If only someone had killed them first!
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist, given the upcoming commentary.)
I figure if every time Still Spartan graces us with a comment it gets Comment of the Day status, maybe she’ll weigh in more often.
I agree with almost nothing in her post (other than that the Texas law is bonkers and that it will be struck down, contrary to the bleating of the pro-abortion hysterics), but it’s a provocative and well-written opinion.
Here is Still Spartan’s Comment of the Day, which I hereby decree to be on the relevant post, “Texas’s Clever Anti-Abortion Law.” And I wrestled with myself and lost—at the end, I will re-post my original comment to it.
***
“A quick internet search informs me that there are over 400,000 unwanted or neglected children living in foster care in the United States right now. Why do we want policies creating more unwanted and/or neglected children? Pro life advocates are quick to point out that there are people lined up take newborns, but yet they don’t seem to want the over 400,000 children who are desperate for homes right now. They also don’t seem to want babies born with special medical needs who often end up in foster care.
“No one seems to care that most girls and women who seek abortions do so out of desperation: poverty, abuse, fear. I have never met a woman who celebrated the fact that she had one, but I have met many who were grateful that it was available — either for one of the reasons I listed above or because of a birth control failure. All of these women I know went on to have children with partners at a later time, when they were financially able to care for a child and were in a safe and stable relationship. If the initial abortion had not happened, their lives most likely would have gone down a different path and these other children would have never come into being — children who have the benefit of a stable and loving home.
“Most pro-life advocates are interested in the life being brought into this world, but do little for mothers long term (and the majority of the time, the fathers are not around) to provide economic and educational resources. Single mothers are being committed to poverty, as are their children, this is a never-ending loop. Of course, the State should not force eugenics or sterilization on our poor or mentally challenged population, but we do have decades of statistics showing the effects of number of children on our lower classes. Why do we insist on policies to exacerbate this problem?
“Let’s also not gloss over the risk to maternal health. Just in my own friend circle, I have friends who have had serious pregnancy complications — myself included. Not to be overly dramatic, but I and my first child easily could have died due to a serious case of eclampsia — but for the fact that I have excellent (and expensive) insurance. I have another friend who has been disabled for five years, and will be for the rest of her life due to pregnancy complications. She lives in constant pain. The risk of maternal death to Black mothers (even among high income Black mothers) is significantly higher compared to white mothers.
“The ‘freak out’ as Jack has labelled it, is justified. As always, this abortion law is a method to control women’s bodies and our futures. The law is so very clever in that the effect will be for most legitimate providers to close up shop, leaving Texas residents to figure out the money and travel to another state in order to receive an abortion before the point of viability or turn to illegitimate providers. Given that many women who are seeking abortions lack these resources, the law will result in countless more unwanted children. For me, this is an easy call — bringing in an unwanted child into this world is more horrific than destroying a fetus (pre-viability).
“I think this law will eventually be struck down because it is bonkers, but other states will follow suit until it is.
“How about a law that allows a private citizen to bring a cause of action against the father of any child that is aborted? The doctor will do a paternity test on the cells and the alleged father, of course, can dispute that evidence in court and obtain attorney’s fees and costs if he prevails. But, if not, he owes a $10,000 to the complaining party and the other party’s fees and costs. Sounds insane doesn’t it? Would you have a freak-out Friday if this law were passed in California? But gosh, all men need to do to avoid unwanted pregnancies is to have vasectomies or wear a condom each and every time they have sex. Why can’t they take on this personal responsibility? And this seems a whole lot easier than the increased societal and actual cost of hundreds of thousands of more unwanted children every year. The added benefit of such a policy for both pro-life and pro-choice advocates is that we can put aside the “what is a baby” question because there never would have been a pregnancy in the first place unless the “father” failed to take appropriate personal responsibility. In fact, while I think my proposed law is ridiculous, it sure does make a lot more sense than the asinine Texas one in effect.”
____________________
I’m back. Here’s what I posted in my initial comment on Still Spartan’s remarks, with one addition:
1. My son was an unwanted child brought into the world. I haven’t asked him, but I’m pretty sure he thinks it was the right thing to do.
2. “They also don’t seem to want babies born with special medical needs who often end up in foster care.” Want to kill them too, do you?
3. “Most pro-life advocates are interested in the life being brought into this world, but do little for mothers long term (and the majority of the time, the fathers are not around) to provide economic and educational resources. Single mothers are being committed to poverty, as are their children, this is a never-ending loop.”
