Is the race really this close? Who do you think will win?

[Deebs]

I honestly didn't mean to turn this into a debate (says the crazy lady bringing up politics, abortion, the death penalty, and religion). When I talked to people who might have voted for Romney, their main objections came down to abortion and gay marriage, and many if them said they are worried about the economy and Obamas economic policies. It seems the social issues ( and these two specifically) lost him the election , IMO.

[diggitydot]

I hesitate to make this comparison because I know it will piss people off, but it's the only one that I think best exemplifies why pro-life people care so much. To me "It's my body, and my choice. If you don't like abortion, don't have one" is akin to "If you don't like slavery, don't have slaves." It comes down to defending the rights of another person who are unable to defend themselves.

It doesn't piss me off, at all. But I think comparing owning people (which has been outlawed for 150+ years) with a legal and frequently medically necessary procedure is a flawed construct.

Religiously speaking, a fetus may be considered a new and different person at conception, but that isn't how it's viewed legally. We impart rights at different points. When born here, you're a citizen. Yay! Can't vote until you're 18, though. Boo. Can't drink until you're 21. Bigger boo. Legislating dogma creates lots of unintended consequences, like also outlawing contraception, which has been proven to lower the instances of abortion drastically.

I think of abortion similarly to contraceptives in that no one should make anyone else use or not use it.

...but someone on death row is likely guilty, which an unborn child is always innocent.

The likelihood of guilt doesn't make me any more comfortable with the DP. It's outrageously costly, isn't a crime deterrent, and is unevenly applied. Adding frequent wrongful convictions into the mix is just the sprinkles on a shit sandwich.

[HouseofWool]

I honestly didn't mean to turn this into a debate (says the crazy lady bringing up politics, abortion, the death penalty, and religion). When I talked to people who might have voted for Romney, their main objections came down to abortion and gay marriage, and many if them said they are worried about the economy and Obamas economic policies. It seems the social issues ( and these two specifically) lost him the election , IMO.

Yes, but this is the type of debate that rocks because there is no name calling, no slamming of someone else's views no matter how varied they are. Thanks to everyone for keeping this civil!

[diggitydot]

Actually, I love having these discussions with you all.

[Sheherezade]

I agree!

[scrub-jay]

Religiously speaking, a fetus may be considered a new and different person at conception, but that isn't how it's viewed legally. We impart rights at different points. When born here, you're a citizen. Yay! Can't vote until you're 18, though. Boo. Can't drink until you're 21. Bigger boo. Legislating dogma creates lots of unintended consequences, like also outlawing contraception, which has been proven to lower the instances of abortion drastically.

Very true. Additionally, when I do my taxes, I do not get to count my unborn child as a dependent until he is born.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

But I think comparing owning people (which has been outlawed for 150+ years) with a legal and frequently medically necessary procedure is a flawed construct.

I don't think the temporal aspect matters though. Abortion has only been medically possible (safely and routinely) for the last 40-50 years so I think it's important to consider it in that context. Slavery was legal at that time too.

And I would challenge the "medically necessary" piece - I don't believe (though I don't have statistics at hand) that most are medically necessary (though I acknowledge that it sometimes is). I feel like the "exception to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape/incest" is really overblown as a situation - these situations do occur but they are, thankfully, extremely rare. What percentage of abortions are actually medically necessary? I have read that the average woman having an abortion is in her late 20s, low income with several other children which is completely heartbreaking but not medically necessary. What she needs is support to a) keep her child or b) choose adoption.

I have also seen quoted that almost 60% of low income children conceived in NYC are aborted which is HORRIFYING, I think we can all agree.

ETA: Why does Europe have much lower abortion rates? Is it because of free birth control/more govt support or is it because of other social/economic factors?

[SoonerTexan]

Then I guess you could say the pro-life agenda is to match the legal definition to the definition we believe is correct. I wont say religious definition, because I don't think it is a specifically religious concept that life begins at conception.

It's not even cut and dry legally now. Think about the Unborn Victim of Violence Act (Connor's Law). Under this law it is a crime (federally, and in more than 50% of states) if a child is killed by someone else, but not if a mother chooses to terminate the same pregnancy at the same point in the pregnancy. So is life determined by whether or not a mother wants a child? What if a mother no longer wants a child after it is born? I realize it is more complicated that and this is extremely simplified, but I'm illustrating a point. If you say life begins at viability outside of the mother, that can be a very gray area. If you say second trimester, how different is a fetus at x week vs the next? I would argue that there isn't really a more definitive point than conception.

We do impart rights at different points and we believe that the right to live is not one that should ever be taken away once the life is in existence, and we define that existence to be conception.

DD as far as slavery goes, I recognize that it is not the same situation or a perfect example. My point with that is why people who do not have abortions believe it is not just a personal issue, like contraception.

And this is a selfish argument, but I occasionally think, "Well, what about me? Why was I lucky enough to be a wanted pregnancy when someone else wasn't?" Abortion had been legal for awhile when I was born. I wonder about who might be missing and what the world might be like. Many argue that those children would have been born into bad situations and they were probably better off not being born anyway, but that makes me very uncomfortable, especially when you look at the racial and socioeconomic statistics of abortion.

