Abortion

[Saith]

Well anti-choice is seen as inherently bad because... Well... It's anti-choice. It implies that someone who is anti-choice doesn't believe in freedom or someshit, in the same way pro-abortion implies that the person who is pro-abortion kills all the babies all the time.

 

[Light]

Okay, but come on, no one thinks "anti-choice" has meaning outside of the abortion debate.

Originally Posted by Viki in the Religion Thread
Refusing to associate with people once I find out they're anti-choice seems to be a completely sensible decision. :| If someone can't respect other people's right to control their own lives on that subject, how can I expect them to on others?

:/

Why is using "anti" being deliberately negative? I am perfectly happy with, say, "anti-death penalty".

"anti" is not deliberately negative, but "anti- *insert something universally accepted as good here*" is.

I thought we were arguing about terms, not abortion itself. I clearly said "pro-choice people see it as...".

We were, and I know, but I was talking about abortion itself in the first part of my first post; I mean I'm kinda looking for a bit of discussion on that area as well.

But to answer the question: adoption isn't an acceptable alternative because it requires carrying the child to term. There is no reason why a woman should be forced to do so, and plenty of reasons why she might not want to. Adoption isn't a magical process that solves everyone's problems.

I would argue that it may be morally objectionable to end the life of the fetus after a certain point, the point at which the embryo/ fetus ceases to be just a collection of tissue and becomes something sentient. Of course, psychological harm due to pregnancy is a valid point to consider, depending on the potential damage that is likely to occur. I don't think embarrassment alone is enough to constitute ending the life of a sentient being.

you've found at least one case, no? it's pretty silly to ask, effective, "when is x necessary, excluding the included case y"!

It was a serious question, meant for me to be presented with potential gray areas surrounding abortion to consider personally. I've never really discussed this topic with anyone before, so. And this is a debates board.

 

[Minish]

:/

I'm fairly sure he means the term 'anti-choice'!

 

[Light]

^":/" was to express my feelings about the relationship between the quotes above it.

 

[surskitty]

If somebody wouldn't value my personhood over a theoretical fetus's, yeah, I'm not going to assume they value my personhood that much the rest of the time, either. And if they're hypocritical enough to to be anti-choice except when it impacts them, which is a pretty common thing unfortunately, then I'd rather not be one of the few female-bodied people they value as people. So yes! I would rather not hang around people who are anti-choice! But that's still not directly related to opal's point, and it doesn't mean I think they're anti-choice in general; it just means that from what I can see of their priorities, they sure as hell aren't in line with mine.

 

[Butterfree]

Well, that seems a bit silly. Sure, it could be that they just don't assign a lot of value to choice, but from my impression of people who are against abortion, it's because they believe the life of the fetus is genuinely as important as the life of a full-grown human being, and (like most people) they value a person's life over a person's choice.

Or, in other words, it's that they assign more value to the fetus's life, not that they assign less value to your choice.

 

[opaltiger]

"anti" is not deliberately negative, but "anti- *insert something universally accepted as good here*" is.

I contest that choice is universally a good thing. As a quick example: in the debate about vaccination, people might argue that parents have the right to choose whether to have their child vaccinated or not. I don't think that choice is a good thing, and I wouldn't mind calling myself "anti-choice" were this a term that existed within the debate.

^":/" was to express my feelings about the relationship between the quotes above it.

You seem to be arguing that "anti-choice" is bad because it implies you're against choice in other situations. I think no one is ever going to make that assumption, because "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are words very strongly associated with the abortion debate. Whether or not people use the knowledge that someone is anti-choice to make judgements about them is entirely irrelevant - they're still using the knowledge that someone is against choice in the abortion debate, not in general.

 

[Light]

I contest that choice is universally a good thing. As a quick example: in the debate about vaccination, people might argue that parents have the right to choose whether to have their child vaccinated or not. I don't think that choice is a good thing, and I wouldn't mind calling myself "anti-choice" were this a term that existed within the debate.