If you can’t afford children, don’t do things that will make you have children. Special support for the mothers who have been raped is a perfectly reasonable policy, and I would support it. Otherwise, you make a life, you don’t get to kill it, so factor that in to your planning. All sorts of irresponsible conduct has disastrous consequences, and that’s supposed to discourage irresponsible conduct. I see no reason why getting pregnant should be an exception.
4.”As always, this abortion law is a method to control women’s bodies and our futures.” Wait, you said a few sentences earlier that the law’s advocates are “interested in the life being brought into this world”! You were right the first time. That’s sloppy advocacy, SS—you need to hang around here more and outside the bubble that lets such doubletalk pass for logic.
6.[Added] “Why do we insist on policies to exacerbate this problem?” You mean policies like not legalizing murder?
6. I recall that you previously described abortion as a necessary evil. I don’t see that in this comment. See? Sticking in your bubble isn’t healthy.
Ethics Alarms 
Who are we kidding? Most women want abortion readily available so that they can be selfish without consequences. Enabling and encouraging irresponsibility is unacceptable.
“Women are irresponsible,” say all the men who apparently failed biology. Pregnancy requires semen. If you don’t like abortions, wear a condom every damn time. Who is being irresponsible here?
“Most women want abortion readily available so that they can be selfish without consequences.”
If that weren’t true, would that make abortion ethical? If it were true, would that make abortion unethical even if it otherwise weren’t?
“Enabling and encouraging irresponsibility is unacceptable.”
In that case, I have a list of other things to make illegal.
…Um, we do force fathers to pay well over $10,000 if a baby is born, and we established they get no say in that beyond the initial intercourse. It doesn’t seem to change their behavior.
(I’ve personally felt that so long as abortion is legal, and part of its argument is that having children can affect a woman’s future, men must be allowed to wave their paternal rights and not be forced to pay child support. Why should fathers be forced to alter their future plans without the choice of abortion, or even adoption, but mothers can’t be expected to?)
If irresponsible men who fail to wear condoms want to terminate their parental rights, then I don’t have a problem with this — absent a crime such as incest or rape.
It’s all tied to the cavalier attitude towards sex. People often say the US is prudish, but the results of all this “repressed sexuality” leads to abortion and baby mamas and kids growing up without fathers and all the other societal problems that result.
I heard some pundit or other say that in the US people will destroy the family over marital problems whereas in Europe they’ll keep the family together. What families? Because Europe apparetly has below replacement birth rates – they don’t have enough families in Europe. Yet acquaintances have extoled Europe’s attitude towards sex.
Japan is developing robots for companionship, and yet nudity and sexuality is common place. Good thing that’s not a complete failure of humanity.
Everybody is so worried about a woman’s right to choose to kill an unborn child, the discussion needs to be about all the shitty consequences that will follow everyone for the rest of their life by engaging in “free sex”.
It ought to be revered for what it is, two people becoming one, held in high regard and sacred.
There’s obviously plenty to be discussed about the topic, and some will doubtless say of me what a moralistic prude, etc.
But look at the multitude of disasters that occur to families and nations as a result of treating it like a cheeseburger.
The COTD makes some interesting points, but they’re all in the purview of yet one more disaster related to attitudes towards engaging in “free sex” and the consequences thereof. They seem like some variation of saying “(abortion)’s not the worst thing”.
Killing someone because you (literally) screwed up is just weak sauce.
No abortions in my past, but, sex before marriage led to overlooking attitudes and actions that led to a marriage fraught with problems, that led to anger, bitterness, eventually drinking a bottle of wine a night at least 4-5 nights a week, fucking up my kids lives, and, after 30 years, divorce. I nearly ended the relationship a week before the marriage, and the pastor who married us basically took a bullhorn to the roof and screamed for us not to get married, but oh, the love we had (or, did we mistake the sex for love?) kept it going – along with baggage I had as a child of divorce, etc, ad nauseum…
So the anti abortion laws of all stripes are a good start, but, we need serious discussion about sex and relationships as well. Sex ed needs to include all the disasters that will occur, trust me the kids will see evidence when they go home, as much as some of what they currently teach.
Dang, that rule in the bible about sex before marriage is SO repressive and prudish… good thing killing (unborn) little kids isn’t.
“I have never met a woman who celebrated the fact that she had one”
While *you* may have never met one, they do, in fact, exist.
The Shameless BRAGGING Of Abortion
This gal may not have actually celebrated terminating her pregnancy, but her motivation is certainly…um… interesting.
