Philosophical underpinning of the abortion debate

[gbear]

In the U.S., the food banks routinely run very low and have limited offerings. For a few years, I used to spend one weekday lunch a week delivering food to shut ins for a church near my work. It shut down due to lack of support (food, money and time). There are quite a few whom existing help doesn't reach, and that is before looking over seas. Sending food and/or money would have helped.

[twa]

Impossible, Americans are obese and food stamps plentiful......or so I've heard

I'm sure the stimulus took over that program and other needs

[mcsluggo]

my vote is to change human reproductive wiring.

personally i think it is foolish to have something as important as parenthood/childcreation associated with something as frivolous as good old fashioned hankypanky. So i vote to divorce the two from each other.

Henceforth, Sex is for fun.

Henceforth, childcreation will require passing a very long dynamic programing test in a really unpleasant environment (a humid room (too warm or too cold) with buzzing and flickering flourescent lights, "the final countdown" (by Europe) playing in a continuous loop, and a really unpleasent pervasive smell.

---------- Post added February-21st-2012 at 04:47 PM ----------

but for the question at hand.... i am somewhat religious. i have poor faith, but envy people that have more (i would like to believe, but can't completely convince myself to do so). But i attend church every week, and am active in my parish, and the good things that my church does for people.

I am anti-abortion and pro choice-- in that i wish more people would chose NOT to abort. I also wish more pro-life people would put a helluvalot more of their effort into ensuring that the choice of life was a really good choice for the people having to struggle through this choice.

So i am pro choice, and "confused" religiously

[PleaseBlitz]

I am not religious, pro-choice, and anti-death penalty. I am not a Democrat.

[Jumbo]

We have once again did a jig on the "pro-life but pro death penalty" matter (valid views exists on both sides), but without touching upon several relevant but rarely (if ever--I never saw them here before until I posted them) mentioned associated matters. I never had any responses to these points taken from posts in other current "abortion" threads made earlier, which is fine of course. But I'll raise them again just as food for thought, if one wishes to consider them.

The go-around on the death penalty theme wasn't extended to this stuff (gbear got into some ancillary matters, though). As I have mentioned in numerous posts, the "pro-life" and "protecting innocent life" themes when waved as banners for any "anti-abortion" position are weak and don't withstand close scrutiny, and I think that's important. To me, there's some dishonest thinking on various matters on both sides that should be challenged.

if anyone's going to wave a banner of being pro-life or utilize concepts like "protecting innocent life", than I can take them more legitimately on those stances if they are also a true pacifist and thus don't support the inevitable collateral damage (which is often deliberate killing of innocents, simply justified and rationalized in a socially acceptable fashion) and are against the death penalty, (since inevitably some are innocent) as well as a few other things I won't go into.

There's certainly emotional conflict in it for me just as there is for "retroactive" abortions (if we go with the killing is killing or even the "murder" theme) that are either ignored or accepted by many of us (as relevant to the stances often made on this issue). I already live with myself accepting that even "innocent life" will be killed (let alone neglected and left suffering) via my government's policies and my society in a number of ways and circumstances. And I pay money that goes to those actions, too. And I have all kinds of "reasons" why it's justified and rationalized, as does our society at large.

The current Roe v Wade laws are just another form of this "authorized" loss of life that I accept as valid (with all accompanying angst I feel) as those I just referred and which aren't talked about when abortion is discussed and the "sanctity of life" and all that related stuff gets bandied about.

We (I) already support "killing for the right reasons" and punishment (including <cough> killing) for the "wrong reasons" and it isn't a question of whether we will draw such lines but where (and when) they're drawn.

P.S.---some of my own emotions (and I always try to apply logic and reason to my feelings, too) not only arise from working with my fair share of people in this exact situation (and doing all I can to find alternatives to abortion), but some of my volunteer work with returning Iraq/Afghanistan vets with various mental health issues often included significant impact from "collateral damage" situations and how it ate away at many of these guys.

It's a detailed and complicated matter and I don't go into it here, and rarely even mention it at all (or most other such stuff) in all these years I've been posting, but that is a real loss of innocent life too. And it features humans of undisputed definition who have already made connections of family and friends and developed hopes, relationships, beliefs etc. in their journey outside the womb for x years.

Yet they are cut tragically short because (essentially) they're in the wrong place at the wrong time but "we know it can't be helped" and "accept it as an ugly reality (consequence) of "what we need to do for important reasons." I absolutely see this as related to certain terms and concepts used so commonly in the abortion topic.

Like I said elsewhere, it's not whether we draw these lines about the "sanctity of life" because we do it all the time and have throughout history. It's just which context society will accept and which they'll reject at the moment.

IMV, we're all "pro-death" at some point, unless you fit that rare description I outlined earlier. But if you don't, and are just isolating abortion and claiming you're "pro-life" because you're against its legality (otherwise you're also at least somewhat "pro-choice"), than I think that's, I'll just say for now...unfortunate.

[gbear]

Jumbo, I completely agree with the sentiment that we are all pro-death at least to the extent we are willing to admit we,as a society, make choices that determine or impact who will live or die.

I get tired of all those claiming they are universally pro-life. Does such a position actually exist? I think if I were to try, I would end up with analysis paralysis. My internal compromise has made me revert back to the greatest good for the greatest number. Even so, I have a harder time turning away those I see even if there were a different way which would maximize the results of my efforts.