Okay, that's fair enough I guess, but the topic you mention is one that is pretty neutral, being only tangentially related to morality. In a hot topic like abortion where one side sees the issue morally black and white and the other side sees it in various shades of gray, people really can start to internalize that the other side sees things the way they do; after all, that is really how they are feeling, and they feel that way for definite reasons. So if someone perceives the picture gray and feels gray is how it fundamentally is, but for some reason people who happen to see lighter gray turn the issue black and white, if we are calling one side anti-choice it is a small step to intuit the reason they do so is because they have a lesser value for the concept of choice and would prefer to dictate a gray matter.

That is one way the term "anti-choice" is effectively negative. You do see how it is conceptually negative (and hence seemingly deliberately negative), right?

You seem to be arguing that "anti-choice" is bad because it implies you're against choice in other situations. I think no one is ever going to make that assumption, because "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are words very strongly associated with the abortion debate. Whether or not people use the knowledge that someone is anti-choice to make judgements about them is entirely irrelevant - they're still using the knowledge that someone is against choice in the abortion debate, not in general.

I think I answered it.

If somebody wouldn't value my personhood over a theoretical fetus's, yeah, I'm not going to assume they value my personhood that much the rest of the time, either.

This is blown way out of proportion. It is not that they value your fetus more than they value you. It is that they value your fetus' ability to continue living more than they value whims or desires, which, if one equates the life of a fetus with the life of a child, is a pretty reasonable thing to do actually!

And if they're hypocritical enough to to be anti-choice except when it impacts them, which is a pretty common thing unfortunately, then I'd rather not be one of the few female-bodied people they value as people. So yes! I would rather not hang around people who are anti-choice!

What exactly do you mean by cases when it impacts them? And are you saying that kind of case is a pretty common thing, or that being anti choice except then is a pretty common thing? Because as it ambiguously stands it seems grossly unfair to say that anti-choice people value few female-bodied people.

But that's still not directly related to opal's point, and it doesn't mean I think they're anti-choice in general; it just means that from what I can see of their priorities, they sure as hell aren't in line with mine.

Their priorities are closely in line with yours! You value one human's life over another human's desires, as do they. They equate a fetus with a human life, which it isn't hard to see why if their worldview includes the concept of a soul. Therefore, they value a fetus over another person's desire, while you value one person's desire over a fetus. The values dissonance is no more than a manifestation of a perception dissonance.

Abortion is an unresolved debate because ultimately it comes down to different subjective premises involving morality. That is why I don't care about the legal yes or no question. I think it is far more interesting to explore the moral lines at which people separate, between the "no abortion ever", the various "only when..." 's and the "fetuses are not so consequential".

 

[opaltiger]

Okay, that's fair enough I guess, but the topic you mention is one that is pretty neutral, being only tangentially related to morality.

Really? I would think a matter of what rights parents have in relation to their child is full of morality. Is it moral for parents to impose their views on their children? Is it moral for the state to dictate what they should do? Etc.

In a hot topic like abortion where one side sees the issue morally black and white and the other side sees it in various shades of gray, people really can start to internalize that the other side sees things the way they do; after all, that is really how they are feeling, and they feel that way for definite reasons.

I don't think you're doing a good job of representing the sides, because I can't tell which is supposed to be which. Surely both sides see abortion as a grey area? I mean, aside from the anti-choice people who would ban abortion in every conceivable circumstance, I think the majority are open to certain exceptions. And very few pro-choice people would say that abortion is a black and white issue. Saying it should always be morally permissible is not the same, I think, as saying it is always morally right.

 

[Light]

I don't think you're doing a good job of representing the sides, because I can't tell which is supposed to be which. Surely both sides see abortion as a grey area? I mean, aside from the anti-choice people who would ban abortion in every conceivable circumstance, I think the majority are open to certain exceptions. And very few pro-choice people would say that abortion is a black and white issue.

Hm, it wasn't obvious? Pro-life people see it as life vs. death. Pro-choice is things can go one way or another. Those modes of thinking make deciding whether an abortion should be performed clear and subjective, respectively. Even if someone is open to certain exceptions, that doesn't mean that exception doesn't seem like a black and white thing morally to them.