Did Feminist Abort Her Baby Because It Was A Boy?
Indeed, there are essays right on Ethics Alarms about such women.
Yes, there always are exceptions to the rule. So what?
So what?
So, after the fact, you weakly acknowledge Inconvenient Truth that damages your absolute; très lame!
I find the hysteria over this law fascinating. The “Handmaids Tail” references make me think these making them never saw the movie or read the book.
Let’s assume it survives constitutional challenges, just for fun. How and who will enforce the law? Not the Texas government because those rights are conferred on private citizens. A pro-life group? Maybe
Neighbor Bob down the street? Me?
How are they going to get evidence abortions are being performed? Healthcare privacy laws prohibit disclosure. No one can be compelled to release their health records unless it is directly at issue – personal injury, worker’s compensation, disability
, etc. Planned Parenthood will change its named facilities to “University of Houston Women’s Health Clinic”, or “Westheimer Medical Arts Clinic”, . . . , so there’s won’t be a direct correlation to abortion and his law.
So, the private right will exist without a remedy and no judge will never enforce it.
jvb
I think this is a really good comment to use as a Comment of the Day since it represents the typical kind of “logical” arguments (if that’s what you choose to call them) that we’ve seen and heard from abortion advocates for years.
I think it’s reasonably fair for me to bring over my replies to Still Spartan comment to this thread too.
Imagine if you will someone having the balls to go to court for killing another human being and their only defense was that they considered the human being they killed to be unwanted, this is literally the defense of pro-abortion advocates.
Personally I think all human beings have inalienable human rights. Inalienable human rights should not be ignored without due process of law. Allowing someone to ignore the human rights of another and give them the sole power to kill another human being just because that human being is unwanted is immoral; it’s pure evil (profound immorality and wickedness) to treat other human beings in this manner.
Until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) uses real science to legally define when a human being becomes a human being this emotional bull shit from pro-abortion advocates will never end. Pro-Abortion advocates don’t want SCOTUS to ever again be involved in anything that’s related to abortion because they know that eventually SCOTUS will be forced to define when a human being becomes a human being and when that occurs abortion beyond the detection of a fetal heart beat will be forever banned; after all, when the heartbeat of a living person stops they are considered to be dead so why shouldn’t the starting of a fetal heartbeat be considered the beginning of a human life.
Abortion advocates are literally freaking out because they know that a legal and moral ruling based on science is right around the corner and their continued ability to “legally” kill an utterly defenseless human being because it’s unwanted will be exposed as immoral, unethical, anti-science and it will become illegal.
I think labeling SS’s statement as “sick” avoids the real issue, which is how a mother, a lawyer, and an extremely sensitive, learned and intelligent person can get to the point of writing something like that. That’s what I find “troubling,” as Prof. Turley likes to say. It shows the degree to which peer pressure and relentless intellectual bullying can make indefensible arguments seem sensible.
I will be very disappointed if SS doesn’t respond to the critical comments. She can hold her own with anyone—if she has a defensible position. Maybe she knows she doesn’t.
It is interesting that the law chooses fetal heartbeat as the critical point but at six weeks the heart valves don’t exist. But as Steve’s comment says, “after all, when the heartbeat of a living person stops they are considered to be dead so why shouldn’t the starting of a fetal heartbeat be considered the beginning of a human life.”
But what we have at six weeks is not a beating heart, but the rhythm of the electrical cells that are the future heart’s pacemaker. The heart muscle continues to develop over the next four to six weeks, undergoing development that needs to happen for the heart to take its final shape.
Steve: You are just regurgitating your previous emotions and beliefs here. You’re entitled to them of course, but this is not logic.
What, no intelligent retort related to the content of my post? I’m actually quite disappointed. I figured you for a better debate than this kind of nonsensical response. It’s sad that this is all you could muster.
I’m not sure it’s an honor to get COTD if you’re just doing it to try and get me to comment here more. I stopped reading and writing here because the comments were too predictable and one-note.
1. Yes, your son was adopted into a good home. I think that’s amazing. It doesn’t change the fact that over 400,000 American children don’t have great homes, and an anti-abortion law would add a couple hundred thousand unwanted children every year.
2. That’s right – I am a monster. Signed, a mom to two special needs children.
3. Blame all the men who aren’t wearing condone and who aren’t raising their children. Rarely do any of the men here acknowledge this. Also, sure let’s have laws that will ensure a couple hundred thousand unwanted children each year but not have tax dollars to support them. Let’s keep those moms out of school and throw them into minimum wage jobs that won’t pay the bills. I’m sure that will make America an even better place.
