Abortion

[glunn]

After reading some posts about abortion in the thread about the Republican presidential debate, I am starting this thread as a place to have a respectful discussion of abortion and possibly identify some paths towards solutions that most people can agree with.

 

In the other thread, someone referred to abortion as "baby murder."  My sense is that other than a handful of psychopaths, no one wants "baby murder."  That kind of labeling makes it difficult to continue the discussion.  Let's try to avoid that in this thread.

 

It seems to me that almost no one is "pro-abortion."  I support Planned Parenthood and some of my contributions help fund abortions for women who cannot afford them, but my strong preference is provide easy access to free birth control to every person so that abortion is rare. Planned Parenthood provides a lot of free birth control to people who could not afford it, but it's a drop in the bucket compared with the need.

 

It frustrates me that the politicians who have passed laws making it more difficult and expensive for women to obtain abortions tend to not support easy access to free birth control.  I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.  From a purely fiscal perspective, free birth control is a good move, as revealed in a book by a noted economist:  

 

 

It appears that the abortion rate has been dropping, but there are still more than one million abortions per year.  http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html

 

It seems to me that if we provide easy access to free birth control to those who need it, we should be able to cut the abortion rate in half.  The key would be to get the birth control to the cohorts of women who would otherwise be getting abortions and raising public awareness of the options for avoiding the entire abortion dilemma.

 

I believe that there are two main reasons why this is not happening:

 

1.  Religious conservatives and prudes abhor promiscuity and don't want to promote wanton sex, especially among teens.  They prefer abstinence programs, even though such programs have not been effective in the past. 

 

2.  Some fiscal conservatives don't want to use taxpayer funds to pay for birth control and all of the wanton sex that might ensue.  I am a fiscal conservative who is tired of paying $50,000 per year per prisoner to sit on their asses in prison for non-violent crimes while I work like a dog.  It seems beyond dispute that unwanted children have a much greater than average propensity to end up in prison and on welfare.  From a fiscal perspective, it seems clear to me that unwanted children are bad and birth control is good.  Can anyone seriously dispute that?

 

I would like to reach out to all of the pro-life people and ask them to embrace an all out birth control strategy with the goal of reducing the number of abortions by at least 500,000 per year, essentially cutting the rate in half.  I realize that there are many Christians who want to end all abortions, but I would hope that they could see the benefit of a 50% reduction.  It seems to me that we should all be able to agree that it would be a good thing to eliminate 500,000 abortions per year.

 

I personally don't feel that abortion is "murder."  If I did, then I would want to overturn Roe V. Wade, either by a constitutional amendment or a conservative Supreme Court.  On this, there will always be disagreement.  But we share a common desire to reduce the number of abortions.  Why can't we work together on that?

 

I would also note that the Catholic Church still takes the position that birth control is a sin and that sex should be only for procreation.  I support their right to believe whatever they want, but as a fiscal conservative I think that it's wrong to ask everyone to pay taxes to take care of unwanted children who would never have been conceived if the mother had used birth control. The Catholic Church is not covering the costs of such unwanted babies -- this is falling mainly on the taxpayers -- and if abortion became illegal tomorrow then we taxpayers would be on the hook for about 1 million new unwanted babies per year.  If we ever need population increase I would rather get it from immigration reform, not millions of unwanted babies.

 

Finally, if it were up to me, we would spend the extra money that it would take to drop the abortion rate even more, up to and including requiring all broadcast stations (as a condition of renewal of their licenses) to devote significant time to education about the resources and choices that are available to prevent pregnancy.  I would make condoms available in the office of every school counselor beginning in the eighth grade.  It seems clear to me that this would not increase the rate of premarital sex.  The kids who want to have sex will have sex whether or not condoms are freely available.  Blame their parents or the abstinence programs or Hollywood, but adolescents have been having sex for millions of years, and some of the most memorable of them have been Catholic girls.  My point is that if they use birth control then no one has to worry about an abortion or an unwanted child and my taxes can go down.

 

Please keep in mind that preventing unwanted pregnancy pretty much prevents abortion.  Yes, there may be some women who get pregnant deliberately then decide to have an abortion, and my birth control solution would be worthless in those cases.  However, I suspect that this is probably less than 50,000 women per year.  So if we went all the way -- mobile birth control vans, education in all schools, public awareness campaigns by all broadcast stations -- I think that we could eliminate more than 950,000 abortions per year.  I would also be more than willing to compromise by including a recognition of religious values by always stressing in all education campaigns the fact that access to birth control does not mean that having sex is a good thing in a particular situation.  Having sex can be a very bad thing in a particular situation, even using birth control.  It seems to me that the message should be that the decision to have sex deserves careful consideration from a moral and religious perspective, but if you are going to do it then use at least one form of birth control -- two if you are very smart.

 

 

 

 

[Willihammer]

If anyone hasn't read up on Roe v. Wade, I recommend it. It gives you a sense of just how pointless the abortion debate is. Questions about exceptions for rape, health danger, etc. They have already been answered. Abortion was illegal except for these exceptions back in the 60s. But then a young woman wanted an abortion and claimed rape to get it. The woman had not filed a police report about the rape, therefore after she got the abortion the police got all up in her business, into her sex life. Eventually the Supreme Court struck down the law on 9th amendment/privacy grounds. (That's my TLDR understanding at least, perhaps one or two of the lawyers on TD can weigh in). Think about that level of government intervention.

