US Religious Groups and Abortion

[ronburgundy]

I am atheist and I am one of them, though later than 3 months. The idea of it being ok to kill an unborn baby moments before birth strikes me as crazy, as does the idea of it being wrong to kill a freshly fertilized egg. That this is a binary thing that you can support or oppose regardless of stage of development rings nutso to me.

I would say that killing an infant just prior to birth is clearly homicide, and only excusable if the life of the mother is at serious risk (self defence). Thankfully most abortions happen much earlier on, so I wouldn't call most of them murder.

And no, I don't know what exact stage of development the line should be drawn at. Probably better to err on the side of caution +not murder), so I do understand why many would say as early as 3 months, though that seems too early to me.

The only reasonable dividing line between those states is when the brain starts to function. By our best estimates that's no earlier than the 7th month.

That sounds reasonable. My point is that that's still ahead of birth, and long after fertilization. I find those at either binary take of this as rather daft.

It isn't just about the internal properties/capabilities of the fetus. It is even moreso about the location of the fetus. The location being fully within a pre-existing person whose rights are entirely built upon the premise of bodily sovereignty and autonomous control over what goes into and goes on inside that body.

Individual rights are all about the concept of the individual. Pre-birth, a fetus lacks the central defining features of an individual and never has been an individual. Murder refers to violating those foundational rights of individuals to control what causally impacts their body. But a fetus inherently cannot control what impacts it's body. What is going into and impacting its' body is necessarily determined by the mother's body. Only once the baby is outside of the mother's body is this not inherently true, and thus does the concept of individual rights at the heart of "murder", "assault", etc. have any logical relevance.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That sounds reasonable. My point is that that's still ahead of birth, and long after fertilization. I find those at either binary take of this as rather daft.

It isn't just about the internal properties/capabilities of the fetus. It is even moreso about the location of the fetus. The location being fully within a pre-existing person whose rights are entirely built upon the premise of bodily sovereignty and autonomous control over what goes into and goes on inside that body.

True. Also true that she put the unborn there and failed to abort it prior to it developing to this stage. I'm entitled to keep others out of my car. I'm not entitled to push them out of my car after I've forced them into it and its going 100 km/h down the busy highway. That would be murder.

Individual rights are all about the concept of the individual. Pre-birth, a fetus lacks the central defining features of an individual and never has been an individual. Murder refers to violating those foundational rights of individuals to control what causally impacts their body. But a fetus inherently cannot control what impacts it's body. What is going into and impacting its' body is necessarily determined by the mother's body. Only once the baby is outside of the mother's body is this not inherently true, and thus does the concept of individual rights at the heart of "murder", "assault", etc. have any logical relevance.

I don't find this at all convincing. I feel just as much compassion and respect towards a baby the second before birth as I do the second after birth. I don't consider the birthing magic anymore than I consider the egg touching the cell magic in changing it from a non-baby (or "human life") into a baby. Its being within the mother doesn't change that for me at all, and I think it should have all the same protections in either physical position. And I would apply that consistently. As Half Life noted, when a pregnant woman is killed and the unborn baby dies with her, that's often seen as a double homocide, and I think rightly. But again that depends at what stage of development. And I am not decided on what stage I think that should be.

I'd entertain arguments about self defence where the life of the mother is significantly threatened etc, but I'd also keep in mind that she and the father, and not the unborn, put the unborn into this situation. I find it a bit odd how we hear so much talk about "the child's interests should come first" after its birth, but the opposite before. Once that unborn being has developed to a state of being equal to our own, I consider it a child. I think that happens before birth.

And yes, most of the above is moot because the vast majority of abortions happen well before this point in time.

 

[laughing dog]

Only once the baby is outside of the mother's body is this not inherently true, and thus does the concept of individual rights at the heart of "murder", "assault", etc. have any logical relevance.

Exactly. But "pro-life" arguments are as much about punishing the woman for "putting the fetus there" or "failing to use birth control" or "opening her legs" as it about the rights of the unborn.

At the most basic level, picking any demarcation for legal abortion vs murder is ab arbitrary matter since one can always point out an inconsistency or unfairness about a particular demarcation. Which is why this debate will never end until there are no unwanted pregnancies at all.

