinct and all).  All of this seems like ancient history, and to the very young, perhaps even counterintuitive.

Had the Democrats had the good sense to pursue the issue as an economic one (abortions are cheaper than welfare, etc.) or even a humanitarian one (forcing an unwanted child into the world, when we have over 6b people already and a very uneven food distribution), they'd have won over more converts.  But, unwisely, they chose to sell it as a "woman's rights" or even "reproductive rights" issue.  That was a mistake.  In addition to massive amounts of polling data detailing the narrowing of the aforementioned gener gap, I offer myself (along with other NeoLiberal GOP types), anecdotally, as evidence:  I have often stated in this forum, that I have no philosophical objections to pregnancy termination.  Many other rightists (libertarians) and centrists (usually Republicans or Democrats) and leftists (some Democrats and others) have as well.  But, and I speak frankly, I find it hard imagine that a candidate's position on this particular issue would sway my vote, one way or the other.  Perhaps if all other things really were equal (ceteris paribus) then maybe, but this has never been the case.

The republicans, on the other hand, have wisely chosen to pursue abortion as a human rights issue (albeit on the other side of the coin).  And in so doing, they do not lose my vote, naturally, as I have no disrespect for the underlying deeply held moral principles which lead them to their conclusions, only the conclusion itself.  And they are able to win the upper hand of the real bleeding hearts who feel that termination of a pregancy constitutes murder.

Quod erat demonstrandum. 


As an aside, I will offer that I agree with you that the whole Gay Marriage flap is an incursion of the state into what would previously have been considered Church domain.  But in this regard, it is a very different sort of social issue than abortion.  And in this respect, the GOP does risk losing the votes of centrists (or NeoLiberal Clintonite Republicans, which ever you prefer) like myself.  It is a calculated risk they have made.  I bear them no grudge, and, for the moment, there are more important considerations than gay marriage, which I support fully.

[Jake]

Abortion is wrong all the time.  I would be willing to support someone who offered a compromise in the case that a women's life was compromised if all other abortion was illegal.  You talk about abortion rights, but the fact is a person is guaranteed the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Abortion is nothing more and nothing less than the killing of an innocent life no different than the terrorists killing the children at Beslan or the Chinese girls killed just for being girls.  The problem with legislating about abortion is that people try to make up all these rights.  They say a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. That isn't a right. 

About contraceptives, I personally am apposed to them, butif you want them, you should be able to purchase.  I don't seek to stop fertilization, but once it occurs, you can't end it.  Legalizing abortion is one of the things that put us on the slippery slope towards a perverse and unethical society.

[AuH2O]

Just because a life form is reliant on another, does not negate it's status as worthy of protection.

Just because an unborn child- for a time at least- needs the mother to survive, that does not allow the mother to simply decide 'oh well, I don't really want it' and have the young human killed.

It is immoral to perform abortions and it is immoral to seek them in all but truly exceptional cases. There are a set of cases where I do not believe the government can ban the practice, but it remains immoral (rape, due to autonomy issues).

It is not possible to be Christian and support abortion. I repeat: it is NOT POSSIBLE to be Christian and support abortion. You can believe in God, certainly, and support the murder of innocent children- but you are not Christian.

I'm against abortion and I'm not particularly Christian anyway. But the point remains accurate.

[John Dibble]

The biggest problem I see when this issue is debated is that people feel so strongly about it, they don't really try to understand the other side's point of view. The pro-lifer's generally can't get themselves in the mindset of the pro-choicers and the pro-choicers can't get themselves in the mindset of the pro-lifers. If you are pro-life, you think abortion is murder, and you probably get so worked up about it you forget that some people just do not think of it that way. The opposite applies - if you don't think abortion is murder you might think it's foolish to believe it is. Both sides usually fail to consider that the other might just have  a point. Personally, I've seen good arguments on both sides of the spectrum.

Anways, rant over, just figured I'd throw in my two cents.

[angus]

The biggest problem I see when this issue is debated is that people feel so strongly about it, they don't really try to understand the other side's point of view. The pro-lifer's generally can't get themselves in the mindset of the pro-choicers and the pro-choicers can't get themselves in the mindset of the pro-lifers. If you are pro-life, you think abortion is murder, and you probably get so worked up about it you forget that some people just do not think of it that way. The opposite applies - if you don't think abortion is murder you might think it's foolish to believe it is. Both sides usually fail to consider that the other might just have  a point. Personally, I've seen good arguments on both sides of the spectrum.