4. That’s a lazy “gotcha.” Laws can have more than one purpose. People can want to eliminate abortion and/or control women’s bodies.
5. I continue to think that abortion is a necessary evil, but it depends on the circumstances. Before the point of viability, I still don’t like abortion because it is ending a process that will result in a beautiful baby. And, as medicine continues to advance, the point of viability comes even quicker. I am not necessarily against policies that restrict abortions post viability, absent extreme medical circumstances. But, 6 weeks? Unless women start taking monthly pregnancy tests, most will not even know they are pregnant by then. But yes, until the point of viability, the women’s rights trump everything else. I wrote my fake California law in jest, but it really does make more sense than this Texas one. Condoms are easy and they also protect against STDs. It’s just a better policy. Pills have to be taken every single day and have significant side effects. IUDs are effective but can have terrible side effects. Other methods are not as effective as condoms. Start fining the men who are causing these unwanted pregnancies and then we can talk.
Nice to see your name. I always feel bad responding because I think the group is hungry for progressive foils, and ya’ll end up getting dogpiled with or without me, so I try not to add to it. But this is one of the topics I feel kinds strongly about, and it’s interesting…I don’t know whether you haven’t thought some of these out or whether I’m missing something huge, because I know you aren’t a monster, but I can’t reconcile that with some of your points.
“It doesn’t change the fact that over 400,000 American children don’t have great homes, and an anti-abortion law would add a couple hundred thousand unwanted children every year.”
I think the argument here is that either those kids or society would have been better off if those 400,000 kids were aborted. In a vacuum, that’s probably true. But life doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Like most Pro-Choice arguments, this only functions if you ignore than abortion ends a life, which is easy enough to do in the abstract, those clumps of cells are sometimes microscopic after all, and gallons of ink get spilled on the various iterations of the trolley car exercises revolving around various stages of personhood… But it seems particularly… Something… To make the argument using 400,000 live, viable, walking and talking human beings. Would you go up to all 400,000 of them, one at a time, and say “Your mother should have aborted you” Or “You are the proof that we need abortion” Or “Society would have been better off without you”? Their responses might be interesting. How many grown-up fetuses would need to tell you that they’d prefer to have been born for you to believe them? And once we’re there, is their relative level of popularity or poverty really important?
“Blame all the men who aren’t wearing condoms and who aren’t raising their children. Rarely do any of the men here acknowledge this. Also, sure let’s have laws that will ensure a couple hundred thousand unwanted children each year but not have tax dollars to support them. Let’s keep those moms out of school and throw them into minimum wage jobs that won’t pay the bills. I’m sure that will make America an even better place.”
This… Continues to talk past the argument. If someone believes that abortion is murder, the argument that if we don’t allow a certain amount of murder, society will be worse off is kind of unresponsive. Using this standard… Why not euthanize the homeless? I mean, if we don’t kill them off, they’ll live lives of abject poverty burdened by mental health issues, and think of all the money we’d save on anti-homeless infrastructure.
Also… To “blame the men”. I know it’s bait, but I’ll bite. I think we can both agree that pregnancy effects women more than it does men, and I think it’s fairly obvious that women have a whole lot more choice, both before and after coitus than men do…. But sure. Let’s focus on condoms, because that’s basically the only thing that a man could reasonably be in control of when it comes to birth control. By the power vested in me: Men are fully and entirely blamed! Now what? You want to keep the men from getting abortions? Shifting blame to the men doesn’t change the nuts and bolts of an abortion or what it takes to bring a child to term. Is this an autonomy issue, or isn’t it? Do women have agency, or don’t they? Should they be able to make decisions for themselves, or not? Are women responsible, or aren’t they?
“I think it’s fairly obvious that women have a whole lot more choice.”
I wholeheartedly disagree with this comment. Women often have no choice, single or in relationships. Children in incestuous relationships have no choice. Children and women who are raped have no choice. Sometimes this involves date rape, sometimes it does not. Wives get raped all the time. There are exceptions of course, but generally men are stronger than women, so if a man decides to ignore “no,” the girl/woman will be having unwanted sex. Certainly, women in the US are better off than in many countries around the world, but even here I can count on one hand the number of my female friends who have NOT been date raped at some point in their lives. It is very common yet it is not discussed due to shame and embarrassment. And this is just the US — there are numerous places in South America, Africa, and Asia where girls and women have little agency. Pregnancy and number of children are the single highest indicator of whether or not a woman will remain in poverty. Sometimes, their only choice not just for their livelihood but also for those of their other existing children is not to have more children.
