-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/34294/common-ground-on-abortion-guest-voice/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Women have a right, as do all citizens, to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." From a Constitutional perspective, we do not allow one person's rights to be subordinated to another's. As I've pointed out, a parent is not required to give up a kidney to save her or his child's life, nor even to give blood. One person cannot be compelled to make a medical decision to benefit another. Period. The concept that a woman can be compelled to make a decision that affects her life or health, on behalf of a mass of cells that *might* become a citizen, is Constitutionally unsupportable, in my opinion.
100%, absolutely, and categorically wrong. Redefining "life" has been the most useless argument against abortion for 30 years for two reasons: its scientifically inaccurate and it makes a presumption that merely being biologically alive has some kind of moral value. Anything made of cells which metabolizes food to maintain homestasis is alive, including human beings, individidual cells, sex cells, flies, fish, cats, etc. However, almost nobody believes that flies have a right to life comparable to humans.
How on earth do we account for this distinction between insect and human life? Easy: by making the presumption that life only has conditional value, not intrinsic value; more than that, the value of one individuals life can be measured relative to other individual lives. This sounds like a striking departure from the blanket "human life is sacred" ethic that people have been taught for their entire lives, but it is an absolutely accurate characterization of the moral principles underlying the ethical treatment of humans and all living beings on the planet.
The abortion debate can be resolved by providing a solid explanation for why human life is even valuable in the first place, then determining whether those reasons extend to fetal human life. Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, Peter Singer, John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and a whole host of people who have dedicated their lives to solving the puzzle of what makes human life valuable have come orders of magnitude closer to solving the abortion debate than modern pro-life/pro-choice think tanks have ever been.
Please don't perpetuate the myth that scientists are still debating whether embryos are alive, its a waste of everyone's time and you will lose the abortion debate immediately. Focus on what really matters: what relevant characteristics do embryos share in common with rational adult humans which gives them a claim to moral value. In this respect, pro-choicers have the upper hand on pro-lifers by a wide margin who, after 30 years, have yet to identify even a single morally relevant characteristic of embryonic life that could make embryo life valuable even in principle.
Fair enough, although I certainly wouldn't say that liberals are simply easy on personal responsibility. As a liberal, I think it's important to take into consideration the fact that some people are given betters tools with which to excersize the type of responsibility you're talking about, whether that's education or access or culture or money. I know that such ideas are generally very against the tenets of libertarianism. Also, as a liberal, I think that every two people you put into a room would have a different definition of "taking responsibility".
It does nothing of the sort. I acknowledged the importance of the issue, while saying I don't think it's THE most important issue. I thought the life-of-the-fetus point of view was already well represented in the post.
There's a lot to get through there, certainly, and I've only got a minute, but I think you're mischaraterizing my views. First -- thanks for the link, lots of fascinating stuff there. Also, I would actually put myself in the 33% of people who think that abortion should be legal in most cases. I think the way Roe is worded fits my views pretty darn well. It breaks the pregnancy into trimesters: first trimester -- no obstruction, easy access, you don't even have to provide a reason; second trimester -- much more difficult (and the procedures are a lot more extensive) to obtain, higher barriers; third trimester -- there must be either significant risk to the mother or there has to be something wrong with the fetus, otherwise, you can't get an abortion.
As for your comment about "unprotected sex with no foresight" -- this argument does make a lot of sense. However, it does fall apart when you consider the poor state of sex education in this country, as well as the poor access to birth control for the very people who would likely need it most: young, poor, uneducated, uninsured. Not to mention the fact that birth control, even when used by someone very diligent, isn't 100%, let alone when used by someone who hasn't really been taught about correct usage.
"...sexual activity SHOULD involve some responsibility..." Yes, it should. In many cases, the most responsible thing to do is to abort.
"If carrying a fetus to term is a violation of your will, then they will most assuredly ask where was your will when it first came about." Sure. It would be awesome if all the young women in this country has such great education about what their bodies are doing and had such great access to both birth control and cheap and easy first-trimester abortions that there was no need for abortions past 3 months except when the fetus or mother's health are at risk. So sure, I'd be totally happy to concede that point if those things were true. 90% of counties in the US do not have a single abortion clinic, even those that perform only first-trimester abortions. RU486 is available, but only works up to about 6 weeks after conception. Unless your period comes spot-on every 28 days with no exceptions (almost nobody), it's very difficult to tell in that little time.
The link you provided has some very interesting points. What jumped out at me was that while 49% of people consider themselves "pro-life", 75% of people think that abortion should be legal in some cases. I realize that I'm way to the left of average here, and I'm ok with that, but let's not pretend that those who think that abortion should be illegal all the time are in the majority. In fact, it looks like those who think it should be legal in MOST cases actually compose about 55% of the population.