I'm also glad this can stay civil. I honestly didn't think it could. I recognize that there are those here who have had abortions and the last thing I would want to do is cause them pain, but I also do think it is worth it to hear other sides. I actually have sought it out because I want to understand. It doesn't change my mind, but understanding and compassion are always a good thing when the subject is so hotly debated and so painful. I want others to know that there is more to the pro-life argument than, "well you shouldn't have had sex then, babykilling slut. Now get off welfare." I recognize that opinion exists.

cross posted with T&S

[weeniegeniewife]

And this is a selfish argument, but I occasionally think, "Well, what about me? Why was I lucky enough to be a wanted pregnancy when someone else wasn't?"

I agonized over my abortion in 2004. It was medically necessary, and I did not have any other options at the time. The fetus would not have lived at birth, and there were other risks at the time. I was 30, with an advanced education, upper-middle class, and paid for it myself. It was called a D&C at 7 weeks, but let's be real, it was an abortion. It was a heartbreaking decision but one I am thankful was available to me. I will always, always be pro choice for that very reason.

You all would be surprised how common it is. And women having abortions don't fit into a specific demographic, despite what religious groups want you to think. In fact, I would argue that most fit the same demographic that I was in when I had mine. That comes from abortion clinic stats here in Oregon as well as my 12 years of counseling work.

[Amiens]

I've been playing Lego Harry Potter all night and avoiding all media and Internet. I've just now logged back on and turned on the news. So far, my FB peeps have been pretty mellow, but that could just be because I've already set so many people to ignore...

Truly, there are assholes in every party. What sets the adults in the room apart is the ability to discuss and see another's point, even if they disagree. I respect the hell out of y'all, even though I frequently disagree with many of my favorite peeps here. I think listening to the respectful opinions of those with whom I disagree is actually a pretty cool gig and I appreciate you all.

I am low-key on FB as well, because if I posted anything remotely political (as you saw with my undecided voter question) family calls me questioning my "loyalty" and tells me I am going to hell if I don't vote a certain way. I fuh-love you too, DD.

[diggitydot]

I don't think the temporal aspect matters though. Abortion has only been medically possible (safely and routinely) for the last 40-50 years so I think it's important to consider it in that context. Slavery was legal at that time too.

Abortion has been around for centuries, whether safe or routine. Preventing pregnancy and birth has been a part of midwifery forever. Since longer than the Catholic church has deemed abortion verboten (mid-1800s?), I think. Regardless, timing and legality are both part of the construct. Whether slavery was legal or illegal at the same time as abortion is immaterial. What matters is whether they are legal here and now.

And I would challenge the "medically necessary" piece - I don't believe (though I don't have statistics at hand) that most are medically necessary (though I acknowledge that it sometimes is). I feel like the "exception to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape/incest" is really overblown as a situation - these situations do occur but they are, thankfully, extremely rare.

I don't think anyone has implied that most abortions are medically necessary, but MANY are and the procedure cannot be divorced from modern obstetrical care. It would be cruel to not only women who want or need abortions, but also those who have lost much loved and wanted babies who need to have the procedure to heal and preserve their future fertility.

However medically necessary a procedure may or may not be, I sure as hell don't want to be the one to tell ANY sexual assault survivor that she has to give birth to the child of her rapist. Most states don't restrict the parental rights or ability for a convicted rapist to parent their child, even one proven to have been conceived through their crimes. It is unthinkable to me to require a woman to stay in continued contact with the man who raped her. And considering that only 3% of rapists are ever convicted, my guess is that this scenario is likely far more common than anyone can know.

I have also seen quoted that almost 60% of low income children conceived in NYC are aborted which is HORRIFYING, I think we can all agree.

I don't think that is a knowable statistic. Around 50% of pregnancies end naturally, most without the mother ever even knowing she's conceived. Where was that quoted?

ETA: Why does Europe have much lower abortion rates? Is it because of free birth control/more govt support or is it because of other social/economic factors?

Most likely a combination of things. Those that you listed and probably a different outlook on sexuality and immorality. Americans tend to be pretty damn Puritanical about sex and the naughty bits.

Then I guess you could say the pro-life agenda is to match the legal definition to the definition we believe is correct. I wont say religious definition, because I don't think it is a specifically religious concept that life begins at conception.

The human body has more non-human DNA contained in it than human DNA. Those are all living virii/fungii/bacteria and cannot live without a host. A zygote is small, has different DNA than the host and cannot live without a host organism. I'm not trying to equate fungal life to that of a human, only trying to make the point that the argument that "life begins at conception" is definitely a religious distinction.