 

If a woman wants to have an abortion, we don't launch a police investigation into every single sexual act of her life to make sure its legal. Roe v. Wade is the precedent that courts will recall forever and ever. So its a stupid moot question at this point. Elective abortion is legal, period.

 

Abortion is obviously a grissly heinous thing. Therefore the goal at this point should only be to reduce the number of abortions. Condoms are an easy, cheap way. IUDs too.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'll toss my 2 cents into this.  I'm largely pro-life.  I do believe in reasonable exceptions such as rape and when the mother's life is in danger.  Beyond that, the issue at hand keeps coming back to a few simple questions:

 

1)  Is that unborn child alive?

2)  What rights should it have?

 

This is the part that really gnaws at me.  I think question one is pretty easily answered in the affirmative, and while question 2 is more difficult to answer, the result is usually to try and boil things down to a simple choice.  I'm wholeheartedly in favor of choice whenever that option is available, but the issue here is not as simple as a woman or couple's right to choose as much as it is about the rights of the defenseless child that gets no say.  I would think that there would be outrage over this, but society seems rather muted about it as a whole, which concerns me far more.  The outrage we see in society about someone killing a 'defenseless' lion is really quite the disconnect on the abortion matter.  To be clear, I was against that too, but you would have though the world was coming to an end b/c a dentist shot a predator (granted, I oversimplified this quite a bit) that would have had no problems killing said dentist or someone's child if it was hungry enough.  However, in our country we have seen the termination of some 40-50 million pregnancies (depending on your source), and most of these do not fall into simple common sense exceptions that would exist, and yet there's very little outrage.  If that dentist was a mother who had an abortion, can you imagine the outage that would have existed if people had treated her in the same manner the dentist was treated? I'm not advocating these things, but I do think that this nation's hypocrisy on such matters is really coming to a boiling point. 

 

Getting back to the topic a bit, I'll echo what willihammer said here.  So much of this is solvable with basic contraception.  Like it or not, I do think that there's a personal responsibility issue here that gets set aside.  If you know where to look, or know how to use the internet, you can find plenty of free birth control out there, and while it's not a 100% effective solution, it would certainly put a pretty large dent in those numbers. 

[TheLeviathan]

Male contraception, let's embrace that. Look up some things they're doing out there in India and other places.

 

We should band together to focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies and the abortion issue will fix itself. Unfortunately, both sides sit on the extremes rather than looking at practical middle ground that helps everyone.

 

We NEED to totally reframe this issue.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

1)  Is that unborn child alive?

 

This isn't a helpful question (and creates a straw man, honestly).  No argues that the fetus or zygote is alive.  The essential question is that living organism a person with legal rights?  And that question is far more complex.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

This isn't a helpful question (and creates a straw man, honestly).  No argues that the fetus or zygote is alive.  The essential question is that living organism a person with legal rights?  And that question is far more complex.  

 

Unfortunately, this right here is the disconnect.  This IS the question, and it's fundamental to the entire debate.  If that unborn child, fetus, zygote, embryo (or whatever you want to call it), isn't alive, then the whole basis for any reason to appose abortion is simply tossed out.  You cannot look at and begin to understand the problem of abortion if you choose not to look at whether or not that unborn child is alive. 

 

The straw man in this debate is the desire to reshape this debate around something other than the cold termination of a defenseless, living human being. 

[Craig Arko]

I have to admit I find sanctity of life arguments hard to accept when living in a nation founded by mass murder and holding a nuclear stockpile pretty much capable of de-populating the planet. Not to mention constantly engaged in warfare over control of natural resources on somebody else's land.

 

It's pretty clear that history shows humanity actually holds life in utter contempt. Both human and otherwise. Counter-examples are the exception.

 

Which leads to this point; the abortion debate is not about life, it's about control. I'm really happy with not trying to exercise control over others' private lives, and ask the same in return.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Unfortunately, this right here is the disconnect.  This IS the question, and it's fundamental to the entire debate.  If that unborn child, fetus, zygote, embryo (or whatever you want to call it), isn't alive, then the whole basis for any reason to appose abortion is simply tossed out.  You cannot look at and begin to understand the problem of abortion if you choose not to look at whether or not that unborn child is alive. 

 

The straw man in this debate is the desire to reshape this debate around something other than the cold termination of a defenseless, living human being. 

No one is arguing that the fetus is not alive.  We all agree it is alive. (For the record, sperm and ovum independently are arguably alive, just as any living cell is arguably "alive").  So let's move on from that question.  

 

ALIVE, however, does not equal PERSON. I don't believe a zygote or a fetus who cannot live independently of its mother is a person (i.e. not a human being).  The "cold termination of a defenseless, living human being" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that derails thoughtful discussion.  The issue isn't about "living" it's about "human being." 

 

I'm happy to talk about how to care for "living human beings", but I'm sure the buck stops at birth with most pro-lifers.  The unwanted child has a host of problems after birth that too many conservatives like to simply skirt. 

 

Pro-lifers can't convince me abortion is wrong, but they might be able to convince me that they'd be part of a world that ensures some peaceable future for their fellow man, even at a cost to themselves, and then maybe I could be persuaded easy access to abortion isn't a modern day necessity of any decent society. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I have to admit I find sanctity of life arguments hard to accept when living in a nation founded by mass murder and holding a nuclear stockpile pretty much capable of de-populating the planet. Not to mention constantly engaged in warfare over control of natural resources on somebody else's land.