Saying it should always be morally permissible is not the same, I think, as saying it is always morally right.

Could you clarify? Morally permissible meaning moral to permit?

 

[Hiikaru]

This is blown way out of proportion. It is not that they value your fetus more than they value you. It is that they value your fetus' ability to continue living more than they value whims or desires, which, if one equates the life of a fetus with the life of a child, is a pretty reasonable thing to do actually!

Well, yes, if someone believes that aborting a fetus is the same thing as a randomly killing a child, or even an adult person, then of course they think it shouldn't be aborted - you wouldn't kill a child or an adult person for no reason, after all, so why would you think that the equivalent was okay? That's why a big argument is whether or not a fetus actually is the same, and people go to great lengths to explain why they believe that it is not the same.

Saying souls exist therefore you can't abort is a thing, but... why are people saying that a fetus definitely has a soul, assuming souls exist? An egg doesn't have a soul, and a sperm doesn't have a soul (presumably, anyway, because if anyone believed that they'd presumably be pro-having-as-many-babies-as-possible to save as many souls as possible), so when does a soul happen? Does it happen when the sperm and egg get united? Why? What makes someone have a belief about when a soul appears?

It's even sillier if you believe in God, because usually if God exists, then isn't the point of being alive to have trials and bad things so that you can appreciate being in Heaven later? Why would God put a soul in something that wasn't going to get to have the trials? I think I've seen the idea that some souls are too perfect to have trials, so those ones get put in babies or fetuses who will just die, but that's kind of, well. Why. I don't usually like "God is a jerk" arguments, but isn't that kind of mean to put a soul in something that will definitely die before having a chance to use it?

Then people argue that even if the fetus is alive and has a soul and everything, that it's still morally wrong to force someone to carry it to term.

But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

And anyone should read the rest of that article, because it's really interesting and no one read it before when opal linked to it for some reason.

Abortion is an unresolved debate because ultimately it comes down to different subjective premises involving morality. That is why I don't care about the legal yes or no question. I think it is far more interesting to explore the moral lines at which people separate, between the "no abortion ever", the various "only when..." 's and the "fetuses are not so consequential".

Why wouldn't you care about the legal yes or no question? If you believe it's morally wrong to force a female-bodied person to carry eir baby to term when there's a good reason ey doesn't want to, then surely you think it's important that abortion be made legal. If you believe it's the same thing as killing a child or an adult person, surely you believe it's important that it stay or be made illegal! One way involves someone being really miserable for a long time or dying, and one option involves killing, so that kind of seems like a thing that most people would feel strongly about.

 

[Cerberus87]

I'm pro-choice (though I obviously acknowledge that abortion is a risky and harmful procedure) because IMHO the only way to respect all the different beliefs is to allow all people to do whichever they feel more comfortable with. This way, atheists can abort (or not if they find it morally wrong), Catholics don't have to if they don't want to, and so on. The anti-abortion people tend to do a very impolite thing, which is to force their argument onto people who don't agree with them, therefore I support choice.

The "beginning of life" is a very indeterminate concept. There's scientific controversy concerning it, and there's the religious belief (endorsed mainly by the Catholic church) that it starts at conception. However, as much as I respect people's different ways of expressing faith, the truth is that a religious belief doesn't have any ground on reality, therefore I don't believe that the law should take it into consideration. Since there's not even an agreement within science itself, it's silly to speak of a moment in which life has begun.

 

[Coroxn]

Isn't the "beginning of life" thing sort of irrelevant? I mean, no matter at what time you think life begins for a fetus, if you abort it and it would have medically survived if you hadn't, you are killing the person that that fetus will become. This is not to say I am pro-life, because I don't really know where I stand in this. But if a fetus is healthy and will live, aborting it at whatever time is destroying the life they would have had.

 

[Hiikaru]

Isn't the "beginning of life" thing sort of irrelevant? I mean, no matter at what time you think life begins for a fetus, if you abort it and it would have medically survived if you hadn't, you are killing the person that that fetus will become. This is not to say I am pro-life, because I don't really know where I stand in this. But if a fetus is healthy and will live, aborting it at whatever time is destroying the life they would have had.