In other words, abortion law is a compromise between competing views. Which means there will always be someone(s) who disagree and who want change.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But "pro-life" arguments are as much about punishing the woman for "putting the fetus there" or "failing to use birth control" or "opening her legs" as it about the rights of the unborn.

For me anyway, it isn't about punishing anyone. Noting that she put the baby there is no more about blame than when you invite somebody into your airplane. That's not blameworthy at all. What would be blameworthy is then demanding that they leave, while its in flight.

 

[laughing dog]

But "pro-life" arguments are as much about punishing the woman for "putting the fetus there" or "failing to use birth control" or "opening her legs" as it about the rights of the unborn.

For me anyway, it isn't about punishing anyone. Noting that she put the baby there is no more about blame than when you invite somebody into your airplane. That's not blameworthy at all. What would be blameworthy is then demanding that they leave, while its in flight.

Your analogy fails. Becoming pregnant is not at all like inviting someone onto a plane because
1) being raped is not like an invitation,
2) failure of birth control is not like an invitation,
3) a threat to the life of the woman by carrying to term is not like an invitation.

So, the flip "She put it there" ergo she must carry the fetus to term no matter what is punishing the woman for having gotten pregnant, regardless of the self-recognized intent behind that argument.

 

[ronburgundy]

True. Also true that she put the unborn there and failed to abort it prior to it developing to this stage. I'm entitled to keep others out of my car. I'm not entitled to push them out of my car after I've forced them into it and its going 100 km/h down the busy highway. That would be murder.

That's murder b/c those people have individual rights, b/c they have the neccessary physical condition of being an individual. The fetus is not nor has ever been an individual, thus cannot logically have individual rights, thus cannot be "murdered". The fetus wasn't "forced into" the mother's body. It did not exist until the mother's body provided the context that created it, and that process isn't complete and it's not an individual (by the central properties of physics) until it is no longer inside the mother's body.

Individual rights are all about the concept of the individual. Pre-birth, a fetus lacks the central defining features of an individual and never has been an individual. Murder refers to violating those foundational rights of individuals to control what causally impacts their body. But a fetus inherently cannot control what impacts it's body. What is going into and impacting its' body is necessarily determined by the mother's body. Only once the baby is outside of the mother's body is this not inherently true, and thus does the concept of individual rights at the heart of "murder", "assault", etc. have any logical relevance.

I don't find this at all convincing. I feel just as much compassion and respect towards a baby the second before birth as I do the second after birth. I don't consider the birthing magic anymore than I consider the egg touching the cell magic in changing it from a non-baby (or "human life") into a baby. Its being within the mother doesn't change that for me at all, and I think it should have all the same protections in either physical position. .

It isn't "magic". It's basic physics and the logical implication thereof. The fetus is not an individual organism and never was, thus the concept of individual rights cannot logically apply. That you don't find physics and the facts of biology "convincing" just means that your ethics and legal conceptions have no basis in facts or coherent principles and are just arbitrary byproducts of how you happen to feel about a thing. But civilized society cannot operate an such a purely emotional whims.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But "pro-life" arguments are as much about punishing the woman for "putting the fetus there" or "failing to use birth control" or "opening her legs" as it about the rights of the unborn.

For me anyway, it isn't about punishing anyone. Noting that she put the baby there is no more about blame than when you invite somebody into your airplane. That's not blameworthy at all. What would be blameworthy is then demanding that they leave, while its in flight.

Your analogy fails. Becoming pregnant is not at all like inviting someone onto a plane because
1) being raped is not like an invitation,
2) failure of birth control is not like an invitation,
3) a threat to the life of the woman by carrying to term is not like an invitation.

You're right. I misspoke. It isn't an invitation. Invitation would imply that the baby had some say about being there or not. No, it is more forceful than an invitation. The baby was put there by the mother and father and developed there by the mother, who declined to abort it earlier in formation, with no say in the matter by the baby.

So, the flip "She put it there" ergo she must carry the fetus to term no matter what is punishing the woman for having gotten pregnant, regardless of the self-recognized intent behind that argument.

I didn't say and don't believe the bolded. The italicized could be false even of somebody who did believe the bolded.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's murder b/c those people have individual rights, b/c they have the neccessary physical condition of being an individual.

