dcv's reconciliation of the abortion issue

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by dcv, Jun 28, 2005.

Loading...
  1. dcv

    dcv New Member

    (I started writing this piece in August 2003 in an attempt to elucidate what I believe to be an innovative approach to the "abortion rights" issue. This is an attempt to reconcile, to the farthest extent I consider possible, the liberal and conservative views on the issue.)

    Obviously, the abortion issue is an emotionally charged one, both within the pro-choice and the pro-life camps. For this reason I generally don't get involved in discussions about it, but I recently was encouraged to give it some thought. I present my thoughts here, with no hope of other than... maybe I harbor a glimmer of hope for some clarification.

    I use the term "fetus" rather loosely throughout, to represent an unborn human - be it zygote, embryo, whatever.

    Pro-Choice advocates, of course, represent the liberal position on abortion. Whether they see abortion as a moral issue or not, they also see it as an issue of rights; A woman has a right to have an abortion, and doctors have a right to provide her with one.

    Pro-Life advocates represent the conservative position. Many may allow for abortions in the event of ectopic pregnancy or other conditions that threaten the life of the mother. Some make allowances for rape and incest pregnancies. Beyond that the conservative holds that no woman has a right to an abortion, and no one has the right to perform an abortion on her.

    The philosopher Mary Anne Warren holds a liberal position on abortion. Warren says it's not ok to force women to not have abortions.

    I think, for the sake of argument, that a moderate conservative could grant her that.

    I think a moderate conservative could hold the view that the mother has a right to seek an abortion...but no doctor has a right to provide it.

    This is the middle ground.

    The mother has a right to an abortion.
    No one has the right to give her one but herself.

    The solution is for women to exercise their right to an abortion themselves. Women need to end the fetus' life themselves, if it is to be done.

    This perhaps would require the development of new technology to make self-induced abortions safe.

    Rape and incest pregnancies could for the most part, if so chosen, be terminated by a "morning after pill", as would countless other pregnancies, no doubt. Late term abortions would presumably require a doctor on hand to remove the dead fetus.

    Doctors could be on hand to remove the fetus, but it should be seen as a crime, except in cases where the fetus poses a threat to the life of the mother, for the doctor to induce an abortion.

    This would, I guess, cause abortion clinics to become assisted abortion centers.

    This leaves the moral responsibility with the mother (the only one with a right to seek an abortion, and the only one morally entitled to give her one, if anyone is.)

    While the idea of a business that touts "You kill your fetus, we'll do the rest" might sound somewhat morally repugnant, it is less repugnant than the thought of doctors and other staff being actively in the business of, and profiting from, the killing of fetuses for whatever reason.

    The liberals win - women keep the right to have an abortion.
    The conservatives win - it is unlawful for doctors to perform abortions on women, except in the case of medical emergencies.

    Thoughts?

    dcv
     
  2. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    I believe that a woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases.

    However, what she does with another body that possesses a separate DNA, central nervous system, brain, consciousness, etc--whether that separate body happens to be residing within her womb or walking down the street--is quite another matter.
     
  3. dcv

    dcv New Member

    Does the reconciliation I described appeal in any way to your pro-life mindset? Would it represent an improvement over existing abortion policies?

    I can't help but suspect it would result in a reduction in the number of abortions, especially late-term abortions.

    I've flown this turkey on another board with pretty much similar results. Is it just that the abortion issue is too touchy, or did I simply come up with a dumb idea? Did I even come up with it? Surely someone else has reached similar conclusions on this issue??
     
  4. When is my "crime" going to be made legal?

    I find it hard to argue against a woman's right to have an abortion, but (and I'm speaking as a liberal here) I also have a tough time advocating for someone (a woman, or a doctor) to be allowed to take another life without pretty damned good reason to do it - convenience just doesn't fly.

    Which brings me to my question....

    When is my crime going to be made legal? I mean with gambling being legalized, abortions legalized, and a host of other things that used to get you prison time back when I was growing up suddenly "legalized", how come I still can't smoke a joint when I want to??
     
  5. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    Re: When is my "crime" going to be made legal?

    If things keep moving in the direction they are, you won't be able to smoke anything legally.:(
     
  6. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    All I can say there, dcv, is that there are many people who take it as a fundamental article of their belief system that a woman has every right to do as she wishes with her body. And there are many people who take it as a fundamental article of their belief system that a newly-joined egg & sperm are an unborn baby and that that baby has a right to life. Though you may attempt a reconciliation between the two yourself, for most people, I would think, it would seem to be a matter of never the twain shall meet.
     
