Pro-life supporters question:

[Jazzy]

What should we do with the unwanted children that would otherwise be aborted?

 

[Albion]

Some will be raised by their parents even if they had not planned on having a (or another) child. Some will be raised by other relatives. And many will be adopted. There are more people wanting to adopt than there are children to adopt at present.

In addition, if the laws did not allow for 'abortion-for-convenience' or as an alternative to contraception/birth control, there would be fewer children in the situation that your question asks about.

 

[Josiah]

What should we do with the unwanted children that would otherwise be aborted?

1. I think it's baseless to assume that all born children were 'planned.' Yet they are loved and cherished.

2. Abortion is simply the preferred birth control method for many. When abortion is not an option, other things become options.

3. In countries where abortion is more rare than in the US (and that's pretty much everywhere else), there's no evidence that children are hated or abused more than here. There's just no evidence that abortion increases the love of children. Indeed, a society that considers that parents may kill their children for any or no reason whatsoever - right up to the moment when the last cell of the last toe exits the birth canal, well.... that says a lot to children. And parents.

4. And @Jazzy remember: the entire basis of abortion, the foundational argument, the moral basis is IF the person is WANTED (there's the key word, the critical aspect) IF they are WANTED, then they are uman and alive. Life and humanity are defined by one : are they WANTED. What does this say to those who are not wanted - some children by their parents, the elderly, the disabled, the homeless? The whole basis here UNDERMINES care and love and embrace. It hurts children - not helps them.



.

 

[tango]

What should we do with the unwanted children that would otherwise be aborted?

Josiah has many good points.

Of course the thing that gets overlooked is that it takes - ahem - a certain process to make a baby in the first place and other precautions can be taken up to and including doing less of it in the first place.

In fairness the concept of "pro-life" position is also an oversimplification because it encompasses everything from a desire to reduce or restrict abortion to a desire to ban abortion regardless of circumstance. The person who wants abortion restricted in the third trimester is arguably "pro life", as is the person who thinks a child rape victim who ends up pregnant should be required to carry the baby to full term.

 

[Albion]

Of course the thing that gets overlooked is that it takes - ahem - a certain process to make a baby in the first place and other precautions can be taken up to and including doing less of it in the first place.

In fairness the concept of "pro-life" position is also an oversimplification because it encompasses everything from a desire to reduce or restrict abortion to a desire to ban abortion regardless of circumstance. The person who wants abortion restricted in the third trimester is arguably "pro life", as is the person who thinks a child rape victim who ends up pregnant should be required to carry the baby to full term.

But remember the following realities that affect that argument.

First, the child either is a human or not. If we agree that we're talking about a human rather than a tadpole or the proverbial "clump of cells," then the tragedy experienced by the rape victim, as unfair as it is, does not and cannot cancel out the importance of the life of another human being.

And second, the number of child rape victims who become pregnant and then seek an abortion represents a miniscule percentage of elective abortions. Turning the discussion in that direction (as usually is done, not just on this thread) obscures the actual situation that society faces when it comes to legal abortion.

 

[tango]

But remember the following realities that affect that argument.

First, the child either is a human or not. If we agree that we're talking about a human rather than a tadpole or the proverbial "clump of cells," then the tragedy experienced by the rape victim, as unfair as it is, does not and cannot cancel out the importance of the life of another human being.

And second, the number of child rape victims who become pregnant and then seek an abortion represents a miniscule percentage of elective abortions. Turning the discussion in that direction (as usually is done, not just on this thread) obscures the actual situation that society faces when it comes to legal abortion.

Both are entirely valid points.

It's certainly true that the humanity or otherwise of the unborn is not affected by how it was conceived, although it creates a far thornier situation. If we start from the assumption that the unborn is fully human and has rights, should we override the rights of the unborn, or should we pile additional punishment and possible severe medical complications upon a victim who has already suffered greatly?

I don't dispute that rape cases are a small percentage of those seeking abortions. The trouble with the notion of banning abortion regardless of circumstance is that life often isn't as clear-cut as people would like it to be. The rape victim is one example, the people who find out at 8 months that their pregnancy is likely to kill the mother is another. They are a small percentage without a doubt but they break the notion that abortion is nothing more than a lazy person's birth control.

When dealing with someone who freely consented to sex but would prefer not to face the consequences it's an easy matter to say she should have kept her legs together. When dealing with someone who didn't have that option, or who dearly wanted the child growing within them but would really rather like to live to raise the child, things get messier.

 

[Albion]

Both are entirely valid points.

It's certainly true that the humanity or otherwise of the unborn is not affected by how it was conceived, although it creates a far thornier situation. If we start from the assumption that the unborn is fully human and has rights, should we override the rights of the unborn, or should we pile additional punishment and possible severe medical complications upon a victim who has already suffered greatly?

Whoa. "Severe medical complications" have not been discussed here so far. Were there such complications, an abortion might be allowable. Few of even the most ardent pro-life people (or churches) advocate saving the child at the cost of the mother's life. But again, it's not the case that this happens very often among the millions of abortions that are performed annually in the USA.

