Abortion

[andrewducker]

I say that I'm pro-choice, but the truth is that I'm actually anti-abortion. Rather, I'm pro-making sure that women have the resources and education available so that there's no need for abortions save those performed for medical reasons. The best way to stop abortions is to stop the need for abortions -- not with abstinence education that tells girls they're naughty for getting knocked up but doesn't tell them how to prevent it, but with realistic sex education and more resources for young women who find themselves pregnant and unable to afford prenatal care and postnatal expenses of raising a child

Which pretty much sums up how I feel.

Stolen from the ever-vigilant Lady Sysiphus.

Comments

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

But when it comes to "Both live, or just one lives, at the whim of the mother, for no medical reason" then I'm not there.

Then when you get pregnant, you can choose not to have an abortion. I'm completely supportive of that option. Until then, it's not really relevant to you, is it?

[andrewducker]

And if I decide to kill someone, you have no say in the matter.

Ok?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

If you decide to join the military, I certainly don't, no.

If you decide to commit a crime, any lawabiding person does, yes.

And this has what to do with your choice not to have an abortion if you get pregnant?

[andrewducker]

To reply a little less abruptly - I firmly believe that once they pass around 25 weeks of gestation they are alive. And unless there's a good reason for them dying, they shouldn't have to.

Which doesn't tend to be a problem, what with the vast majority of abotions happening much, much earlier than that.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

To reply a little less abruptly - I firmly believe that once they pass around 25 weeks of gestation they are alive.

And you are fully entitled to believe exactly what you like.

[andrewducker]

And you're entitled to believe what you like.

I didn't think our right to free thought was in question here.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Obviously it's not.

[andrewducker]

Then why tell me what I was allowed to believe?

Seems like an odd thing to do.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Does it?

[andrewducker]

Stepping back _slightly_ from sarcascm, we were discussing a matter of morals. To then say "Well, yes, you're allowed to believe that" doesn't add anything to the discussion. Morals are intrinsically subjective. We can all believe anything.

Surely the point is either to engage in a meaningful way and persuade the other that ones viewpoint is correct, or to argue back and forth until both of us are agreed on a reasonable belief is the point? Thesis + Antithesis eventually reaching some kind of Synthesis.

To say "Believe what you like" is an abandonment of the debating process, saying "You may believe as you wish, I shall believe as I wish and all discussion of the topic is outwith the area of possible discussion" in which case why join in the discussion in the first place?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

You made what appeared to be a "factual statement" - not a moral point - when you stated "I firmly believe that once they pass around 25 weeks of gestation they are alive."

Well: yes. And?

I responded to this assertion as I would have responded to the assertion that "I firmly believe that God created the world in six days exactly as described in Genesis" and for much the same reason - it's an assertion that's completely undisprovable. If that's what you believe, that's what you believe. My belief is completely orthogonal to yours: I see no point in continuing the discussion.

[andrewducker]

Your belief is at right angles to mine? Do you mean diametrically opposed? Or am I being confused?

I've seen babies that are 25 weeks from conception. Definitely alive. Not coping 100% well with the world, but then who does when they're born?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

No, I mean at right angles. That's what orthogonal means.

[andrewducker]

I knew that, I just can't see how your view is orthogonal to mine.

Aah, is it because we're using two criteria that aren't at all connected to each other?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

If I were arguing for or against the point at which a foetus "really" becomes alive, we'd be either in agreement or in opposition.

But I'm not: I'm arguing for a woman's right to choose. This is orthogonal to the argument about the point at which a foetus "really" becomes alive.

[andrewducker]

Aaah.

I'm all in favour of rights, up to a point. But black and white statements of rights usually don't work for me. I don't think the universe is anywhere near that simple on the levels we work on.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Reality would seem to disagree with you.

[andrewducker]

I disagree entirely, reality definitely agrees with me. It's fuzzy, fractal and never black/white.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

After I posted that comment I went away to see if reality was taken, and it is. It just occurred to me it would be really cool to have a username that meant I could post comments saying "I disagree with you - Reality".

But what I meant was, that in this country and in the US, and in many other countries round the world, we have effectively got a reality where "a woman's right to choose" operates just fine: limited, in fact, only by our technological capacity. So, well, reality disagrees with you: the universe deals with women having the right to choose an abortion or not just fine.

[andrewducker]

That's not reality, it's a social agreement by some people.

I have pretty much no interest in "what the law says" when it comes to making moral decisions. No more than I have any interest in what The Bible says or what my father says. It's just another opinion about what's right and wrong.

If you start depending on The Law as your guide to what reality is like then you'd have to stop asking for changes to it...

[andrewducker]

Further to the above, I'm in favour of a woman's right to choose.

And a baby's right to life.

Sometimes, if you look at it in certain ways, those two rights conflict.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

If you equate "foetus" with "baby", yes. I don't.

[andrewducker]

Well, exactly, it's all about the decision as to when the foetus becomes alive.

If you believe it's impossible to be alive while inside something, then yes, it's not alive and has no rights.

If you believe that life is something that occurs at a sufficient level of complication then you can make a general statement by time since conception.

Or there could be another way, but it's not occurring to me right now.

On a slight tangent, I wonder if a woman deliberately took thalidomide during her pregnancy, knowing the effect it would have, if her child would be able to sue her later.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with a woman's right to choose. Until it conflicts with the right to life of the unborn. My question is trying to establish when that is most likely to be so.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I don't see a conflict. A woman's right to choose overrides any "rights" invented for a foetus.