Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I developed my point countering your claim of a false dichotomy here:

But afaik you did not respond.

Ok.

If I understand your argument, you are suggesting that by decriminalizing the killing of innocent life, it will make us more anxiously engaged in trying to prevent it through other, more effective means of education, etc.  Is that correct?  You are not arguing that we can't do those other things AND criminalize it, but you simply suspect that it will yield greater results because society will be more anxiously engaged.    Do you have any evidence to back your suspicions which suggest that Roe vs Wade had such a moral motivational effect on society?  Do you have any evidence at all that it would better deter abortions, because I DO have evidence/studies which shows that criminalization is an effective deterrent from criminal behaviors.

The way I see it, the messaging of "pro-choice" has the OPPOSITE effect at motivating people to preserve the life of the baby.  How can we change that messaging on the left to emphasize taking EVERY EFFORT to preserve innocent life?  How do we place higher value on the life of the baby when many in society place higher value on the choice to kill innocent life free of any legal or moral consequence?   What social services would effectively change the moral landscape?

I would argue that in order to change the moral landscape, we have to 1) lose the slogan "pro-choice".  We should all identify as pro-life, even if we are against criminalizing abortion.  A sizable portion of the pro-choice movement do not believe that it is immoral to have an abortion, and are not pro-life of the child.  I am happy that you do not identify with them.  By making it legal however, we lose the legal incentive and motivation to not have an abortion and rely entirely on the moral incentive/motivation.  This will simply turn from a legal argument to a moral one (which it already is), and we are back to ground zero.  I don't see how that would be effective.  If a woman simply doesn't want to go through child birth and has no moral or legal motivation to do so, what service can we provide as a society that will motivate her to adopt her child? 

Second, if this method is TRULY more effective, then why stop at abortion? Why not decriminalize everything if that will make us more anxiously engaged and effective at reducing moral wrongs?  Why abortion only?  It doesn't make any legal, moral, or practical sense. 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Ok.

If I understand your argument, you are suggesting that by decriminalizing the killing of innocent life, it will make us more anxiously engaged in trying to prevent it through other, more effective means of education, etc.  Is that correct? 

No, it's more specific. Decriminalizing abortion will incentivize more positive action to help women.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are not arguing that we can't do those other things AND criminalize it, but you simply suspect that it will yield greater results because society will be more anxiously engaged.    Do you have any evidence to back your suspicions which suggest that Roe vs Wade had such a moral motivational effect on society?  Do you have any evidence at all that it would better deter abortions, because I DO have evidence/studies which shows that criminalization is an effective deterrent from criminal behaviors.

We need to focus on the evidence that matters. From other topics, I think we agree that some problems are best not criminalized and some must be criminalized. The evidence needs to specifically be about the relationship between abortion prevention and criminalization. Do you have evidence that abortion bans decrease overall abortion rates? It is my understanding that decreased abortion rates are more associated with less restrictions and more help for women including access to birth control, medical, care, and other neccessities, and that on the contrary stricter regulations are associated with higher abortion rates.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The way I see it, the messaging of "pro-choice" has the OPPOSITE effect at motivating people to preserve the life of the baby.  How can we change that messaging on the left to emphasize taking EVERY EFFORT to preserve innocent life?  How do we place higher value on the life of the baby when many in society place higher value on the choice to kill innocent life free of any legal or moral consequence?   What social services would effectively change the moral landscape?

I think you are placing far too high a value on politicized propaganda as a measurement of social values. In general, I don't think that having an abortion is more associated with being liberal or conservative, but has much more to do with socioeconomic factors. As an example, you will find fiercely prochoice women who have never had an abortion and who work tirelessly to help women thereby preventing abortions. I think that when society values women more, and does a better job at protecting them that women will have a greater ability to find safety and resources that promote their overall health and indirectly reduce abortions. I think that when a woman does not have to choose between feeding one child and being pregnant, for example, she will be less likely to seek an abortion. When she has a safe place to live and her safety is not compromised by being pregnant, she will be less likely to seek an abortion. When she has access to medical care from providers who listen to her and respect her, she will be less likely to seek an abortion.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I would argue that in order to change the moral landscape, we have to 1) lose the slogan "pro-choice".  We should all identify as pro-life, even if we are against criminalizing abortion.  