[twa]

I agree the labels are next to useless,it is where we draw the lines that matters

If we applied the same level of scrutiny to abortion as we do war and executions I would be mostly satisfied.

Direct threats and dangers to society should be removed ,along with the minimizing of the killing of innocents always a major factor in our deliberations and deeds.

I would run some numbers ,but it is already obvious there is disparity w/o them(besides numbers are so cold)

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, I completely agree with the sentiment that we are all pro-death at least to the extent we are willing to admit we,as a society, make choices that determine or impact who will live or die.

I get tired of all those claiming they are universally pro-life. Does such a position actually exist? I think if I were to try, I would end up with analysis paralysis. My internal compromise has made me revert back to the greatest good for the greatest number. Even so, I have a harder time turning away those I see even if there were a different way which would maximize the results of my efforts.

Yes.The argument could be legitimately and appropriately (in my analysis) extended well beyond what I have done. Anyway, the "pro-choice" folks,on the other hand, would be well served in terms of intellectual honesty to grapple with the idea that abortion really is used too often as a form of basic birth control for many who are acting irresponsibly (as humans have done forever), but especially given the access to options these days. It's a hard nut to crack, but it's one reason I support the "dreaded" (to a certain group) PP as they provide at least some serious effort in that direction. And I support adoption and as much age-appropriate sex education as society will allow in schools and just wish more social institutions were more involved. Even churches emphasizing abstinence outside of marriage is something, however unrealistic in scope. I admit it would be better if they also taught contraception but then they'd (arguably) have to be more open to premarital sex as something that IS going to happen (usually in fair degree) even among their flock. They could still talk about it being "wrong" and say "but if you do choose to sin, know about contraception." But I don't mean (or want) to go too far OT with this last part.

---------- Post added February-21st-2012 at 10:46 AM ----------

I agree the labels are next to useless,it is where we draw the lines that matters

If we applied the same level of scrutiny to abortion as we do war and executions I would be mostly satisfied.

Direct threats and dangers to society should be removed ,along with the minimizing of the killing of innocents always a major factor in our deliberations and deeds.

I would run some numbers ,but it is already obvious there is disparity w/o them(besides numbers are so cold)

I think our "armed conflicts" are subject to less legislatively-impacting scrutiny than either abortion or execution, but I would say execution tops the list of what gets the most scrutiny. As many people feel, sometimes we may be too excruciatingly "careful" in applying the death penalty, even though we all accept that mathematically some innocents will die. See my pervious post for wanting to address the problem in the "pro-chocie" areana of not playing hardball with the "abortion as a form of birth control" theme. Because I agree with that being a problem and that many such situations exist which edge more to the ugly side of the labels too often.

[Wrong Direction]

WD, I think in your last post you are trying for abstinence without really saying that. And if abstinence isn't practiced, then one must be punished and pay the consequences, for a one-time short term lapse for a child's lifetime. I don't think that's right.

...

Your post, to me, is a sort of fairytale approach which will never work with human beings.

...

Men have been trying to control women's reproduction ever since they learned that their sperm contributed to a birth.

And, yeah, I do see, in posts like WD's, at least an element of making a child a form of punishing people for having sex.

If you want to attach more consequences to sex, why not make laws about sex? This seems like it should be separate from the abortion issue. Using the birth of unwanted babies as a way to discourage sex seems like a very crude method, since it will randomly affect the lives of certain (often poor and uneducated) mothers while allowing others (who have access to the best contraception) to have all the sex they want without consequences.

I'm trying to think through these three posts. On one hand, there's a case being made that I want to control women and make laws about sex or argue for broad abstinence. This isn't my position, but it's apparently how I'm coming across to some.

It's apparent to me that we're arguing from two totally different perspective. I'm making broad consideration for the unborn child, while expecting two people to act in a manner that makes the same considerations. You are arguing from the position of the pragmatic desires of two potential baby makers and accepting that life will be created and ended on a large scale as a consequence for those wants.

So, it's one side taking the baby's side and telling baby makers to deal with it and the other side supporting tens of millions of baby maker's and telling the babies that it sucks to be you. I'm sorry if this sounds crude, but I don't mean it to be judgemental.

I frankly never want to be in the position of not supporting either side. I certainly don't think I can reconcile them. I will say this, though. I know many married couples who are not abstinent and are completely able to plan their own reproduction. They're able to to consummate the marriage as much as they want. I'm sure some mistakes happen, but they seem incredibly rare to me (based on anecdotes alone, I admit). It would seem to me that if society at large acted as responsibly as most married couples, the entire issue of abortion would diminish in scale by leaps and bounds. In this regard, I'm a strong proponent for birth control. I'm also a strong proponent of limits to abortion (e.g., after first 3-4 months) and I'm a strong opponent of anything that removes all costs from the people having the abortion. I feel like these are positions that a lot of people could agree upon, even if ultimately we take different sides on roughly the first trimester.

In other words, once again I think politicians (on both sides) are letting the divisiveness of the issue impede incremental progress on an issue that most people are somewhat uncomfortable with.

[Larry]

In this regard, I'm a strong proponent for birth control. I'm also a strong proponent of limits to abortion (e.g., after first 3-4 months) and I'm a strong opponent of anything that removes all costs from the people having the abortion. I feel like these are positions that a lot of people could agree upon, even if ultimately we take different sides on roughly the first trimester.

Only part I disagree with is your opposition to helping people who can't afford it. (My reasoning being that I don't want people forced into having a kid because they can't afford not to.)