And even when there is choice, birth control can fail. For women with means, we can afford birth control — although it can have serious side effects, the most reliable form (IUDs) can cause serious infections and infertility and is not recommended for women who are not yet done bearing children. Not everyone can take the pill, I did for years, and the joke from doctors at the time was, “Do you want the kind that makes you fat or the kind that makes you cry?” The pill also becomes ineffective if you have to take certain antibiotics. Plus, you have to remember to take it every single day. This might not sound like a big deal, but some of us (myself included) have trouble remembering taking long term medications of any kind. I often miss a day here or there. But a missed birth control pill can result in a pregnancy. Birth control for men is just so much easier. But for those men who are allergic to latex, condoms are the better and safer choice. There also is the option of a vasectomy for those men who know they never want children (or it can be reversed).
Do I think 400,000 existing children should be killed? Of course I do not. But do I think it makes sense to bring hundreds of thousands additional unwanted children into the US each year? Children that wouldn’t exist if aborted before the point of viability? What is the plan for these children? How are we going to feed them, clothe them, educate them, love them — raise them so they become happy and productive members of this society? Obviously, the idea that people will just become more “responsible” when forced to raise unwanted children is little more than wishful thinking.
As for the legality of abortion, can someone point me to a study that will show that abortions will decrease if it is made illegal? My understanding is that all it will do is force it underground and make it more dangerous. In third world countries, poor women often shove leaves and sticks into their vaginas in order to force an abortion — many times the women die in the process. Here, I imagine that underground clinics will emerge, and sanitation and skill will differ from place to place. Rich women simply will travel to another state or country to have an abortion, but poor women will resort to any means necessary.
“Women often have no choice, single or in relationships. Children in incestuous relationships have no choice. Children and women who are raped have no choice. Sometimes this involves date rape, sometimes it does not. Wives get raped all the time.”
That’s a fairly serious misreading of what I said, which for the record was: “I think it’s fairly obvious that women have a whole lot more choice, both before and after coitus than men do.” My point was that women should generally have more responsibility because they generally have more control and options. If you want to focus on the very narrow situations in which they don’t have any control, we can do that, but fact of the matter is that when women who undergo abortions are polled on why they’re having an abortion, almost all of the responses fall under the broad umbrellas of convenience or financial reasons, and less than 2% cite rape or incest…. So you seem to be ignoring most of the argument to focus on a very small, very narrow subset.
If an absolute exemption was made for rape and incest victims, would that actually change your position here, or is that just the convenient rhetorical device to avoid the other 98% of the conversation?
“And even when there is choice, birth control can fail….”
Right… and they’re very unlikely to fail. There are all kinds of things that fail on a very infrequent basis, and because they fail so rarely, the conventional wisdom for them is to fully take on the risk; Bungee cords hardly ever fail, but if one does, you’re probably going to die. People still bungee jump. It’s 2021, we know where children come from, and we’re all aware that sex can result in pregnancy. Which leads me to…
“Do I think 400,000 existing children should be killed? Of course I do not. But do I think it makes sense to bring hundreds of thousands additional unwanted children into the US each year? Children that wouldn’t exist if aborted before the point of viability? What is the plan for these children? How are we going to feed them, clothe them, educate them, love them — raise them so they become happy and productive members of this society?”
Since when is that the standard for anything? Maybe we don’t have plans for them, but Canada doesn’t have plans for the Native portfolio, and California has less than no plan for their homeless population. Those people are unloved. How are we going to feed them? Clothe them? Wouldn’t it be simpler if they all just… went away?
This is the ugly side of the abortion debate that infers that death is preferable to a less-than-happy life, while ignoring all the unhappy people that despite their relative lack of happiness, want to continue to live. Having a principled position that killing people ought to generally be illegal doesn’t confer a responsibility to take care of the people you’d save by having that law. You’ve created this difference between existing people and prospective people, and that’s what squares the circle for you. But you fail to interact with the argument against your point; That the operative word in “prospective people” is “people”.
And no one is really confused by this, a man who beat a woman causing her to miscarry was recently convicted of the first degree murder of that child… Which seems novel if you consider a prospective person to not have personhood, I mean, if it’s only a clump of cells, isn’t that a property crime? Perhaps animal cruelty? No, abortion proponents, I believe, understand that unborn people are still people, but they take part in the Schrodinger’s Baby narrative because it’s what’s necessary to make their point, I believe that they’ve weighed women’s autonomy against the tragedy of abortion, and made a decision. I’m I’m wrong, please explain, if not… Own it.