And that's where I disagree with you. I don't think being in or out of the mother or being attached to or not attached to the mother physically makes a baby worthy or not worthy of rights. I'm curious why you do. Loren's argument about brain function is a lot more persuasive.

The fetus wasn't "forced into" the mother's body.

The baby was developed there. That's where it came to be as a direct result of the actions of the mother and father, and that's something the baby had absolutely no part in making happen.

It did not exist until the mother's body provided the context that created it, and that process isn't complete and it's not an individual (by the central properties of physics) until it is no longer inside the mother's body.

He is a fully formed baby within the mother the moment before his birth, little different than after he comes out. Yes, you cut the cord, and he stops relying on her to provide him sustenance, at least in the physical direct sense. He still depends on others to care for him, feed him, etc for a number of years after that. I see no good reason to grant him human rights only at the moment of birth and not prior.

And with your logic above about "individuals".... do you consider adult conjoined twins to be one person or two?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A few years ago we had somebody on here arguing (and doing it pretty well) that people don't develop important brain function until they are a few weeks old, or maybe it was a few months. I don't recall. But his position was that abortion should be legal well after the baby is born. That was a unique and interesting take.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not really. Ask your partner what their opinion is on it all. Start off with "who gets to choose what happens to a woman's body" and work your way from there. Let us know how it goes.

Are you saying the father has no say about whether he wants the child or not, despite being 50% of the cause of pregnancy?

Father: I don't want to have the baby.
Mother: Tough. I'm having it.
Father: Then, I don't want anything to do with it.
Mother: Not fair!

Father: I want to have this baby.
Mother: Too bad, I'm aborting it.
Father: Not fair!

How do we resolve this fairly?

This is unfortunately a situation where there is no "fair" resolution.

The woman is impacted more than the man, the choice should go to her. (However, I would say that a guy should be able to opt out of the situation by paying her what an abortion would cost one week later. Her choosing a more expensive course of action shouldn't put an obligation on him.)

 

[laughing dog]

Your analogy fails. Becoming pregnant is not at all like inviting someone onto a plane because
1) being raped is not like an invitation,
2) failure of birth control is not like an invitation,
3) a threat to the life of the woman by carrying to term is not like an invitation.

You're right. I misspoke. It isn't an invitation. Invitation would imply that the baby had some say about being there or not. No, it is more forceful than an invitation. The baby was put there by the mother and father and developed there by the mother, who declined to abort it earlier in formation, with no say in the matter by the baby.

Fetuses cannot talk. Neither can babies. And it is stupid to claim the woman "put it there" in the case of rape or failure of birth control. Moreover, it is possible a woman is unaware of her pregnancy until past the deadline, so she may not have an opportunity to decline to abort.

The flippant "she put it there" as a reason to carry to term has the consequence of punishing a woman, regardless of the intent.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Fetuses cannot talk. Neither can babies.

LOL You think I meant "say in it literally". Aren't you clever.

And it is stupid to claim the woman "put it there" in the case of rape or failure of birth control.

In the rare case of rape, yes, she didn't cause the pregnancy. She did fail to abort the unborn prior to it developing into a baby though if she let it go that far. In the case of failure of birth control? Yes, she put the baby there. Birth control isn't flawless. There's a risk you are knowingly taking if you have sex even with birth control.

Moreover, it is possible a woman is unaware of her pregnancy until past the deadline, so she may not have an opportunity to decline to abort.

What deadline? She's not aware that she's got a baby in her prior to it becoming a baby with a working brain? Yeah, I think she is.

The flippant "she put it there" as a reason to carry to term has the consequence of punishing a woman, regardless of the intent.

There is nothing "flippant" about this. She along with the father actively caused the situation of putting an innocent baby in this peril. The baby did not. She has some responsibility for him, at least as far as not murdering him. Just as if I kidnap you and force you into my airplane, and fly up into the sky, I have a responsibility not to evict you from the plane, murdering you as you plunge to your death, because its my plane and my choice. There's nothing about "punishment" there. You are injecting that yourself.

 

[laughing dog]

LOL You think I meant "say in it literally". Aren't you clever.

Clever enough to realize your statement was literally content free.