I don't dispute that rape cases are a small percentage of those seeking abortions. The trouble with the notion of banning abortion regardless of circumstance is that life often isn't as clear-cut as people would like it to be.

Well, I haven't advocated the banning of abortion regardless of circumstance.

The rape victim is one example, the people who find out at 8 months that their pregnancy is likely to kill the mother is another.

See the first part of my reply above.

They are a small percentage without a doubt but they break the notion that abortion is nothing more than a lazy person's birth control.

Was that part of my earlier comments, either? Well, no.

 

[tango]

Whoa. "Severe medical complications" have not been discussed here so far. Were there such complications, an abortion might be allowable. Few of even the most ardent pro-life people (or churches) advocate saving the child at the cost of the mother's life. But again, it's not the case that this happens very often among the millions of abortions that are performed annually in the USA.

Not in here but in other threads. In other threads, and in other discussions, some people (not you) have expressed a desire to ban abortion outright regardless. In another thread here there was a discussion about a child rape victim who wasn't allowed to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a common thing - if anything I'd say it's vanishingly rare, but it muddies the waters such that "ban abortion" isn't a useful slogan. And as with many other things, determining when something is a valid exception isn't always straightforward. If we don't allow abortion in the extreme situations we end up with mothers dying because of pregnancy complications but if we do we potentially open the door to doctors willing to blur lines based on "the mother's wellbeing" or whatever else.

Well, I haven't advocated the banning of abortion regardless of circumstance.

See the first part of my reply above.

Was that part of my earlier comments, either? Well, no.

I never said they were part of your argument, I'm looking at abortion as an issue overall rather than your specific stance on abortion. Hence I'm looking to acknowledge when you make valid points (as you did in your previous post) and looking to find a balance between conflicting needs.

I never claimed that abortions because of rape or complications were common and yet you introduced the notion into the discussion. And quite reasonably, because it's a valid point even if it's not a claim I made.

Of course the question of exactly when life does begin (conception, implantation, viability, birth, some other time?) has to come into play as well.

 

[Albion]

Not in here but in other threads. In other threads, and in other discussions, some people (not you) have expressed a desire to ban abortion outright regardless. In another thread here there was a discussion about a child rape victim who wasn't allowed to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a common thing - if anything I'd say it's vanishingly rare, but it muddies the waters such that "ban abortion" isn't a useful slogan.

I can't deny the point you're making, but it's almost always possible to criticize a socio-political proposal by citing the very rare oddities or exceptions that are or might be involved.

Doing that makes the idea itself seem dangerous or unfair, etc., when those rare events actually do not define the issue being discussed. What's more, they usually can be accommodated without derailing the main issue.

 

[tango]

I can't deny the point you're making, but it's almost always possible to criticize a socio-political proposal by citing the very rare oddities or exceptions that are or might be involved.

True, although if a proposal does leave people stuck the chances are it's an indication the proposal hasn't been thought through very well. We know rape exists, we know rape victims sometimes find themselves pregnant, we know some women find themselves facing life-threatening complications, and so any proposal to reduce abortion needs to consider that there are valid reasons where abortion may be not only appropriate but literally life-saving, at least from the perspective of the mother.

Doing that makes the idea itself seem dangerous or unfair, etc., when those rare events actually do not define the issue being discussed. What's more, they usually can be accommodated without derailing the main issue.

Things often can be accommodated, it's just about finding some form of suitable stance between those who think a woman on her way to the maternity unit to give birth should be allowed to get off at a different floor because she decided she wanted an abortion instead, and those who think that abortion must be prohibited without exception. Accommodating specific exceptions also requires some consideration of how to define those exceptions. For example, allowing abortion for rape victims as an exception to an overall ban simply creates a perverse benefit to a woman if she claims she was raped, which is likely to create all sorts of problems for entirely innocent men.

 

[Albion]

True, although if a proposal does leave people stuck the chances are it's an indication the proposal hasn't been thought through very well.

I wouldn't say so. That's because an important part of what I was referring to was the fact that these exceptions are very rare and can be accommodated, yet they are almost always brought up whenever opponents lay out their pro-abortion position. They want to make it seem is as if they are significant problem areas and ruin the pro-life case. But in reality, they aren't.

That isn't to say that there might not be complications, but this objection is more like an illusion.

We know rape exists, we know rape victims sometimes find themselves pregnant, we know some women find themselves facing life-threatening complications, and so any proposal to reduce abortion needs to consider that there are valid reasons where abortion may be not only appropriate but literally life-saving, at least from the perspective of the mother.

And I already explained why that's correct to say but not significant when it comes to the issue before us.

Things often can be accommodated, it's just about finding some form of suitable stance between those who think a woman on her way to the maternity unit to give birth should be allowed to get off at a different floor because she decided she wanted an abortion instead, and those who think that abortion must be prohibited without exception.

Do you not see how you loaded the proposition by unfairly weighing minor problems equally with the heart of the matter...and did so in order to win the discussion but not to solve any problems (or at least, that's what most people who bring up these exceptions have in mind).