I guess to stay on point I should give my viewpoint. I think if a child could be born and live then there are major ethical questions with abortion. Basically it would be little different from taking a unwanted child and exposing them to the elements to die. Then again we withhold treatment from some people who are hurt/sick and allow them to pass so medical issues would have to be taken in to consideration. The mother should not have to risk her life to carry a child to term, but the whole "heath and well being" thing is way to vague. Would you kill a downs child? Well at 7 months the child could easily be born and live so doesn't it seem wrong to abort at 7 months for that reason? If you see no ethical questions involved in that then there really is no debate. There is only a minority that are fervent over life at conception, but those that consider a baby nothing more than a tumor or parasite, that think that abortions should be allowed for any reason up until the time of birth, are just as fringe, just as crazed, as anyone I can think of.
In seeking common ground, we have to realize that some people are not going to come along. That's fine. Everyone is free to disagree with any law they like. However, they must agree to abide by the democratic process and stay within the confines of law in their dislike of the law. There is not an opt-out policy for those who disagree (see also: Civl war, secession).
I find this piece to have an uncommon understanding and level of nuance. I appreciate what the doctor is trying to say and do. But science, no matter how well grounded, cannot supplant an article of faith - that is why so many people have a reflexive distaste for any mention of faith in politics. The answer lies in matching faith for faith, not in abandoning it entirely or condemning it as the hallmark of a small mind (as has been done elsewhere).
I just don’t see it as ethical to force a woman to share her organs and bloodstream and body with something – even if it is “alive” – against her will.@
To put our debate on the right course, roro, please answer this question first………are you here to only espouse your view to your like minded cohorts, or, would you wish to possibly move one or more of the 80% of the population that doesn’t share your view for totally unfettered abortion rights?
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
If it is the former, read no further.
If the latter, then I will politely suggest you reflect on how you think the other 80% of the population view unfettered abortion rights. While I do not know your views completely, (as you do not know mine), I suspect a whole lot of very reasonable people would interpret your sentences above to mean you believe if consensual sex without forethought and appropriate protection results in pregnancy, then that damned fertilized egg ought to be removed from the womb with as little thought and guilt as a pimple on the skin.
The reason why you compose 19% of opinion is that the other 80% of the people view human procreation with some modicum of reverence and that sexual activity SHOULD involve some responsibility……..and even if you don’t, they don’t just think you ought to get to just say “oops” and go about your business. The reason why your group has gotten nowhere on Roe v. Wade in 36 years is that the 80% really don’t understand why you think you need more than 3 months to figure your act out. Those 80% don’t view the human procreation process as entirely meaningless unless and until YOU happen decide to go to the delivery room.
If carrying a fetus to term is a violation of your will, then they will most assuredly ask where was your will when it first came about.
After reading the explicit arguments (and implicit attitudes) above, I don’t see how you are going to get any liberalization Roe v. Wade in the next 36 years either...........your group approaches it all wrong and the results to date bear that out.
A very thoughtful piece from an interesting perspective. Thank you.
The comments, all of them, raise critical points and questions. To you, Dr. Potts: how do you convince all sides to accept a clinical definition as opposed to a constitutional standard (postulated by GD) or a religious standard? Following on GD's point, the Constitution, at Amendment XIV, defines "citizens" as follows: "persons BORN...in the United States...are citizens." Do we not need to re-write the Constitution to confer citizen's rights on the unborn more than 12 weeks post fertilization? And, of course, those with religiously based definitions are likely unpersuadable about the unborn less than 12 weeks post fertilization. Much as I appreciate your piece and your perspective, I'm not sure it breaks the logjam, as pointed out previously by ThurmanHart.
You don't get to say "they had better damn well" anything and expect to get anywhere.
I think Roe v. Wade is reasonable and should continue to stand as is. I think that's the 55% group you cite (recognizing "most" cases is a fairly ambiguous term).
Where we will have to agree to disagree is on the personal responsibility front. Your philosophy as a liberal is to go easy on the personal responsibility thing.......as a libertarian, personal responsibility is utmost to me.
@roro:
And your analysis of the situation completely leaves out any consideration of the fetus whatsoever, so that just shows that you are being as much of an extremist on the issue as are the people who you feel give no consideration to the women's rights.
I dispute some of the points you made in that comment though which point to lack of sex ed and poor availability of contraception as the problems. Here's an article showing how the UK has been unable to come even close to their target of reducing teen pregnancies by 50% even though they have thorough sex ed and contraception available at the schools.
At some point you have to admit that impulsivity, not ignorance or lack of access to birth control, are the main problems. And that article also points out that the shift toward liberal sex ed and free access to birth control have some undesirable effects, like removing the parent's knowledge or potential to influence their kids' decisions and making girls less empowered to say no.
What would be interesting is to compare other countries that are doing better at reducing pregnancy rates, to see what they might be doing right.
All these figures suggest is that America is socially backward in this area, as in many others of international importance. This is a cause for shame and a call for the upgrading of the nation's education system. It is not a cause for smug "we are right and you are out-numbered" statements.
It is strange that so few people in these debates considers the incidence of "natural" abortions compared with "induced" abortions. Except in countries like India, where the two may be on a comparable level, (around 30 percent in some counties) the incident of natural termination of pregnancies is magnitudes higher than medically induced abortions. If naturally aborted living cells are as intrinsically important as those which are medically terminated then why are there no anti-abortionists making a similar fuss about them? Why are there not campaigns to provide funds to save these life forms?