In the rare case of rape, yes, she didn't cause the pregnancy. She did fail to abort the unborn prior to it developing into a baby though if she let it go that far. In the case of failure of birth control? Yes, she put the baby there. Birth control isn't flawless. There's a risk you are knowingly taking if you have sex even with birth control.

So, punish that woman for "putting it there". Wow.

What deadline? She's not aware that she's got a baby in her prior to it becoming a baby with a working brain? Yeah, I think she is.

It happens. But hey, punish that woman for putting the baby there.

There is nothing "flippant" about this....

Yes, the "she put the baby there" is flippant. It ignores many mitigating factors. One can spin, conflate "fetus" with "baby" and produce stupid analogies about airplanes to comfort oneself about one's position, but yes, saying "she put there" as a reason to deny legal abortions is punishing the woman for having sex.

There's nothing about "punishment" there.

You are mistaken - it is clear logical consequence of the statement.

You are injecting that yourself.

Sure, I am injecting reason into it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Don't be surprised if the Republican transformation of the judiciary -- which has been proceeding at a barreling pace since the last time Trump touched a Bible -- takes this question completely out of the domain of public debate.
Fun fact, as a sidebar: estimated cost of raising a child in the U.S. to the age of 17, in a middle class home -- $233,610. Make that $233,610.99 if you add one more pack of Bubblicious. Don't even ask what a pair of high-end athletic shoes would add to that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Don't be surprised if the Republican transformation of the judiciary -- which has been proceeding at a barreling pace since the last time Trump touched a Bible -- takes this question completely out of the domain of public debate.
Fun fact, as a sidebar: estimated cost of raising a child in the U.S. to the age of 17, in a middle class home -- $233,610. Make that $233,610.99 if you add one more pack of Bubblicious. Don't even ask what a pair of high-end athletic shoes would add to that.

They wouldn't take it out of the public debate, as they would not ban abortion. At most, they might allow states to do so, and so the matter would be at the center of many public debates - likely even more so than today, when states are not allowed to do it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What deadline? She's not aware that she's got a baby in her prior to it becoming a baby with a working brain? Yeah, I think she is.

Not always. It's possible to have a pregnancy with no indications until labor. I remember reading about one with a woman who already had 3 kids and didn't realize she was pregnant until the ER diagnosed her as being in labor. (All her previous kids had been scheduled C-sections, she had no experience of labor.) No reason for her to be in denial.

It takes a combination of a woman who already has irregular periods for some reason and it implanting in the right position to be almost unnoticed. There are always some symptoms but not always enough for the woman to realize it's not just normal digestive activity. Being overweight helps but isn't required--it sometimes happens to athletes because they tend to have irregular periods anyway. (Very low body fat levels generally suppress the cycle.)

The flippant "she put it there" as a reason to carry to term has the consequence of punishing a woman, regardless of the intent.

There is nothing "flippant" about this. She along with the father actively caused the situation of putting an innocent baby in this peril. The baby did not. She has some responsibility for him, at least as far as not murdering him. Just as if I kidnap you and force you into my airplane, and fly up into the sky, I have a responsibility not to evict you from the plane, murdering you as you plunge to your death, because its my plane and my choice. There's nothing about "punishment" there. You are injecting that yourself.

No--the nature of the fetus doesn't change based on it's method of conception. Either it's a person (at which point the normal standards of self defense apply) or it isn't (at which point there's no justification for the state to prohibit it.) Saying it's wrong if the sex was consensual is 100% pure pro-punishment.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't believe the father should have any say unless the woman feels he should have a say. Let me explain. Since men can't get pregnant, but men can be very responsible or very irresponsible when it comes to preventing pregnancy. All men should wear condoms and make sure that their female partner is using another type of birth control if they don't want to be responsible for the child they helped create. I would suggest using contraceptive foam and a condom because that's about an effective as you can get. You have an extra barrier just in case, the condom "breaks". I am skeptical of such things happening if condoms are used correctly, but some people insist they do, so I'll leave it at that.

If a man absolutely doesn't want to be responsible for an unwanted child, but he likes casual sex and has no desire to be monogamous, then he should he should have a vasectomy. Men have choices. They need to be responsible for those choices. Vasectomies are easy, safe surgeries, and they are one sure way of never having to be responsible for impregnating a woman.