  7. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    You're right, Ted, but again, it's not her body that's at issue here--it's the other one that happens to reside in her womb. If a woman wants to have an unsightly mole removed or enlarge her unsightly mammaries to 42E, that's her business. But when it comes to a separate being--that's another matter entirely.
     
  8. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    It was at least a try, but did you really think this one would fly with me or other pro-lifers? That the woman killing the baby rather than the doctors would make the process more palatable somehow?

    Abortion involves terminating a human life at some stage of development, whether it be very early on after egg and sperm have united or much later--which is far more common--after the baby has experienced a great deal of development. If you define the taking of innocent human life as "murder", and you consider that life within the womb "human" (and what else are you to call it? Flora? Bacteria?) and you consider that life "innocent" (and really, how else are you to classify it?) then you must consider abortion "murder".

    I've spoken with highly educated, otherwise logical women who favor abortion under most any circumstances. They almost uniformly will, when pressed, state something along the lines of: "You know, I'm not saying that it's some easy thing; it's a very difficult decision." Of course, they will seldom follow up with why they think it's "so difficult". If it's just an unwanted lump of tissue, what's hard about that? Have it removed like a wart. I have no qualms about exising an unwanted growth, nor should anyone else. But the problem is that they know, at bottom, it's a human life at some stage of development that they're doing in. This is irrefutable fact; it's what actually occurs.

    I see no other alternative. And really, there is none. And that is why I don't find your solution particularly satisfying. I don't know if it would result in less abortions. That would be a good thing, but it's by no means a done deal that making the abortion more convenient by having the "Super RU486" concoction self-administered would result in less abortions. It would likely result in more.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2005
  9. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Re: Re: When is my "crime" going to be made legal?

    I'm afraid you're right about that, gkillion!
     
  10. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Re: When is my "crime" going to be made legal?

    I cannot fathom why a society would think it's quite all right to cut an infant in a womb into pieces with a scalpel, but not all right for you to sit at home and do what you will with your own brain cells. I also think that helmet and seat belt laws are perfectly silly. There, it really is about what one wants to do with their own body. And the government shouldn't have the right to intrude.

    Some things defy logic.
     
  11. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Re: Re: dcv's reconciliation of the abortion issue

    Well, let's see here. I think that there's the liberal bag of "not-shinola," there's the conservative bag of "not-shinola," and one who would stake out a political position must get through a lot of "not-shinola" to get to a little bit of real shinola. Having as a young man accepted the conservative ideology wholesale, including the anti-abortion position, I did, during college, come to accept the notion that a woman has every right to do as she wishes with her body, including the right to get an abortion, if she so chooses.

    Now that I am in mid-life, I seem to be detecting a lot of "not-shinola" at both ends of the political spectrum and am not quite certain what position, if any, to adopt on the abortion (other than the classic cop-out, "Well, I'm just a mere g--d--- man, so I'm not qualified to say anything; Roe v. Wade stands.") Of course, that begs the question of what would happen should the Supreme Court reverse Roe v. Wade.

    I think that abortion rights arose from the notion that a woman should have every right to "have sex like a man" (presumably to treat it like not much more than a fun roll in the hay and then abandon the consequences). Now, hypothetically speaking, if we lived in a perfect world (which we most certainly do not), I think that every man and every woman should ask themselves: (a) what their likelihood of conceiving a child is; (b) what the effectiveness rating (and, therefore, also the failure rating) of their chosen form of birth control is; (c) whether that failure rating is acceptable to them; (d) whether they are ready for parenthood should their protection fail; and then (e) stand up like real men and real women and do their duty by that child if such is conceived.

    But, we live in a broken and fallen world in which the above is simply too much to expect from the great masses of humanity.
     
  12. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    Re: Re: When is my "crime" going to be made legal?

    Don't get me started on seat belt laws. I live in Illinois where the only protective equipment required of a motorcyclist is a pair of sunglasses.

    I can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing my seatbelt in my minivan, while a gang of hells angels rides by with nothing but their goggles on, and they are perfectly legal.

    If lawmakers were truly looking out for our safety, then they would outlaw motorcycles all together. Oh but wait, that wouldn't generate much revenue.:rolleyes:

    Sorry to deviate from the subject of the thread, but this one really sticks in my craw.
     