It's not even cut and dry legally now. Think about the Unborn Victim of Violence Act (Connor's Law). Under this law it is a crime (federally, and in more than 50% of states) if a child is killed by someone else, but not if a mother chooses to terminate the same pregnancy at the same point in the pregnancy. So is life determined by whether or not a mother wants a child? What if a mother no longer wants a child after it is born? I realize it is more complicated that and this is extremely simplified, but I'm illustrating a point. If you say life begins at viability outside of the mother, that can be a very gray area. If you say second trimester, how different is a fetus at x week vs the next? I would argue that there isn't really a more definitive point than conception.

I absolutely agree that the legal wrangling has muddied the waters.

DD as far as slavery goes, I recognize that it is not the same situation or a perfect example. My point with that is why people who do not have abortions believe it is not just a personal issue, like contraception.

Except that owning someone else and electing to have a medical procedure on your own body are vastly different situations. And yes, while a fetus is in utero, it is considered part of the mother's body.

I want others to know that there is more to the pro-life argument than, "well you shouldn't have had sex then, babykilling slut. Now get off welfare." I recognize that opinion exists.

Not only does it exist, it's alarmingly common. There seems to be a lot of not only judgment about abortion, but a desire to "punish" whomever may have had one. I don't get it.

I do, however, greatly appreciate being able to pick the brains of those with whom I disagree. I appreciate it and respect your opinions, though mine differ.

[Amiens]

I agonized over my abortion in 2004. It was medically necessary, and I did not have any other options at the time. The fetus would not have lived at birth, and there were other risks at the time. I was 30, with an advanced education, upper-middle class, and paid for it myself. It was called a D&C at 7 weeks, but let's be real, it was an abortion. It was a heartbreaking decision but one I am thankful was available to me. I will always, always be pro choice for that very reason.

You all would be surprised how common it is. And women having abortions don't fit into a specific demographic, despite what religious groups want you to think. In fact, I would argue that most fit the same demographic that I was in when I had mine. That comes from abortion clinic stats here in Oregon as well as my 12 years of counseling work.

I am with you- I desperately wanted my first pregnancy. My first pregnancy at 24 was a similar situation. I opted to have a D&C (really it was an abortion) because emotionally I was a wreck and was not miscarrying on my own- my body was failing me when it should have miscarried at 8 weeks, but carried the pregnancy to almost 12 weeks, but the D&C helped end that. Who knows when I would have miscarried. I was educated, college degree, and dh was finishing medical school.

I have a friend who found out her unborn child had hydroencephalocitis (no brain formed), and could've carried to term but opted to end her pregnancy at 20 weeks. Again her motivation was based on her emotional state, and that it would have broken her to deliver a child at 9 months that would have lived for a few minutes. Does it make her a murderer for that decision, I think not.

From I have read, and I might get flamed for it, but so be it - In low-income areas where women have had access to abortion, those crime rates are lower. I think if I were in that situation - no access to affordable healthcare, poor health myself, I would not want to bring a child into an environment like that, something to think about. Would you want a child brought into an environment (surrounded by drugs and crime) to most likely end up on a path that way? Also another facet of the situation, in rape cases, the rapist still has "rights" to the child should the mother carry the child to term.

[Sheherezade]

I can't figure out how to quote in Tapatalk. Grumble.

ST- you say "we define life to begin at conception so at that point rights begin" but you mean "we" the church, right? I don't think that definition is universally accepted. I reiterate my position that this definition would have large implications for women. For example, what about ectopic pregnancy? Is that allowed abortion?

[SoonerTexan]

Around 50% of pregnancies end naturally, most without the mother ever even knowing she's conceived.

FWIW, naturally ending pregnancies (i.e. not specifically terminated with medical intervention) are not something we include in abortion statistics or believe to be an "abortion" in the same sense, though I know the term applies to both situations.

Also another facet of the situation, in rape cases, the rapist still has "rights" to the child should the mother carry the child to term

It seems like the better solution to that problem is to terminate the rapist's parental rights. It blows my mind that this situation still exists.

I should probably do some real work now

[SoonerTexan]

ST- you say "we define life to begin at conception so at that point rights begin" but you mean "we" the church, right? I don't think that definition is universally accepted.

By we, I mean anyone who is pro-life. I don't think it is a universally accepted position either. But I also don't think it is limited to just those that are pro-life or religious.

I actually recently looked up ectopic pregnancy and "life of the mother" from a Catholic point of view recently, because I was interested in it myself (Note: this is just the Catholic POV, not pro-life in general). Bolding is mine, I realize it is wordy. Catholics are good at being wordy

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the lives of both the mother and child are placed at risk. The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles:

· In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.[2]

· Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]


On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost.

This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is the death of the child.
Another example arises in the treatment of uterine (endometrial) cancer during a pregnancy. The common treatments of uterine cancer are primarily hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) and sometimes chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Again, taking the life of the baby is not intended, but a hysterectomy does mean the removal of the womb and the death of the child. Yet, if a hysterectomy must be performed to save the life of the mother, the Church would deem the procedure morally licit.
Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process.

This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).

And there is your Catholic theological moment for the day. Because I know you wanted/were expecting that This thread is getting interesting!

PS Amiens & Jamie, I'm sorry for your losses.