It's pretty clear that history shows humanity actually holds life in utter contempt. Both human and otherwise. Counter-examples are the exception.

Which leads to this point; the abortion debate is not about life, it's about control. I'm really happy with not trying to exercise control over others' private lives, and ask the same in return.

 

I won't argue with you about our nation's history.  You won't find me saying that we needed to nuke Japan or that was done to the Indian population on this planet was somehow right.  But even then, there were humans who were against these sins, and while I agree that humanity holds life in utter contempt, I fail to see how it is that we should continue to overlook our human/sin nature and continue holding life in utter contempt.  But last I checked, the sins of our ancestors doesn't somehow justify our current sins. 

 

The abortion debate is very much about life.  You can go on and tell yourself it's about control, and perhaps to some it is, but to simply oversimplify the entirety of this issue in order to fit your world view is, to be blunt, nothing but ignorance.   You can see by my posting history that I'm a pretty big believer in personal liberty, value the freedoms that we pretend to have in this country, that I personally hate any kind of unwarranted intrusion into anyone's life, both here in this country and overseas.  So perhaps you should take me (and those who echo these views) at my/our word when I say that we believe it comes down to human life.  If it was simply a matter of choice, I wouldn't be on this side. 

 

If I walked into the thread about the Minnesota dentist who shot that lion and say that people against his are only here because they seek to control the actions of others, I would rightfully castigated for such an opinion.  They are outraged because they found those actions reprehensible.  Just as people who are pro-life find abortion reprehensible.  How does this somehow fit here, yet not over there?

[TheLeviathan]

 

ALIVE, however, does not equal PERSON. I don't believe a zygote or a fetus who cannot live independently of its mother is a person (i.e. not a human being).  

 

Humans are about 4 before they can live "independently", but let's face it - we've crafted the whole personhood argument around getting us out of the moral dilemma of abortion.  

 

Again, we should reframe this about reducing unwanted pregnancies, which should include comprehensive sex education, male contraception, free birth control, etc.  But let's stop pretending we have anything other than a phony, arbitrary definition of personhood.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

No one is arguing that the fetus is not alive.  We all agree it is alive. (For the record, sperm and ovum independently are arguably alive, just as any living cell is arguably "alive").  So let's move on from that question.  

 

ALIVE, however, does not equal PERSON. I don't believe a zygote or a fetus who cannot live independently of its mother is a person (i.e. not a human being).  The "cold termination of a defenseless, living human being" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that derails thoughtful discussion.  The issue isn't about "living" it's about "human being." 

 

I'm happy to talk about how to care for "living human beings", but I'm sure the buck stops at birth with most pro-lifers.  The unwanted child has a host of problems after birth that too many conservatives like to simply skirt. 

 

Pro-lifers can't convince me abortion is wrong, but they might be able to convince me that they'd be part of a world that ensures some peaceable future for their fellow man, even at a cost to themselves, and then maybe I could be persuaded easy access to abortion isn't a modern day necessity of any decent society. 

 

The argument in favor of abortion has over the years specifically attempted to dehumanize what is, at the end of the day, an unborn human.  I would note though that an infant, a toddler, and most younger children could not live independently of their mother.  For that matter, some adults cannot.  Are they no longer people too in that definition?  What exactly is magical about the crossing of a baby through the birth canal that bestows life on it and makes it a person, protected by the laws of this land?

 

The problem here with the 'rhetoric' is that the cold, termination of a defenseless human life is exactly what it is, and your description of it (regardless of whether or not you agree that abortion is murder, right, wrong, or whatever) is precisely that... cold.  It dehumanizes the act, even though the act itself is quite reprehensible, and I'd add that when performed in the 3rd trimester, that fetus would likely be viable.  The failure on the pro-choice side is recognizing that pro-life people really do view abortion as the cold, termination of human life.  Actually, they view it more as a cold indifferent murder of human life.  I intentionally softened that rhetoric to allow for that discussion, but you did much of the same in your post insisting that "the issue isn't about 'living', it's about 'human being'."  Simply dismissing someone's viewpoint to fit it into your world view is the 'rhetoric that derails thoughtful discussion'.  It leaves people completely unheard, does it not?

[diehardtwinsfan]

Glunn, I really didn't weigh in on your other comments.  I've cut this up a bit, and I'll try to here.

 

quote name="glunn" post="384388" timestamp="1439097983"]

1.  Religious conservatives and prudes abhor promiscuity and don't want to promote wanton sex, especially among teens.  They prefer abstinence programs, even though such programs have not been effective in the past.

 

 

It's a little bigger issue than this. I agree that a lot of conservatives want abstinence programs.  It's bigger than that though because many of us do teach our children to abstain till marriage.  This is far more than simple sex education.  This is a value system that some people in this country hold, and have a right to hold I might add.  I don't expect people to share that same value, but I do think that there's plenty of agenda on both sides of this issue that gets in the way here.

 

I think the real pollution into this debate is that both sides tend to distort this for their own gain, with religious Conservatives saying 'abstinence only' and more liberally minding people calling it safe sex (when at best it's only safer, while not adequately disclosing the real risks that remain with contraception. There's no such thing as safe sex).  Personally, I'd simply prefer sex education to stick to the facts and allow people to choose for themselves so that they understand the risks that they are taking.  It really isn't hard and can be done in a way that presents all the facts and risks so as to allow kids to make these decisions for themselves.  This is very doable.