I think that "pro-choice" is appropriate. It has not been that long in the grand scheme of things that women have had access to simple basic things like their own bank accounts or the ability to use birth control without their husband's consent or the protections from being fired for being pregnant. Important things like child support are still poorly enforced and women are more unsafe when they try to leave abusive relationships. I still think our legal and social structures are integrating the concepts of women being whole legal people. And I see that as the greater moral failing, much greater than people shouting about abortion rights. We still have progress to make and to be frank, I believe that the attempt to control a woman's pregnancy is a violation of that. You dehumanize her when you make her womb the province of the state. Whether a woman is pregnant or not is none of our business. If she is a whole person, we don't have the right to use force to interfere with her pregnancy or her medical care. 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

A sizable portion of the pro-choice movement do not believe that it is immoral to have an abortion, and are not pro-life of the child.  I am happy that you do not identify with them.  By making it legal however, we lose the legal incentive and motivation to not have an abortion and rely entirely on the moral incentive/motivation.  This will simply turn from a legal argument to a moral one (which it already is), and we are back to ground zero.  I don't see how that would be effective.  If a woman simply doesn't want to go through child birth and has no moral or legal motivation to do so, what service can we provide as a society that will motivate her to adopt her child? 

The moral universe of abortion begins with the woman and ends with her too. It's not ours to control. That does not mean that we as a society do not value human life. It means that we need to give the best chance to women to govern their own bodily universe so that they can better have the ability to value the human being living inside them. I think this framework is vastly more appropriate than the one that assumes that mankind can control and enforce the morality of the world inside her. This framework more resembles a balance of powers of sorts. Women are deprived of person liberties and freedoms due to the nature of pregnancy and the way to mitigate that is not by taking control of them, but giving them more control. It is also a more spiritually whole framework that acknowledges that all the governments and principalities of the world are no final arbiter of human righteousness. Human life begins in womens' bodies so we must as human beings acknowledge that local universe and acknowledge her power by virtue of her body bringing life into the world. Although you and I may not agree on where morality comes from, we agree that it exists. And if men (historically) can be conduits of the source of morality that governs entire nations, then women can be equally capable conduits of morality that governs their own bodies.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Meadowchik
missing words

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it's more specific. Decriminalizing abortion will incentivize more positive action to help women.

That is not very specific, and you have provided no evidence that this has actually happened. 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

We need to focus on the evidence that matters. From other topics, I think we agree that some problems are best not criminalized and some must be criminalized. The evidence needs to specifically be about the relationship between abortion prevention and criminalization. Do you have evidence that abortion bans decrease overall abortion rates? It is my understanding that decreased abortion rates are more associated with less restrictions and more help for women including access to birth control, medical, care, and other neccessities, and that on the contrary stricter regulations are associated with higher abortion rates.

Criminalization reduces criminal behaviors in general...except in abortion.  That is not reasonable.

Evidence for the effectiveness of criminalization as a motivation in behavior in general:

https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf

Specific to abortion:

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2018/10/04/stop-saying-that-making-abortion-illegal-doesnt-stop-them/

https://lozierinstitute.org/how-the-legal-status-of-abortion-impacts-abortion-rates/

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I think you are placing far too high a value on politicized propaganda as a measurement of social values. In general, I don't think that having an abortion is more associated with being liberal or conservative, but has much more to do with socioeconomic factors. As an example, you will find fiercely prochoice women who have never had an abortion and who work tirelessly to help women thereby preventing abortions. I think that when society values women more, and does a better job at protecting them that women will have a greater ability to find safety and resources that promote their overall health and indirectly reduce abortions. I think that when a woman does not have to choose between feeding one child and being pregnant, for example, she will be less likely to seek an abortion. When she has a safe place to live and her safety is not compromised by being pregnant, she will be less likely to seek an abortion. When she has access to medical care from providers who listen to her and respect her, she will be less likely to seek an abortion.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244625/morality-abortion-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

The majority of women in America view abortion as morally acceptable.  47% vs 45%.  This is an extremely troubling figure.  Even more troubling is that in the younger age group (18-29) 60% find it morally acceptable vs 38%.  This is the effect that legalization and pro-choice propaganda has on morality in America.  When we look at the whole population, the majority still view it as morally unacceptable, 47% vs 44%.  There is a troubling moral trend with women and young people in this regard. 

The majority of women in America are pro-choice. 53% vs 41%https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

There seems to be a fairly strong correlation to me.