“As for the legality of abortion, can someone point me to a study that will show that abortions will decrease if it is made illegal?”
I don’t think there’s ever been a study done on this, but I’m willing to grant that this is probably both tragic and true. But we don’t often repeal laws just because we know that people will likely break them. There are 15,000 homicides per year in America, we’re not going to make murder legal. Announcing that petty theft laws would not be enforced didn’t really work out well for the cities it was announced in.
The counterpoint, I think, is that there were some women cavalier about their birth control. There was a whole lot of social panic in the wake of the Texas bill, this was one of the more viral ones:
Nice of her to join the conversation.
The silver lining, I think, is that we’re moving in the right direction. Year over year, even in places where abortion availability is expanding, abortion numbers are decreasing. Part of that is that sexual education is getting better, part is that is improvements to contraceptives, part of it is social pressure… Regardless of why, exactly, fact is that it is. Since 1980, the number of abortions performed *per capita* has decreased from 30 per 1000 women to 13. And if we can reduce abortion numbers by reducing unwanted pregnancy numbers… Well, that seems like the right thing to do.
Shame on you. I made it a COTD because it articulately raised one side of an ethics issue while exhibiting many of the ethical and logical flaws that all such arguments inevitably contain.
As an aside, it’s pretty self-defeating to avoid adding a minority opinion because their aren’t enough minority opinions. No?
I don’t think this deserves a “shame on me” comment. It was a fair analysis of what you wrote.
With all affection and respect, I do.
“Other methods are not as effective as condoms. Start fining the men who are causing these unwanted pregnancies and then we can talk.”
If condoms are the answer, and only women can get pregnant, then why do women continue to sleep with men who don’t wear them?
Honestly, the shirking of responsibility… on both sides.
“If condoms are the answer, and only women can get pregnant, then why do women continue to sleep with men who don’t wear them?”
Perfect rebuttal. Pong!
Well, for starters, you are assuming all sex involves consent ….
Consent doesn’t alter the nature of the life that results.
“Potential life” or “potential to become a baby.”
Still Spartan wrote, ” ‘Potential life’ “
Honest question for you; when does life begin, or better yet, when does a human being become a human being?
That wasn’t rhetorical.
Life is life, human is human. We don’t say that a child has the potential to grow up—we assume a child will, and interference with that process is a crime. “Potential” is part of the dodge dehumanizing the unborn so they can be treated like a wart.
Still Spartan,
The moral logic is undeniable; for any given unborn human being, pro choice in favor of an abortion is literally killing that human being, anti-abortion pro life is literally life for that human being.
Argue against that logical morality if you think you can.
I care about life, but do I think it is immoral on Day 1 following sex to take a morning after pill? Nope. I obviously feel that there are better methods of birth control, but eliminating a fertilized egg before it becomes attached to a uterine wall isn’t going to cause me to lose any sleep. So, at what point does it become a life that needs to be protected? Your belief is different than mine — I would point to viability, you would have an earlier starting point. We’ve been having this debate for over 50 years now and it comes down to belief, not something that is “undeniable.” If it were undeniable, there would be no debate.
So, where I think pro-choice has the stronger argument is that we aren’t just looking at the potential baby, fetus, or even “baby” (to use pro-life terminology), we are acknowledging that the mother’s life (and EVERYONE agrees that the mother is a life) needs to be taken into account as well. It’s not just autonomy, although I do feel that women should not be used as brood mares. It’s that having a child (or an additional child) has lifelong effects on that family. Pro-lifers analysis stops at “baby’s life is saved,” and I feel that is lazy and short-sighted.
On an (almost) complete tangent, my family and I watched the old movie “Wolf Man” last week — 1941 movie with Claude Raines. I love that actor and decided to do a bit of research on him. Like many actors, he had a series of failed marriages, usual Hollywood stuff. But a few facts jumped out at me, he was one of 12 children. Nine of his siblings died of malnutrition — NINE. Claude had to drop out of school in the second grade to help support his family financially by selling newspapers. Now, is the world better off for having Claude Raines in it? Of course — he was one of the finest actors of the 20th Century, and rose to the rank of Captain in World War 1. But what of his nine siblings who died from hunger? Should we look at the fact that at least his siblings had a fighting chance, and ignore the fact that they died slowly and painfully? Or, perhaps his family had been better off if it had been smaller — maybe
five or six children would have survived? If it had been smaller, maybe the world would have been gifted with more children who survived into adulthood, even if one of them wasn’t Claude.