 

 

"glunn" post="384388" timestamp="1439097983"

2.  Some fiscal conservatives don't want to use taxpayer funds to pay for birth control and all of the wanton sex that might ensue.  I am a fiscal conservative who is tired of paying $50,000 per year per prisoner to sit on their asses in prison for non-violent crimes while I work like a dog.  It seems beyond dispute that unwanted children have a much greater than average propensity to end up in prison and on welfare.  From a fiscal perspective, it seems clear to me that unwanted children are bad and birth control is good.  Can anyone seriously dispute that?

 

 

I don't want to use taxpayer dollars to fund anything outside of what was declared in our constitution.  Things get really sticky when your money is taken from you by force to be used to fund things that don't fit with your values.  People don't like that, and rightfully so.  The fact that people cannot agree on mostly anything is one big reason as to why I personally think we need to take a very constitutional view to government spending.  Simply putting those tax dollars back in the pockets of the working masses would do wonders to solve this problem that you described.  I also suspect that if you look at the demographics of where abortions are happening, you'd find that they don't always line up with the poverty demographics that create crime.  I don't know if this is true or not, but I suspect abortion tends to happen more among the wealthy than the poor.  I could be wrong there, but I know a bunch of people that have had abortions, and every one could afford to use contraception, just as they were able to afford their far more expensive abortion procedure. 

 

That said, birth control is already cheap and in many cases free.  A woman can walk into the local health department in most places and get the pill.  A large box of condoms can be purchased cheaply too (for probably the same amount as the average college students weekly liquor bill), not to mention that many universities (my school did) and charities already give them away also. Anyone with a job that makes minimum wage can afford them as well.  Birth control is also covered under most insurance plans too.  It's already cheap.  Making it free is something that can be done fairly easily if you wanted, and there are certainly worse things to spend tax payer dollars on, but while it may put a dent in the abortion numbers, I really don't think it will reduce it as you suggest.  It's already readily available.  Education is still the answer here, though I'd have no problems giving money to private organizations that wanted to give away birth control (and only birth control).

 

I would also note that the Catholic Church still takes the position that birth control is a sin and that sex should be only for procreation.  I support their right to believe whatever they want, but as a fiscal conservative I think that it's wrong to ask everyone to pay taxes to take care of unwanted children who would never have been conceived if the mother had used birth control. The Catholic Church is not covering the costs of such unwanted babies -- this is falling mainly on the taxpayers -- and if abortion became illegal tomorrow then we taxpayers would be on the hook for about 1 million new unwanted babies per year.  If we ever need population increase I would rather get it from immigration reform, not millions of unwanted babies.

This brings us back to that value system. I'm not Catholic. I think their position on birth control is ridiculous (not to mention untenable from a Biblical point of view). However, it's not my place to force them to conform to my value system, nor do I think it is in anyone's best interest in a free country to take their money in the form of taxes and use that money to support a value system that they do not hold. I would note that most Catholics I've interacted with don't agree with the church's position, as do their priests (or so they say at least)

 

 

Finally, if it were up to me, we would spend the extra money that it would take to drop the abortion rate even more, up to and including requiring all broadcast stations (as a condition of renewal of their licenses) to devote significant time to education about the resources and choices that are available to prevent pregnancy.  I would make condoms available in the office of every school counselor beginning in the eighth grade.  It seems clear to me that this would not increase the rate of premarital sex.  The kids who want to have sex will have sex whether or not condoms are freely available.  Blame their parents or the abstinence programs or Hollywood, but adolescents have been having sex for millions of years, and some of the most memorable of them have been Catholic girls.  My point is that if they use birth control then no one has to worry about an abortion or an unwanted child and my taxes can go down.

 

Please keep in mind that preventing unwanted pregnancy pretty much prevents abortion.  Yes, there may be some women who get pregnant deliberately then decide to have an abortion, and my birth control solution would be worthless in those cases.  However, I suspect that this is probably less than 50,000 women per year.  So if we went all the way -- mobile birth control vans, education in all schools, public awareness campaigns by all broadcast stations -- I think that we could eliminate more than 950,000 abortions per year.  I would also be more than willing to compromise by including a recognition of religious values by always stressing in all education campaigns the fact that access to birth control does not mean that having sex is a good thing in a particular situation.  Having sex can be a very bad thing in a particular situation, even using birth control.  It seems to me that the message should be that the decision to have sex deserves careful consideration from a moral and religious perspective, but if you are going to do it then use at least one form of birth control -- two if you are very smart.

That said, even if condoms were readily available as you suggest, I don't think that abortion rates would decline much at all.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they went up, but let's assume that they will drop some, it certainly won't be 950k abortions/year, but I'd say odds are good it would drop.  The problem is that people don't carry condoms with them where ever they go.  Condoms aren't 100% effective and their efficacy rate (high 90s) is tied directly to being properly put on and not breaking during intercourse (and that efficacy is decreased significantly against certain STDs).  I do know that once people start having sex, hormones/opportunity tend to take over and the lack of birth control when neither partner has any isn't always (or even usually) going to stop them.  Making it easier to get birth control may help those trying to be responsible, but I think you fail to recognize that some people just don't care and many don't have access to it when they need it.  I've met my fair share of those folks too. 

 

Your last point is key.  Education.  It needs to happen better.  Much of what you said there is spot on accurate.  I don't think it's a compromise to point out that the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and STDs is abstinence.  The fact that this is considered compromise is part of the problem however.   Birth control will fail sometimes.  I think you have to show them the numbers (failure rates against both pregnancy and STDs), and as you said, be honest in that there are lots of non-physical consequences to sex that not everyone will handle the same.  Personally, I just wish that sex education was honest and agenda free.  It isn't difficult to simply lay out the facts and risks so that young adults can make decisions on their own.  The problem is people trying to make their decisions for them.