That's not really important, though! One thing that's said is "an acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, but that doesn't mean that you should treat an acorn as if it were an oak tree." If you decide that every fetus that will survive should survive, how come that's different from protecting as many eggs and as much sperm as possible? An egg has the potential to be a living human. A fetus has the potential to become a living human. But an egg shouldn't be protected at the cost of a female-bodied person's health and happiness and well-being, so why does a fetus need to be protected at that cost? (and I suppose same with sperm but I think it's harder for people to see a sperm as a maybe-person) Does that make sense? People argue that a fetus is closer to being a human, but that argument isn't self-evident just by saying it has potential. And an acorn that happens to be in the ground is also closer to being an oak tree than one that's in a box, but it still isn't an oak tree.

Also:

Why is murder, fundamentally, bad? Primarily, three reasons:

1. Generally, it causes great (physical) pain to the individual. A fetus, to the best of our knowledge, is not aware enough to seriously feel pain, making this mostly moot for abortion; furthermore, carrying the child to term would in all likelihood result in far more pain to the mother than is inflicted on the fetus. Furthermore, murder also often involves inflicting great emotional stress and panic on the victim prior to their death, but this is also completely moot for a fetus, which has no ability to consciously anticipate pain or death or feel distress about it.

2. It causes great emotional pain to those who knew the dead, due to their memories of who the murdered was and the knowledge they can never meet them again. However, a fetus has never socialized with anyone; you can't miss someone who's lived their whole life in a womb in any meaningful sense except potentially if you're the mother, and seeing as in that case you're the one who's deciding to get an abortion, well...

3. You are removing the person's ability to subsequently do anything with their life. They had plans, dreams, disagreements that might have been resolved, books they wanted to read, people they wanted to meet, and just simple anticipation of tomorrow (this, to me, is the most important aspect of death). But, while a fetus has the potential to do things with its life in the future, it has no plans, it anticipates nothing, and it would have no regrets if it died, simply because it isn't capable of that. It has potential, but no realization of that potential that makes it cruel to snatch it away.

And you should also read this if you want to see more useful thoughts on abortion (why won't anyone). It's a good article (essay?) that doesn't attack any points of view, and instead goes "well, people say abortion is bad because of [reason]. That makes sense, right? Except..." and makes lots of allowances!

 

[Saith]

2. It causes great emotional pain to those who knew the dead, due to their memories of who the murdered was and the knowledge they can never meet them again. However, a fetus has never socialized with anyone; you can't miss someone who's lived their whole life in a womb in any meaningful sense except potentially if you're the mother, and seeing as in that case you're the one who's deciding to get an abortion, well...

Now see, this is exactly why I hate so many pro-choicers. I'm pro-choice myself, but I can't stand the whole 'well babies are just pimples. they're basically pimples. on your ass. that mean nothing at all.' mentality that seems to come with it. I mean fuck.

 

[Hiikaru]

Now see, this is exactly why I hate so many pro-choicers. I'm pro-choice myself, but I can't stand the whole 'well babies are just pimples. they're basically pimples. on your ass. that mean nothing at all.' mentality that seems to come with it. I mean fuck.

No one is saying that. For one thing, what's being said is that children and adults have people who will grieve over them, so part of why murder is wrong is you're causing a lot of bad feelings for a lot of people. If someone chooses an abortion, either they have no bad feelings, or they're consenting to having the bad feelings (presumably because they'd prefer those ones over the ones they'd have from not aborting).

In addition to that, most people are saying that a fetus is not a baby. So even if they thought a fetus was the same thing as acne, they'd be thinking so about a fetus, not about a baby. If someone honestly feels that a fetus is just a clump of cells, well, of course they don't find that especially meaningful. You can't really argue that someone ought to find a clump of cells meaningful - you would have to argue that instead of a clump of cells, it's the same as a baby.

If someone thinks it's a baby, then it makes sense to be upset if you feel that that person is treating a baby like acne. But if they don't think so, shouldn't you instead be upset that they don't agree that it's a baby when you feel that it is a baby?