Very well put.  Folks have become single-minded on this issue, and refuse to listen to one another.  That was my point.  The only thing you left out was that it isn't an either/or proposition.  I really think most folks I know are both ProLife and ProChoice.  My mother always believed abortion was killing, and therefore wrong, and would advise against it, but was adamantly opposed to allowing government to interject in this issue.  And from what I've heard and read, that's what a plurality of people think.  Then, they're by definition Pro-Life (abortion is wrong) and Pro Choice (you can choose to do wrong).  Now, I'm not Pro-Life, since I really don't have a problem with you getting one, so long as you don't ask me to pay for it, and I'm not Pro-Choice, since I don't view the whole thing as a "reproductive rights" issue to begin with.  But I'd offer the alternative view that you don't have to be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.  In fact, most folks are both, and I am neither. 

I have stopped posting on the abortion threads precisely because it has become such a vitriolic free-for-all, in which nothing new is ever said and every one is so closed, as you pointed out.  But the reason I responded to Collective Interest's post is that it was a little different.  It asked, genuinely and without sarcasm I believe, about whether, and to what extent, an interpretation is valid.  I believe many have demonstrated that it is not.  That is, don't turn this into a Christian versus everybody else issue. 

Goldwater points out that he feels abortion is wrong.  In fact, I am quite sure my mother felt the same way when she was alive, and I offer no condemnation of his views.  He also points out that he is not "particularly" Christian but still holds the views.  I'm not quite sure what that means, but I'll offer the broader interpretation:  Many Muslims feel abortion is murder, as do many Jews, Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, etc.  Thus, clearly one needn't be Christian to come to this conclusion.  But, more importantly:  ONe not need be religious at all to reach that conclusion.  I'll repeat that one's morality need not be informed by religion.  In fact, I am certain I know folks who have no religious convictions whatsoever who feel abortion is wrong and would not have an abortion.  This they have stated to me in no uncertain terms. 

So, just to clarify, my diatribe is not an argument for or against abortion "rights" as I believe no such rights exist a priori.  And frankly I really don't have a problem (until and unless we start Socialized Medicine) how many abortions you get, and by what procedure you get them, or how late into the pregnancy you get them, provided you are not my minor child.  I only post to try to clarify CollectiveInterest's misperceptions that morality need be informed by religion, and only religion.  This corrollary I hold independent, and beyond the scope, of this particular issue.  It is merely the manifistation thereof that exemplifies very well this truth.  (assuming it is true)

The parenthetical part is one of perfect paradox:  Even though I am loathe to grant to my government the right to restrict abortions (or gambling or prostitution or drugs or gay marriages for that matter), I find the anti-abortion crowd to be often more humble and gracious than the "abortion rights" crowd.  And I'm often more comfortable with them, since I really do respect the compassion with which they reach their conclusions.  I have never been stared down by a republican for not being "republican enough" for them.  I have often been hooted at and hollered at for not being "democratic enough" for the democrats.  Weird, ain't it?  Somebody just blowing smoke up my ass?  Possible.  But the the more likely scenario is that we really have come full circle.  The moralists, who were once owned by the GOP (read 1860s), who wondered off for a while (read 1960s) have made their way back home.

[cwelsch]

For abortion opponents:

Why should abortion be illegal? - Because it's murder.

Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? What about a pregnancy when the fetus is known to have a problem that is 100% lethal by 24 months? - That's a leading question.  The question is, when and why can an infant be killed?

What should the prison sentence be for women who get abortions? Doctors that provide abortions? - Women nothing because it's pointless and unpopular.  Doctors should get life in prison or the death penalty, same as any other murder-for-hire charge.  Abortion rings would be the focus, arresting women who get abortions is even less effective than arresting johns for solicitation.  there are some women who get tons of abortions, but most women get one or two their whole lives.  A doctor could easily perform one or two in an hour, so obviously you target the doctors.

Do you favor reducing abortion through education and making contraception more widely available? Are you opposed to contraception that renders a fertilized egg non-viable? - A fertilized egg is a life, it has its own unique DNA.

Should miscarriages be investigated as potential homicides? No.  This is stupid.  This never happened for the hundreds of years that abortion was illegal.  If you've ever heard of SIDS then you know that born-alive infant deaths are almost completely uninvestigated without some compelling reason.  The same would hold true even moreso for miscarriage.

How will society be better if abortion is illegal? - One million fewer people will be murdered every year.


I have a page on my website that's a whole bunch of pro-choice questions answered by me.
http://angrylibertarian.com/abortion.html

[cwelsch]

You cannot be pro-life and pro-choice.  Personally disliking abortion is not the standard - it's believing that abortion should be illegal, that it destroys life.  Nobody would be pro-choice and pro-life, because it means you think abortion should be both illegal and legal.

You can oppose the practice of abortion while recognizing that it ought to be legal, but what's wrong with abortion if not the taking of human life?