[Bark's Lounge]

Like minded with everyone, if abortion can be avoided, that is a great thing.

 

From the perspective of a guy that grew up on the wrong side of the tracks in the city. I don't see how sexual education will help the majority of the impoverished youth, but I do see how it will help the middle class and upper class youth.

 

It's probably a moot point, for the last two classes I brought up, because their parents probably do an okay job distributing that kind of information. Even if they are religious, they understand the hard line reality of society. Their kids will have sex, but they have an underlining desire for their kids to have a good life without slitting their throats by having kids when they are kids themselves. I have no statistics on this, but I would imagine a great amount of abortions come from this class off people, because they have a better understanding of what it takes to make it in this world, and they do not want their children to have to endure that kind of struggle in their journey in life. Giving them a chance to follow in their parents footsteps.

 

For the poor folk, it is a total different story. From what I have seen, poor folk are usually religious in a harmful way, their kids are raised by the streets. If safe sex kind of messages are brought forth when they are in school, it will usually fall on deaf ears, because these kids have a contempt for the system, they don't give a rat's ass. No one should be surprised by modern American Gangsterism or a destructive natures towards our society. They don't give a **** and that's the bottom dollar.

 

I have a sister, and she had a kid when she was 16, and another one when she was 19. Her life was permanently made a lot more difficult because of this. She never considered having an abortion, nor do I think the majority of these folks do - obviously, their dad is no longer in the picture (he is in the big house). Because the vicious circle continues. Until we can give these people a fair shot and put in a great amount of resources into people in these situations, this crap will continue.

 

The class systems are certainly drifting farther apart, and as whole we bicker about a bunch of stuff that is the news of the day, but in all reality, it doesn't mean ****.

 

I was born to 18 and 17 year old stoners, they were not built to be parents at, they ended up becoming coke heads - my childhood sucked. I should have been an abortion and at times in my youth and young adulthood, I wished that happened. A person can only take so much.

 

I hope the government makes abortion illegal again, because it will explode in their faces. Safe abortions will take place in our society, just like purchasing marijuana... we all know someone, or a friend of friend. But there will be riots and protests, it will be immense and throw a wrench into the gears.

 

This way, maybe we can have a real change and get rid of the **** ball politicians that govern our society. The Dems and Reps need to be eradicated and we need to place our feet in new sand as a society.

 

It won't be easy, but this is what we really need.

[stringer bell]

I am ambivalent about abortion. I  liked the line of Bubba when he said that he wanted abortion to be safe legal and rare. One factor in the legal debate that gives me pause is if abortions were outlawed, would we then have a return of "backroom butchers" to illegally and unsafely perform abortions on women set on terminating a pregnancy? Another pause would be the increase of unwanted babies. We already have far too many for the number of people who want to adopt.

 

While it would seem that all could agree that contraception is preferable to both abortion and unwanted children, I have seen several people who object to any form of contraception. As I understand, it is the religion-based objection to contraceptives which led to the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision. 

 

Abortion is complicated. I know situations where the procedure in early pregnancy is warranted because of defects of the fetus. I don't believe it should be a method of birth control or selection (abort a male, keep a female or any other election), but the case is arguable if the fetus is deformed etc.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The argument in favor of abortion has over the years specifically attempted to dehumanize what is, at the end of the day, an unborn human.  I would note though that an infant, a toddler, and most younger children could not live independently of their mother.  For that matter, some adults cannot.  Are they no longer people too in that definition?  What exactly is magical about the crossing of a baby through the birth canal that bestows life on it and makes it a person, protected by the laws of this land?

 

The problem here with the 'rhetoric' is that the cold, termination of a defenseless human life is exactly what it is, and your description of it (regardless of whether or not you agree that abortion is murder, right, wrong, or whatever) is precisely that... cold.  It dehumanizes the act, even though the act itself is quite reprehensible, and I'd add that when performed in the 3rd trimester, that fetus would likely be viable.  The failure on the pro-choice side is recognizing that pro-life people really do view abortion as the cold, termination of human life.  Actually, they view it more as a cold indifferent murder of human life.  I intentionally softened that rhetoric to allow for that discussion, but you did much of the same in your post insisting that "the issue isn't about 'living', it's about 'human being'."  Simply dismissing someone's viewpoint to fit it into your world view is the 'rhetoric that derails thoughtful discussion'.  It leaves people completely unheard, does it not?

Look, I'm not trying to dismiss your point of view.  I want to get at what the essential question is.  

 

You think it's murder.  But that doesn't make it so.  You, and pro-lifers, are not the authority on human-beignness, or what constitutes murder.  (Law is well-settled on this point, by the way).   If you can't budge on that point, and won't work to address the concerns of begetting unwanted life--well, we are at an impasse.  But I will not cede the higher moral ground, because there is no higher moral ground to be had.

 

That said, abortion is ugly, ugly.  It is a moral crisis.  No one wants to dismiss the moral crisis. Let's face it, and deal with it nobly. Calling it murder stops the analysis.  What will we do as a society to ensure a decent life for the unwanted child we wish to compel into existence?  What will we do to remedy the depravity from which too many are forced to face such a moral crisis?   After all, the free market does not favor unwanted children.  It is never us men that have to carry that happy burden to term.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Humans are about 4 before they can live "independently", but let's face it - we've crafted the whole personhood argument around getting us out of the moral dilemma of abortion.  