Still Spartan write, “I care about life, but do I think it is immoral on Day 1 following sex to take a morning after pill? Nope. I obviously feel that there are better methods of birth control, but eliminating a fertilized egg before it becomes attached to a uterine wall isn’t going to cause me to lose any sleep.”
We have a very clear point of agreement on this point.
Has anyone here argued with your assessment of the Morning After pill? So far, the Pope hasn’t weighed in…
Still Spartan wrote, “So, at what point does it become a life that needs to be protected? Your belief is different than mine — I would point to viability, you would have an earlier starting point. We’ve been having this debate for over 50 years now and it comes down to belief, not something that is “undeniable.” If it were undeniable, there would be no debate.”
As I’ve stated before; the medical community defines death of a human being at the point that there is no longer a detectable heartbeat, I’ve seen this up close and personal with a recent death in the family where it was very clear that the person was no longer there in anyway other than breathing and heartbeat and we just had to wait for the breathing and then subsequently the heart to stop to define the point of death. Why shouldn’t the beginning of a human being’s life for the purposes of defining a spot where a fetus obtains inalienable human rights and an abortion can no longer be performed be at the opposite end of that life cycle when a detectable heartbeat starts?
That stated; my personal beliefs are definitely different than the start of a detectable heartbeat stated above as being the beginning of life; however, at least there would be a medically defined point in which human life begins not a specific number of weeks which can only be reasonably assumed.
This is literally the kind of compromise, and it is a compromise for me, on abortion that would likely shut down most if not all the arguments on both sides.
I agree with you that there is a point that abortion is unethical — absent saving the life of the mother, or if the baby is to be born with such abnormalities that it will not survive.
So, where is the point to be drawn? I think it is viability. If there is a heartbeat but no functioning heart, abortion should still be permitted. You would have it sooner, even if the fetus does not have functioning organs.
This brings us right back to the analysis in Roe v. Wade.
You continue to either ignore the fact that the female wanting an abortion has made choices that led to pregnancy, why are you ignoring that fact? Does it negate pro-choice arguments?
Again, read the sexual intercourse responsibility list I posted in this thread.
I challenge you right here and now to have an open and honest discussion about the responsibilities surrounding sexual intercourse and the choices that females have already made well before they know they’re pregnant?
I’m not going to engage in it because it is stupid. In every single instance of unplanned pregnancy, the MAN chose to have unprotected sex too. In any event, we widely treat heart disease, cancers, diabetes, sports injuries, addictions, an endless list of medical conditions (pregnancy is one of those) because of choices.
Still Spartan wrote, “I’m not going to engage in it because it is stupid. In every single instance of unplanned pregnancy, the MAN chose to have unprotected sex too.”
So the man is the only one that carries any responsibility in pregnancy? That’s pure SEXIST bull shit Still Spartan. The depths of your misandry are obvious.
Still Spartan wrote, “In any event, we widely treat heart disease, cancers, diabetes, sports injuries, addictions, an endless list of medical conditions (pregnancy is one of those) because of choices.”
What point are you trying to make here?
Wait just a damn minute; was Still Spartan really trying to claim that pregnancy is nothing more than a “medical condition”, a disease, a blob of cells, an affliction, an injury, an unwanted parasite, etc, etc?
The depths that pro-choice advocates will go to show off their inhumanity astounds me.
I don’t think that’s fair to SS. What is really going on is the well-documented phenomenon of someone struggling to justify a long-held belief that has been invested with a lot of passion that no longer holds up. Si she’s grasping at straws, and they are getting more and more flimsy. If she doesn’t realize that yet, she will.
Still Spartan wrote, “I’m not going to engage in it because it is stupid.”
Stupid: having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
What’s truly “stupid” Still Spartan is your lack of understanding that it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
Since it’s clear to me that you can’t admit it to anyone else, just admit it to yourself that you can’t logically or intelligently counter anything I wrote in my sexual intercourse responsibility list because it’s all common sense and admitting that kind of common sense destroys your sexist pro-choice anti-responsibility arguments.
I wrote “it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt” earlier; here’s why.
Still Spartan wrote, “In every single instance of unplanned pregnancy, the MAN chose to have unprotected sex too.”