  13. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Re: Re: Re: dcv's reconciliation of the abortion issue

    Very well said. We live in a fallen world and sadly, I contribute to the decline with my words and deeds. But I'm talking about what's right in an absolute sense, and yes, I do think public policy should reflect it. I cannot fathom that it's right in any sense for a woman to abort an infant residing within her womb irregardless of how that infant came into being. Myself, I was conceived by an unmarried 15 year old woman a bit over 40 years ago. I was later put up for adoption. I think I had just as much a right to enjoy life as a child who was conceived under more convenient circumstances. BTW, I'm not saying you disagree with this proposition.
     
  14. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: dcv's reconciliation of the abortion issue

    That, I think, is where the two of us differ. You actually have the gazongas to stand up like a real man and announce that there are certain moral absolutes that ought to be reflected in public policy. And I respect that. I, on the other hand, have so thoroughly fallen for the "everything is relative" BS of the Sixties and the Seventies that, though I may adopt a standard to hold myself to, I feel extremely uncomfortable with the notion of insisting that others should be expected to observe the same standards.
     
  15. Rivers

    Rivers New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dcv's reconciliation of the abortion issue

    - I know I'm going to take slack for this

    First of all I think RU486 has wrongfully been made a villian. Anyone who truely understands basic Biology understands exactly how it works and why it works. The Ironic thing is the Pro-life argument about abortion before the "morning after pill" was created and after has changed. At one time The Pro-life argument was that all fetus' were living beings now it includes embryos. That's neither here nor there for me really. I believe it is wrong that we are not doing studies on unwated embryos that sit there dying for no reason. Stem Cell Research is at the front of biotechnology and the question must be asked do we want to lead the world or be behind. Existing lines are not enough!

    As far as public policy goes I agree whole Heartly with Ted! It's up to the individual to decide what they (in this case she) wants to do with her body. I may not agree with an abortion of convience, but it is their decision to make. I don't believe anyone should be able to dictate what another can and can't due based on that the believe, everyone should have the abilty to decide for themselves! People tend to forget in the 50's and 60's women were having abortions illegally in dirty back alleys or using coat hangers. I can not imagine going back to that! Women will still do it even if it is illegal it will just be harder to do and create a black market or they will somewhere it is legal(e.g. Canada).

    Looking at it from an economic stand point(regardless of moral position): if we make abortion illegal, it will become expensive. therefore direct result will be more unwanted pregnancy. More unwanted pregnancy tends to lead to more abused and foster children. Now the next question is who is going to pay for this? If the goverment pays for it then there is less money in the general budget and this translates in to more spending and higher taxes. Now we are going to assume that all these children will be well adjusted at 18, the staggering answer is no! The reality is Wards of the state cost the state substantially more over their lifetime(on average) compared to the "average" citizen. (of course this not a moral argument but an economic one)

    Tim
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2005
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Personally I am against abortion.

    What always seemed odd to me is that those on the political left (namely women) believe a woman has a right to do as she sees fit with her body.

    Yet, they have been in constant protest against strippers saying it degrades women. Why doesn't a woman have a right to strip if she has a right to do as she pleases with her body?

    Many elements of NOW protested (and some still protest) legalized prostitution in Nevada. Again, if a woman has a right to do as she chooses with her body, then why can't a woman be a prostitute?

    The hypocrisy continues to amaze me.

    And, if a woman has a right to do as she sees fit with her body, then why can't she abort at 8 1/2 months?
     
  17. Rivers

    Rivers New Member

    I too am against the idea of abortion and will pledge never to have one.:D

    I agree a woman has the right to do what she pleases with her body period!
    This includes Playboy, the mustang Ranch or whatever else.
     
  18. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    You are correct in noting that the women's movement, or at least the mainstream portion thereof, comes down on the side of individual rights with respect to the right to an abortion or the right to sleep with any man (or woman) she might want ("it's a woman's right to do as she wishes with her body") while adopting a philosophy of corporatistic responsibility with respect to pornography, strip clubs, and prostitution ("that's degrading to women"). You are likewise correct in noting that the two are inconsistent.
     
  19. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    A glaring inconsistency in current laws involves giving the female partner sole discretion in bringing a pregnancy to term while holding the male partner financially responsible for her decision to bring the pregnancy to term.

    Whether or not to abort is strictly her decision but he must support the new human being should her decision be to not abort.
     
  20. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    All of which means that the law acknowledges that the man, at least, ought to have been thinking with his correct head before jumping into bed.
     

Share This Page