 

Again, we should reframe this about reducing unwanted pregnancies, which should include comprehensive sex education, male contraception, free birth control, etc.  But let's stop pretending we have anything other than a phony, arbitrary definition of personhood.

I meant biologically independent (obviously, as per the discussion of living, and what not)--like can it exist as a living organism without being biologically connected to the mother.  I could have used the word viability with more precision, but your point is a slippery slope that I think demonstrates that no person is ever independent from the circumstance from within they are born, and that to compel an unwanted children into existence puts us all on the hook for that human being's welfare it's whole damn life.

[glunn]

I appreciate all the comments and debate in this thread.

 

NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TRY SOMETHING NEW.  I think that it might be very interesting for each of us to put each other in the shoes of the other side in an attempt to try to find more common ground.

 

I was hopeful that the common ground might be early and continuous education combined with free and abundant contraception.  I have looked into this further and found an article about a real world study that suggests that this could reduce the abortion rate by 41% to 71%.  http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/

 

The study was Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.  According to the article, "The researchers enrolled 9,256 women from the St. Louis region into the Contraceptive Choice Project between August 2007 and September 2011. The women were aged 14 to 45, with an average age of 25, and many were poor and uninsured with low education. Nearly two-thirds had had an unintended pregnancy previously."

 

This was a real program in the real world.  I am wondering what objections anyone might have to implementing this program everywhere, assuming that it works equally well in other places.

 

I also sympathize with people who believe in abstinence.  In the final paragraph of my original post I stated: "I would also be more than willing to compromise by including a recognition of religious values by always stressing in all education campaigns the fact that access to birth control does not mean that having sex is a good thing in a particular situation.  Having sex can be a very bad thing in a particular situation, even using birth control.  It seems to me that the message should be that the decision to have sex deserves careful consideration from a moral and religious perspective, but if you are going to do it then use at least one form of birth control -- two if you are very smart."  I am wondering what objections might exist to this proposed compromise.  

 

Please keep in mind that there are some of us who believe that a fair proportion of kids have always had sex in their teens and that there is no way to stop this.  As a fiscal conservative, I object to paying taxes to take care of unwanted children who result from failed abstinence programs just as much as a religious person objects to paying taxes for programs that might promote promiscuity.  Is there some middle ground here?

 

There are lots of threads on lots of sites where people can argue why their position is correct.  I think that it may be far more interesting to see if there might be enough common ground to actually start a movement that will actually reduce the problem by at least 500,000 abortions per year.  I have little hope that people with deeply held views can be persuaded to change those views, but I would like to see if we could work together to find solutions that everyone could embrace.

[glunn]

 

I meant biological independent--like can exist as a living organism without being biologically connected to the mother.  I could have used the word viability with more precision, but your point is a slippery slope that I think demonstrates that no person is ever independent from the circumstance they are born, and that to compel unwanted children into existence puts us all on the hook for that human being's welfare it's whole damn life.

 

I think that this falls into the category of issues that are deeply felt where agreement will never occur.  I am suggesting that we try to look past such issues and see if we can find a solution that is appealing to all sides of the debate.

 

I am old enough to remember the days of illegal abortions and women risking sterility and death by paying some hack with a coat hanger.  Surely, no one wants to go back to that.  So even if the Republicans can get enough members on the Supreme Court to get rid of Roe (which seems like a real possibility), I would think that they would not want to revive backroom abortions for women who cannot afford to travel to places like California where abortion will always be legal.  

 

I am looking for win-win solutions, not victory over the other side.  Please keep in mind that overturning Roe would mean nothing in liberal states whereas what was done in the St. Louis study would reduce abortion everywhere.  Why can't this be the basis for a win-win solution?  It worked in St. Louis, which is a proven innovator in terms of its MLB front office.  Why can't it work everywhere?

 

[Craig Arko]

I hope you reach a consensus soon.

 

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

[TheLeviathan]

I meant biologically independent (obviously, as per the discussion of living, and what not)--like can it exist as a living organism without being biologically connected to the mother.  I could have used the word viability with more precision, but your point is a slippery slope that I think demonstrates that no person is ever independent from the circumstance from within they are born, and that to compel an unwanted children into existence puts us all on the hook for that human being's welfare it's whole damn life.

I've never understood how someone can state that last thought (or something like it) with a straight face. If I put it in more bold terms it's nothing short of monsterous.

 

Viability is only important because we arbitrarily deemed it so.

[drjim]

 

I think that this falls into the category of issues that are deeply felt where agreement will never occur.  I am suggesting that we try to look past such issues and see if we can find a solution that is appealing to all sides of the debate.

 

I am old enough to remember the days of illegal abortions and women risking sterility and death by paying some hack with a coat hanger.  Surely, no one wants to go back to that.  So even if the Republicans can get enough members on the Supreme Court to get rid of Roe (which seems like a real possibility), I would think that they would not want to revive backroom abortions for women who cannot afford to travel to places like California where abortion will always be legal.  

 

I am looking for win-win solutions, not victory over the other side.  Please keep in mind that overturning Roe would mean nothing in liberal states whereas what was done in the St. Louis study would reduce abortion everywhere.  Why can't this be the basis for a win-win solution?  It worked in St. Louis, which is a proven innovator in terms of its MLB front office.  Why can't it work everywhere?