Sometimes a woman might not think she wants to continue an unplanned pregnancy, but as a woman who had one unplanned pregnancy due to the mutual carelessness of my former husband and myself prior to our marriage, I know that it can be very difficult to choose to terminate a pregnancy. So, a woman who does choose abortion is making a very difficult choice. It should be her choice since it's her body that is impacted by a pregnancy. A pregnancy and birth is actually a much higher risk than an abortion. A woman should be the one who makes the final decisions when it comes to whether or not to continue a pregnancy. If a chid is born, the man should be obligated to help with the cost of reading the child, and hopefully, he will also interact with the child and not abandon it.

Here's the thing. Making abortions illegal or hard to get doesn't end them. All it does is make them more dangerous. I read a lot about Margaret Sanger, the famous nurse who was an advocate for the development of the BCP. She mentioned that when she was very young, she saw women lined up for blocks to have 50 cent abortions. Back in those days, we didn't have adequate means of birth control, so many women died young due to having numerous pregnancies. Out of desperation, some chose to have abortions which were performed in unsanitary conditions by non medical people. Roe v. Wade made abortions safe and more accessible. The goal was also to make them rare, through better access to affordable birth control. We need to get back to making sure that all women have access to birth control and all men have access to condoms, which in the past were given away in health departments.

There is a myth about late term abortions. Women don't choose to have late term abortions. Late terms abortions are done when the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy of when the fetus is no longer viable or has such a horrific problem, that if born, the life will be very short with no quality of life. Late term abortions are extremely rare, but most of you probably already know that.

I can think of some babies that I saw when I was a student nurse that would have been much better off if they had never been born. Some of the birth defects I saw were horrifying. A late term abortion would have been the most compassionate option, since these infants had short, painful lives. I saw these poor infants during the 70s, but the horror of their existence has lived with me all these years. That's why late term abortions need to remain legal in certain cases. I doubt a doctor would do a late term abortion on a healthy woman who was carrying a healthy fetus.

I also doubt that any woman who is healthy and carrying a healthy fetus would opt for a late term abortion. If she suddenly decides at 8 or 9 months that she doesn't want the child, she has the option of giving up the baby for adoption. There are always more parents who want to adopt babies than there are babies who need to be adopted. When I worked in a maternity clinic for low income women, only one woman wanted an abortion and one other woman chose to give up her baby for adoption. That was over the course of a year. Those two choices are rare.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No--the nature of the fetus doesn't change based on it's method of conception. Either it's a person (at which point the normal standards of self defense apply) or it isn't (at which point there's no justification for the state to prohibit it.) Saying it's wrong if the sex was consensual is 100% pure pro-punishment.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't disagree with what you wrote in this quote. I completely agree with it. My only point is that she had more of a role in putting the baby there than the baby did, and that applies even to rape if she realized she had had sex, and that she was pregnant and failed to abort before the unborn developed into a thinking being.

And the vast majority of pregnancies are not the result of rape anyway. I say she should have some personal responsibility for the well being of the being she put in this peril, at least enough to not turn our heads away if she wants to murder it.

As I wrote in my first post in this thread, I consider it nuts to care for a freshly fertilized human egg as if it is a baby, and I consider it equally nuts not to care for a baby immediately prior to birth as if she is a baby. She is.

 

[laughing dog]

No--the nature of the fetus doesn't change based on it's method of conception. Either it's a person (at which point the normal standards of self defense apply) or it isn't (at which point there's no justification for the state to prohibit it.) Saying it's wrong if the sex was consensual is 100% pure pro-punishment.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't disagree with what you wrote in this quote. I completely agree with it. My only point is that she had more of a role in putting the baby there than the baby did, and that applies even to rape if she realized she had had sex, and that she was pregnant and failed to abort before the unborn developed into a thinking being.

You agree it doesn't matter, but yet you continue to cling to the notion that somehow it does. One can argue that abortion at some stage is murder of a human being without resorting to "she put it there": it is unnecessary to point out it if one is arguing that it is murder.

So "she put it there" either has no relevance to the argument or that statement is about punishing the woman.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So "she put it there" either has no relevance to the argument or that statement is about punishing the woman.

The point is that she has more responsibility for the situation than the baby does. If you judge that as "punishment" then so be it. I disagree and can't take you seriously.