I have already gone round and round on this issue in other threads, but being as you're generally a rational sort, cubs, I'll present you with an opposing point of view that isn't dan-based.
For a person like me, the abortion debate has two distinct issues.
1. The moral issue of life
2. The civil issue of the rights of a woman's body
Before I go further, I will say that I believe this issue cannot be solved by tackling abortion and must be solved on the education/prevention front, and, to a greater extent, the medical research front. If pro-lifers really wanted to solve this issue, that is where their money and their efforts should go. I cannot imagine this issue being settled with the status quo. We need viable technology and radical changes in sex education and disease/pregnancy prevention to solve this problem. And it is a problem. I don't know anyone on either side of the debate that thinks of this issue with any joy.
First, I will address for you the issue of life. I've been called a number of names on this form (the oh-so-popular intellectually dishonest being the kindest of them) for claiming, quite truthfully that I don't believe a fetus is a human life. I personally do not believe that there is human life without human consciousness. Is a fetus a living thing? Most certainly. But then so are viruses, plants, and non-human animals. I do not believe there is any definitive way to know whether a fetus has human consciousness. I do not know that we'll ever know. And until it can be proven scientifically by common medical and legal standards there is just no way to be sure. For all intents a purposes a fetus is like a parasite (though not a true parasite because it does not invade, but spawn within) with a human iv and breathing machine. It is this lump of cells until it is not. I do not know at what point it is not. No one does. And until someone is able to provide proof that meets the necessary standards, this issue remains a matter of feeling and opinion. There is merit to the belief that we should err on the side of caution and I have a great deal of sympathy for reasonable people that believe a fetus is a life from conception. I simply don't agree with them and contest that they cannot support their position with any forensic certainty. (This statement will likely result in the posting of shock-happy fetus photos, which has already gone round on this board when I've made this claim).
My personal compromise on this side of the debate is that we cannot know for sure and each case is different and there needs to be a line in the sand somewhere somehow. I believe a reasonable compromise is the time at which a fetus is able to exist outside the womb. At that point, the likelihood of consciousness is greater and this position also manages a reasonable (not fair, but reasonable) compromise for the civil issue.
The civil issue, of course is the right of a woman over her own body. You appear to believe, as do others like you, that the separate lifeform inside the womb trumps the rights of the host/mother. But nowhere else in law do we obligate anyone to put their own body at risk (however minor) to save someone else. You cannot compel someone to donate body organs or blood. You cannot force someone to give up the rights of their body for the sake of another. There is no way around it. If you were dying and a pint of my blood was the only thing that could save you, you would have no legal grounds to take it from me. My good will is all you have to pin your hopes on.
There are those who think that because the dangers of pregnancy are greatly reduced in modern society that means there are none. But the risk factors are significant. Blood volume massively increases and the strain placed on the heart is great during both pregnancy and delivery. Anyone with even a minor cardiac issue can face serious dangers during pregnancy. Diabetics face serious challenges during pregnancy. People with schizophrenia and bi-polar issues have to forsake vital medications while they are pregnant (not to mention the hormonal changes that a patient with a history of depression will encounter). The overwhelming majority of pregnancies result in safe delivery for the babies and mothers. But that is in no small part due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of pregnant women want to be pregnant and have a motivation to deliver a healthy baby. Even in safe deliveries, however, the toll a pregnancy takes on a woman's body is no small matter. And I am not merely referring to the cosmetic issues.
Obligating someone under law to put their own health at risk for the sake of another is the denial of a basic civil liberty. Period. This cannot be refuted from a forensic standpoint.
There are other compelling issues on both sides of the argument. But I find that when I return to this issue for serious consideration, the only compromise I can come up with is the point when a fetus can reasonably expect to exist outside the body of the mother. I don't feel that compromise is right. I believe forcing someone to come to term at any stage violates their basic civil rights. But, I can see the wisdom in some compromise on this issue until medical science catches up to help us with the definitive answer on the morality issues. I believe the 100% pro-choice position is the only civil defensible position. But given the ambiguity of the moral issue, I could accept a compromise.
The 100% "pro-life" position, given our current technology and social make-up would have horrific consequences. Personal responsibility is all good and well for those of us who understand what it is and what it entails. But you cannot thrust it upon people and expect it to stick because you want it to.
At udes are changing. Look at movies like Juno which signal to youth that there is merit to carrying a child to term and offering adoption. I don't think anyone in mainstream thought is really pro-abortion. We all want a solution to the problem. We just don't want to violate civil rights in the face of ambiguous moral arguments. My biggest hope for this issue is technology and I truly believe education and technology is the answer to this stalemate. In the meantime, I'm willing to compromise so long as the other side doesn't over-reach.
Just so you know how I come to my standpoint (since you shared some of your own personal information). The women in my family have a history of difficult conception and delivery. My mother nearly died giving birth to my brother in 1975 and for years after it had a staggering effect on her metal state (thanks to medical science her depression is now handled by medications and she's a whole new person in many ways). I was little and had lots of loving family around me, so I didn't understand the full impact of my mother's depression until I was older, but it was clear the pregnancies each took their toll. The pregnancy and delivery of me a few years earlier had also been dangerous. In her case she wouldn't have had a second child, but back then (1972) her doctor had refused to tie my mother's tubes citing an objection of conscious (he was catholic). While I'm sure she could have gone elsewhere or raised legal objection, my mother was raised to be diminutive and go along. The result was my brother. While I love him dearly, I understand the cost he and I took on my mother's physical and mental health and I do not believe that should be forced upon anyone. I have had friends who have had abortions and who have opted against abortions as well. Until recently I regularly volunteered at women's health clinics where I often came into contact with at-risk pregnant women as well as women seeking abortions or other options. Your personal story is very compelling. But I will never believe a man can completely understand this issue. It's not about discrimination. It's just the way the world works. I will never understand what it's like to have a penis no matter how hard I try.
There are other questions that bear addressing.
Thorough my various volunteer work I have encountered many women who have been sexually assaulted both by strangers and known associates. Rape clauses are a matter of great debate, but there are different kinds of rape and many of them occur everyday in marriages and relationships. Rape is no where near as rare as people seem to think. They are not just acts of strangers. Expecting a woman to carry a child of such an act to term is a monumental violation of these women who have already been violated.
Further, if you define "life" as moment-of-conception then you are condemning every rape victim that ever took a morning after pill (most of which seek to prevent fertilization, but which also serve to unseat the implanted fertilized egg if there is one). And how does this apply to frozen embryos? And does a fetus have the rights of an American citizen when the definition of citizenship includes being born, not conceived? And if it's illegal to abort an embryo/fetus that cannot sustain life on it's own, how would that standard of law translate to situations like a coma patient on a respirator?
I understand and even sympathize with the righteous indignation of those who believe fully that an embryo/fetus is a human life. If they truly believe that, then they have every duty to their conscious to do what they must. But their righteous indignation does not have conclusive proof to deny someone their civil rights, and even if they did, they still wouldn't have grounds failing a Cons utional amendment of some sort.
Reply With Quote
) and someone with some strong physical and mental conflicts on the issue of sex/gender (though I am sterile in either direction at this point), feel that a blanket statement of "you can't identify" to be dismissive of the human capacity for empathy AND a point for ending all debate without having a burden of proof.