 

To me the solutions are pretty clear and I think would fly decently enough with the more pro-choice crowd. There would be a tradeoff of a hard prohibition (probably in the 4 month range) with expanded/free access to birth control combined with increased incentives for adoption, mother's allowance, perhaps a few other things.

 

This will never fly though, for multiple reasons.

 

1. There is no trust between the sides (to put it mildly).

2. Like many political issues, much more money in fighting for solutions than actually creating them.

3. On the pro-life side, many of my religious brothers and sisters include abortion in a bigger picture of sexual revolution they want to push back on, which would have free birth control as too much of a surrender.

[drjim]

 

Look, I'm not trying to dismiss your point of view.  I want to get at what the essential question is.  

 

You think it's murder.  But that doesn't make it so.  You, and pro-lifers, are not the authority on human-beignness, or what constitutes murder.  (Law is well-settled on this point, by the way).   If you can't budge on that point, and won't work to address the concerns of begetting unwanted life--well, we are at an impasse.  But I will not cede the higher moral ground, because there is no higher moral ground to be had.

 

That said, abortion is ugly, ugly.  It is a moral crisis.  No one wants to dismiss the moral crisis. Let's face it, and deal with it nobly. Calling it murder stops the analysis.  What will we do as a society to ensure a decent life for the unwanted child we wish to compel into existence?  What will we do to remedy the depravity from which too many are forced to face such a moral crisis?   After all, the free market does not favor unwanted children.  It is never us men that have to carry that happy burden to term.

 

The flip side is saying that isn't murder doesn't make it so either. Even taking into account your further explanation.

 

This is why, even leaving aside the sexual revolution aspect, a certain percentage of pro-life people will never compromise. But doesn't mean that there aren't enough people that aren't willing to compromise for a clear decrease in abortion.

[glunn]

 

To me the solutions are pretty clear and I think would fly decently enough with the more pro-choice crowd. There would be a tradeoff of a hard prohibition (probably in the 4 month range) with expanded/free access to birth control combined with increased incentives for adoption, mother's allowance, perhaps a few other things.

 

This will never fly though, for multiple reasons.

 

1. There is no trust between the sides (to put it mildly).

2. Like many political issues, much more money in fighting for solutions than actually creating them.

3. On the pro-life side, many of my religious brothers and sisters include abortion in a bigger picture of sexual revolution they want to push back on, which would have free birth control as too much of a surrender.

 

These are the types of compromises that I believe might work.

 

As for the political barriers, I believe that you are correct.  On the other hand, a liberal state like California might be a good place to demonstrate proof of concept on a larger scale, including sensible warnings about the moral, religious and other reasons why non-marital sex could be a bad idea. 

 

I am more than willing to accommodate your religious brothers and sisters.  I would even be willing to offer them tax deductions for donations to their churches, but they already get that.

 

How about this -- requiring adult verification to view online hardcore porn? 

 

When I was 12 years old, my mother would not let me go see a Clint Eastwood movie that now shows on TV.  When I was 14 I had to work hard just to get access to Playboy Magazine.

 

Nowadays, really hardcore porn can be found with a single google search and I think that this can be very harmful and has been very harmful to a lot of kids. 

 

I think that maybe there could be some tradeoff to be had where the liberals could support restricting access to porn in exchange for conservatives agreeing to get behind the message that even though non-marital sex may be a bad idea, if you are going to do it then you should use a condom to avoid STDs and an IUD or implant to avoid unwanted pregnancy.  

 

Conservatives, does this seem like a fair tradeoff?  What you would get would be a public policy that emphasizes the reasons why non-marital sex can be a bad idea, including religious and moral reasons.  You would also get cooperation in reducing access to online porn.

 

Liberals, you would get the satisfaction of helping women avoid unwanted pregnancies, plus saving vulnerable children from online porn.

 

And everyone would get lower taxes, and if the book Freakonomics is correct, the crime crime rate in 18 years will drop like a stone.

 

I invite everyone to challenge my assumptions and conclusions.  Through dialog and debate we might be able to find something that could work.

[TheLeviathan]

The battle against online porn access is coming for sure, many sites are pushing themselves too far and deliberately circumventing safe search programs.

 

But I like the compromises, they put the focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies. Exactly where it should be.

[biggentleben]

As someone who is in the process of getting certified to do foster parenting and has looked at the ridiculous cost of straight adoption, incentives to assist those who would give a loving home to children who are put up for adoption would be extremely welcome. I struggle so often with my friends who are unable to have children, yet they cannot afford adoption, and there are unwanted children throughout the country that are cluttering up our foster system simply because the cost to flat-out adopt them is too high.

[TheLeviathan]

My wife and I are planning to adopt for our third child and we've explored that possibility enough to know the cost of doing so is far more prohibitive than it should be.

[twinsnorth49]

Prevention is the only sane and logical way to deal with the abortion issue. Education and free access to birth control alternatives avoid the sanctimony that too many people weave into the debate, which imo nobody has the right to impart on a woman. From a feminist perspective, what really needs to disappear is the shame and guilt women are made to feel for having to make that decision, or the feeling that the decision is one that will somehow tragically alter their lives or make them murderers.

 

Women's independence and liberty depends on their right to choose what happens with their own bodies. Their rights should always supersede those of the fetus whose life is completely dependent on the bodies of those which they grow within. A woman's personhood is real, their future is at stake, not one that has yet to be imagined.