Accommodating specific exceptions also requires some consideration of how to define those exceptions. For example, allowing abortion for rape victims as an exception to an overall ban simply creates a perverse benefit to a woman if she claims she was raped, which is likely to create all sorts of problems for entirely innocent men.

 

[tango]

I wouldn't say so. That's because an important part of what I was referring to was the fact that these exceptions are very rare and can be accommodated, yet they are almost always brought up whenever opponents lay out their pro-abortion position. They want to make it seem is as if they are significant problem areas and ruin the pro-life case. But in reality, they aren't.

That isn't to say that there might not be complications, but this objection is more like an illusion.

I don't think this is a fair conclusion at all.

I never said that rape and serious complications ruin the pro-life case, if anything I freely accept they are a tiny proportion of people seeking abortions. The fact remains that situations like that make the situation more complex than "abortion bad" and "ban abortion".

And I already explained why that's correct to say but not significant when it comes to the issue before us.

It's pretty significant if you're the one facing likely death by continuing with a pregnancy.

Do you not see how you loaded the proposition by unfairly weighing minor problems equally with the heart of the matter...and did so in order to win the discussion but not to solve any problems (or at least, that's what most people who bring up these exceptions have in mind).

Now you're assuming my motives.

The trouble with much legislation is that if you allow too many exceptions you create loopholes for those who want to blur boundaries, and if you don't allow exceptions you end up telling people like a 10-year-old rape victim that it's just too bad and they have to carry the pregnancy to term. How to define exceptions that allow for genuine situations without creating loopholes can be tricky.

 

[Albion]

I don't think this is a fair conclusion at all.

I never said that rape and serious complications ruin the pro-life case, if anything I freely accept they are a tiny proportion of people seeking abortions. The fact remains that situations like that make the situation more complex than "abortion bad" and "ban abortion".

I'd think that all of us already realize that the issue has some complications built into it. In my post I agreed that it does. However, when someone goes out of his way to highlight a particular one, it's fair to conclude that the speaker considers that one to be a significant problem area that works against the pro-life position.

And if there's any doubt about my observation there, let's take another look at what you then went on to write (see the following).

It's pretty significant if you're the one facing likely death by continuing with a pregnancy.

The trouble with much legislation is that if you allow too many exceptions you create loopholes for those who want to blur boundaries,

and if you don't allow exceptions you end up telling people like a 10-year-old rape victim that it's just too bad and they have to carry the pregnancy to term. How to define exceptions that allow for genuine situations without creating loopholes can be tricky.

 

[Josiah]

.


PHILOSOPHICALLY, MORALLY I'm opposed to all murder (the intentional killing of an innocent human) and thus to all abortions. And I believe that the "war" we fight must be that philosophical and moral one, a pro-life morality. This, of course, would permit abortion to save the biological life of the mother (two deaths are not more pro-life than one death) - this is permitted by all denominations known to me (including the Catholic one) and always has been.

POLITICALLY, I think it might be wise to not get TOO far ahead of the general public opinion since such would not only be unpopular (and thus likely to be overturned in a democracy) but also likely unenforceable. Politically, it might be wise to permit abortions in the (extremely rare) case of rape or incest (most Republicans already support this)... and perhaps even early on (before weeks 10-12 for example, again the general Republican view). This is morally inconsistent but we may have to win that war incrementally. IF we can get the Democrats away from "It's only a lifeless blob of nothingness until the last cell exits the birth canal and likely for some days after that"... if we can get them away from "Life exists ONLY when it's wanted - life is defined by being wanted by someone else" then we've made very important progress even if it means only a slight decrease in the actual number of abortions.


- Josiah


.This dot is dedicated to MoreCoffee

 

[tango]

Josiah, in your opinion when does life begin?

You make good points about inconsistencies in political perspectives, although I think a lot of the issue does ultimately boil down to the question of when life begins. If life doesn't begin until birth or later, abortion becomes a matter of personal preference. If life begins some time before birth then abortion after that point is the intentional ending of another life and becomes less distinguishable from murder. At that point an abortion to save the mother's life starts to fall in fuzzy gray areas about ending one life to save another, self-defense arguments etc.

If life begins at conception than arguably an IUD is a murder weapon. If life begins at implantation then anything that inhibits implantation can be considered birth control.

 

[Albion]

Josiah has many good points.

Of course the thing that gets overlooked is that it takes - ahem - a certain process to make a baby in the first place and other precautions can be taken up to and including doing less of it in the first place.

In fairness the concept of "pro-life" position is also an oversimplification because it encompasses everything from a desire to reduce or restrict abortion to a desire to ban abortion regardless of circumstance. The person who wants abortion restricted in the third trimester is arguably "pro life", as is the person who thinks a child rape victim who ends up pregnant should be required to carry the baby to full term.

This issue has come up now in more than one post, and it seems strange to me. After all, "pro-life" is not supposed to be a scientific term. It's a political slogan!

The nature of political slogans--for example "reproductive health" and "transphobia" --is to claim the high ground in debate.

So, if "pro-life" is the term chosen by those people, it's a lot more accurate than others that are similar and often heard. In fact, it's a lot more accurate than most of the others, too.