I’m damn sure that Still Spartan doesn’t actually believe that blanket statement nonsense to be a statement of fact, so it must have been a foolish emotionally charged anti-male reaction. The statement is verifiably false.
GIVEN 2: Pregnancy is one of the consequences of sexual intercourse even if a form of birth control is used.
GIVEN 3: No form of “birth control” is 100%.
Okay; I’m done rhetorically bludgeoning Still Spartan for this particularly ridiculous comment.
Good…I think the last couple of comments were a bit over the line.
Understood.
Still Spartan wrote, “So, where I think pro-choice has the stronger argument is that we aren’t just looking at the potential baby, fetus, or even “baby” (to use pro-life terminology), we are acknowledging that the mother’s life (and EVERYONE agrees that the mother is a life) needs to be taken into account as well.”
This argument will not hold water when an unborn human being has inalienable human rights; the mother’s right to choose will not overrule the unborn child’s inalienable human rights. Remember the mother has already made other choices knowing the possible consequences before choosing an abortion, see the list of responsibilities I posted elsewhere in this thread.
Still Spartan wrote, “It’s that having a child (or an additional child) has lifelong effects on that family. Pro-lifers analysis stops at “baby’s life is saved,” and I feel that is lazy and short-sighted.”
This is pure consequentialism; you continue to either forget or ignore the fact that the mother has made choices that lead to pregnancy. Again, read the sex responsibility list I posted elsewhere in this thread.
“If condoms are the answer, and only women can get pregnant, then why do women continue to sleep with men who don’t wear them?”
Systemic/Institutional/Structural/Intersectional Sexism…?
That must be it.
I’d really appreciate Still Spartan reading and responding to this comment.
There are responsibilities of those who engage in sexual intercourse regardless if it’s consensual sex or not and every male and female should be taught these things by their parents and reinforced by our society/culture before they enter puberty and as they grow to be an adult.
GIVEN 1: Biologically speaking; sexual intercourse is the beginning of the human reproductive process and breeding human beings is the sole biological purpose.
GIVEN 2: Pregnancy is one of the consequences of sexual intercourse even if a form of birth control is used.
GIVEN 3: No form of “birth control” is 100%.
What are the responsibilities?
1. The male has the legal, moral and human responsibility to not force the act of sex upon a female.
2. The male has a responsibility to use a condom unless there is consent from the female to engage in unprotected sex.
3. The female has the responsibility to tell the male to use a condom unless she is willing to take the risks of unprotected sex.
4. Both the male and the female engaging in sex must understand that condoms are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and the ultimate responsibility for a possible pregnancy lies on both the male and the female.
5. If a female chooses to be sexually active then that female has the responsibility to use birth control if she doesn’t want to get pregnant and the ultimate responsibility for a possible pregnancy lies on both the male and the female in this condition.
6. If a female is forced into sexual intercourse, whether it’s unprotected or not, she has the moral and human responsibility to get immediate medical treatment to prevent a possible pregnancy if she doesn’t want to become a mother.
7. If a female is forced into sexual intercourse, whether it’s unprotected or not, she has the moral and civic responsibility to report the incident to police to help prevent the male individual from forcing himself upon another female.
8. If a female chooses to have sex and doesn’t want to get pregnant, even if it was protected, she has the moral and human responsibility to get immediate medical treatment to prevent a possible pregnancy if she doesn’t want to become a mother.
9. If a male and a female do not want the responsibility of breeding a human child then it is their responsibility to do the things it takes to not become a parent.
10. ABORTION IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL, it’s putting a completely helpless human being to death. It’s the responsibility of those engaging in sex to do the things required of them to prevent the need for abortions.
Now I’m opening this up for debate.
I forgot an important word in the last sentence…
It’s the responsibility of those engaging in sex to do the things required of them to prevent the perceived need for abortions.
When the goal is not procreation; consensual intimacy and orgasm without intercourse is a most excellent form of birth control.
Still Spartan: you should hopefully still read but certainly at least comment so it won’t be such a one-sided debate, which is of nothing else, boring. Here we have Ethics Alarms, which I love and find remarkably consistent since I started reading like 10years ago, and the people who would speak on the other side or just different perspectives/opinions have left the comments. What are Ethics Alarms and its readers/commenters supposed to do, take up and argue positions they don’t truly hold? I think not; we can’t just pounce when people don’t agree. but I get that all this crap can become irksome on others. Just ask my wife and she’ll tell you how irksome my constant bleating is…:)