 

What I find heinous is the indignity women who have abortions are forced to live with, due to those who choose to frame the debate based on their own morality.

 

[glunn]

 

Prevention is the only sane and logical way to deal with the abortion issue. Education and free access to birth control alternatives avoid the sanctimony that too many people weave into the debate, which imo nobody has the right to impart on a woman. From a feminist perspective, what really needs to disappear is the shame and guilt women are made to feel for having to make that decision, or the feeling that the decision is one that will somehow tragically alter their lives or make them murderers.

 

Women's independence and liberty depends on their right to choose what happens with their own bodies. Their rights should always supersede those of the fetus whose life is completely dependent on the bodies of those which they grow within. A woman's personhood is real, their future is at stake, not one that has yet to be imagined.

 

What I find heinous is the indignity women who have abortions are forced to live with, due to those who choose to frame the debate based on their own morality.

 

Although I agree with this, I don't think that it breaks the deadlock.  I believe that somehow we need to find a compromise that would involve the conservatives and religious people agreeing that education and increased access to birth control are a good idea.

 

I am still hoping that someone will address the conclusion of my last post:

 

I think that maybe there could be some tradeoff to be had where the liberals could support restricting access to porn in exchange for conservatives agreeing to get behind the message that even though non-marital sex may be a bad idea, if you are going to do it then you should use a condom to avoid STDs and an IUD or implant to avoid unwanted pregnancy. 

Conservatives, does this seem like a fair tradeoff?  What you would get would be a public policy that emphasizes the reasons why non-marital sex can be a bad idea, including religious and moral reasons.  You would also get cooperation in reducing access to online porn.

Liberals, you would get the satisfaction of helping women avoid unwanted pregnancies, plus saving vulnerable children from online porn.

And everyone would get lower taxes, and if the book Freakonomics is correct, the crime crime rate in 18 years will drop like a stone.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Look, I'm not trying to dismiss your point of view.  I want to get at what the essential question is.  

 

You think it's murder.  But that doesn't make it so.  You, and pro-lifers, are not the authority on human-beignness, or what constitutes murder.  (Law is well-settled on this point, by the way).   If you can't budge on that point, and won't work to address the concerns of begetting unwanted life--well, we are at an impasse.  But I will not cede the higher moral ground, because there is no higher moral ground to be had.

 

That said, abortion is ugly, ugly.  It is a moral crisis.  No one wants to dismiss the moral crisis. Let's face it, and deal with it nobly. Calling it murder stops the analysis.  What will we do as a society to ensure a decent life for the unwanted child we wish to compel into existence?  What will we do to remedy the depravity from which too many are forced to face such a moral crisis?   After all, the free market does not favor unwanted children.  It is never us men that have to carry that happy burden to term.

 

As I said before, this argument really cuts two ways.  I may not be the authority on human-beingness, but then again, neither are you.  You see it as a choice (an ugly one, but a choice none-the-less), and a staple of human-beingness.  I see it as murder outside the bounds of rape and medical situations where the mother's life is in danger.   You're simply saying that my conclusion on human-beingness is invalid  because, well, I think it's murder.  But somehow, simply boiling it down to choice and control is OK.  That doesn't fly.  All you're attempting to do is force the discussion to move to an area where you can win it. 

 

Calling it murder doesn't stop the analysis.  It puts things in perspective.  I cannot suddenly say, 'hey this doesn't come down to human life' when in reality, that's exactly what it comes down to.  To simply reword this discussion to simply say that it impedes the debate, misses the point.  People don't want to get down to the heart of that matter because it forces them to have to answer some very uncomfortable questions... Questions that need to be answered too I might add.

 

On your last point, I do agree.  The free market (no market for that matter) favors unwanted children, and I wholeheartedly agree that things need to change here as well.  That doesn't, however, provide a justification for abortion. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Prevention is the only sane and logical way to deal with the abortion issue. Education and free access to birth control alternatives avoid the sanctimony that too many people weave into the debate, which imo nobody has the right to impart on a woman. From a feminist perspective, what really needs to disappear is the shame and guilt women are made to feel for having to make that decision, or the feeling that the decision is one that will somehow tragically alter their lives or make them murderers.

 

Women's independence and liberty depends on their right to choose what happens with their own bodies. Their rights should always supersede those of the fetus whose life is completely dependent on the bodies of those which they grow within. A woman's personhood is real, their future is at stake, not one that has yet to be imagined.

 

What I find heinous is the indignity women who have abortions are forced to live with, due to those who choose to frame the debate based on their own morality.

 

I'm going to take issue with two things here, though I very much agree with your first sentence.

 

1)  People who deliberately shame and guilt trip women are absolutely in the wrong, but if you believe that those feelings don't manifest in women independently you're fooling yourself.  I've been close to two women who were 100% supported by everyone around them, had a safe experience, and had nothing but love and assistance from those close to them.  And yet still they mark every year with that decision and feel pain and some regret about it.  We presume that the relationship a pregnant woman has with the fetus is driven by social pressures but women I know that had their pregnancy end (be it miscarriage or abortion) VERY much struggled with it because of feelings that were completely internal.  It's something I've learned I can't understand completely, but also that it exists independently of anyone shaming them into feeling it.

 

2)  The personhood of any of us is "imagined" - it is a definition we have created and applied to help make sense of our laws.  I really dislike it when personhood is talked about as if it is some sort of factual, black and white issue.  The definition has changed many times depending upon who we want to exempt from the protection of our laws.