Sometimes it does cause bad feelings for people who aren't the one with a fetus, and then it's not that no one cares about it and so it's fine, but that people aren't obligated to go through huge personal expense to protect someone else's feelings, or to protect the fetus (or even a baby) that's causing them the huge personal expense.

 

[Music Dragon]

Now see, this is exactly why I hate so many pro-choicers. I'm pro-choice myself, but I can't stand the whole 'well babies are just pimples. they're basically pimples. on your ass. that mean nothing at all.' mentality that seems to come with it. I mean fuck.

Please clarify.

 

[Saith]

Okay, fuck it, it's time Saith Super Happy Fun Time With Abortion Story Corner Hour.

When I got my then-girlfriend Megan pregnant, it was pretty fucking bad. I had a job, sure, but it was a part-time gig while I chilled at the hostel. She was on track to go to Oxford. Obviously we couldn't keep the baby. We both knew this, but of course there were the customary talks - family, friends and the like were brought into it.
In the end, we decided to get an abortion. Despite all rationality, despite all logic and despite all the shit that would go down were we to keep it, we still wanted it.
It took a long time, but eventually I convinced her to get an abortion. Well. I didn't convince her. I supported her is more like. I made sure that she knew that there was no reason to feel guilty, all the while hating what was inevitably going to happen.
She got it done, oh, maybe a week later.
See, now, you know how sometimes people joke and say 'a little piece of me just died'? That's how it felt. When she gave me the news, part of me died. A pretty big part. It... Well it didn't physically hurt, but fuck man. You have no idea. It hurt - and still does - more than anything I've ever experienced. Rape, knives, paedos, everything was water under the bridge compared to this.
I had to break up with Megan, of course. I couldn't even look at her. Now, this isn't because I blame her or feel disgusted or angry at her. I couldn't look at her because her beautiful face reminds me of all the good times we've had, it reminds me of all the love and life we've experienced. And it corrupts all of these memories with the memory of my unborn child. Every memory is... Well, it's stained. And whenever I think of it, it makes me so fucking sad. It hurts so fucking bad. When I see her, my throat chokes up, my hands shake, my stomach cramps and I have to force myself not to cry.
This is going to sound melodramatic, but it proved to me I have a soul, if only because I can feel that a piece is missing.
This is as well as I can explain it - I'm no poet after all. I'm just trying to show you how much it hurts. It's, like, I could never have imagined such pain before it happened, but now that it did, it's always there. A throbbing ache threatening to split me open if I give it even a little attention.

That's maybe a little long-winded, but it's vital you understand how the abortion made me feel. It made Megan feel even worse, I think. We don't talk any more, but I know she felt guilty and probably still does. I love her so much, so it kills me that I'm probably adding to her pain. It kills me, it shreds me apart inside, to think that me breaking up with her probably made her all the more guilty, and was probably like sticking my fingers in the wounds, you know?

But that's what abortion is. It hurts. It hurts so fucking bad.

The loss hurts.
The guilt hurts.
The future - the hopes and dreams that you give up - hurts.
The feeling of helplessness hurts.
The utter emptiness hurts.
The hopelessness and despair hurt.
Even the shame, which is honestly the least of my problems, hurts.

So when I see people acting like abortion ain't no thang, when I see them acting like a baby is just like porn on the pc - something you can get rid of with a push of a button and never look back on, when I see them trying to explain and moralise it without knowing what it feels like. Well. It hurts.
It feels just like how it feels to think back on the memories. It really fucking hurts.

There are people - in this thread even - who say things like 'if I miscarried I wouldn't give two shits'. and it's like no. No. You would care. You really would. You would be torn apart. And if you wouldn't, you're just too fucking cold, and I'd prefer to believe it's just your naivety and lack of experience that's talking.

 

[shy ♡]

Saith, I am honestly sympathetic to what you've been through, but please understand that is your situation and it doesn't apply to everyone. For example this person has blogged about how they had an abortion and they did not feel any of that. They felt extreme relief.

 

[Saith]

Where does zie say that?

Just asking because I can't find it. :/