Until you can address the moral issue, no social program will reduce abortion rates.  There is absolutely NO incentive to not have an abortion without moral or legal persuasion.  I think you overemphasize abortions among the poor and pretend like the well-to-do are not having them.  I don't disagree that abortions likely happen more among the poor, but most immoral behavior is more common among the poor.  That should give us plenty of incentive to try and solve the poverty problem in general, but not to legalize everything!  Even among women who have access to all necessary resources, too many still chose abortion.  Why?  Because they don't view it as a moral wrong and it is legal! No incentive not to.  Your methods simply wont work for that population.  Support of impoverished pregnant women and criminalization will work for both. 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that "pro-choice" is appropriate. It has not been that long in the grand scheme of things that women have had access to simple basic things like their own bank accounts or the ability to use birth control without their husband's consent or the protections from being fired for being pregnant. Important things like child support are still poorly enforced and women are more unsafe when they try to leave abusive relationships. I still think our legal and social structures are integrating the concepts of women being whole legal people. And I see that as the greater moral failing, much greater than people shouting about abortion rights. We still have progress to make and to be frank, I believe that the attempt to control a woman's pregnancy is a violation of that. You dehumanize her when you make her womb the province of the state. Whether a woman is pregnant or not is none of our business. If she is a whole person, we don't have the right to use force to interfere with her pregnancy or her medical care. 

Making a choice about having a bank account doesn't quite seem the legal/moral equivalent of having a choice to kill an innocent human being that deserves rights and protection.

Quote

You dehumanize her when you make her womb the province of the state.

To quote you: "Hold on. Here you are telling me what I think. Please do not do that."

I am making the human being in her womb the province of the state, just as it should be the province of the state when the fetus is attacked and killed by anyone OTHER than the mother.  I am placing a legal and moral expectation that she choose preserving life over killing life.  

Again, I am weighing risk vs benefit to the mother and the child.  How can you talk about "dehumanizing" when you give ZERO state protected rights of life to the child?  At least one gets to walk away as a living breathing human being with their life and limbs.  Should we give more legal protections to a womb (which is generally not in danger during pregnancy) or a holistic human life?  Speaking of legal dehumanization, which is more human, the womb or the child?

Edited November 23, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Criminalization reduces criminal behaviors in general...except in abortion.  That is not reasonable.

I don’t think she is claiming this. I think she sees it necessary to look at case by case for the more borderline issues.
 

For example, criminalizing certain forms of less extreme abuse may help or they may drive it underground or alter from more physical to more verbal. Unfortunately I don’t think we have the kinds of studies that can demonstrate whether laws help much as attitudes towards abuse have changed over time along with the laws and vary by location (laws are driven by attitude change as well as the reverse).

Stigmatizing pedophila and requiring therapists to report, etc can prevent those experiencing the attraction to not seek professional help. This might actually lead to more crimes rather than less. 

I am not saying abortion shouldn’t be criminalized if that is found to be helpful. 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think she is claiming this. I think she sees it necessary to look at case by case for the more borderline issues.
 

For example, criminalizing certain forms of less extreme abuse may help or they may drive it underground or alter from more physical to more verbal. Unfortunately I don’t think we have the kinds of studies that can demonstrate whether laws help much as attitudes towards abuse have changed over time along with the laws and vary by location (laws are driven by attitude change as well as the reverse).

I have provided specific studies in relation to criminalization of abortion. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The majority of women in America view abortion as morally acceptable.  47% vs 45%.  This is an extremely troubling figure. 

Yet abortion rates are going down. 

[Calm]

From your reworked link that demonstrates less abortions where it is harder to get them, but not completely illegal.

Quote

There are serious consequences to women who are denied a legal abortion. The Turnaway Study has demonstrated that women who are denied wanted abortions are worse off than women who receive them. Compared to women who receive a wanted abortion, women who are denied experience more immediate anxiety; more serious health complications from pregnancy such as hemorrhage, eclampsia, and death; higher likelihood of continued violence from the man involved in the pregnancy; lower full-time employment; and, despite increased use of public assistance, greater poverty. Being denied a wanted abortion also reduces the chance that women achieve aspirational life goals in the next year such as getting a better job and finishing school. Nearly every aspect of her life is compromised.

And it is not just women who are affected. Denying a woman a wanted abortion makes it more likely she will have a child that she lacks the financial and emotional resources to raise. In the Turnaway Study, we compared the outcomes of children born because their mother was denied an abortion to children born later to women who received an abortion. Children born later to women who were able to get an abortion are more likely to live in households where there is enough money to pay for basic living expenses such as food, housing, and transportation than children born because abortion was denied. Abortion denial also affects maternal bonding. Women are much more likely to report feeling trapped as a mother, resenting their baby, or wishing for the old days when they had no baby after abortion denial than with the next child born after receiving an abortion.

It seems to me there needs to be a balancing act here to both lower abortion rates, but remove the negative consequences of being forced to have an unwanted pregnancy. 

[bluebell]

One of my biggest problems with the pro-choice argument is that it so often pretends like adoption doesn't exist.  I find that disingenuous.  

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yet abortion rates are going down. 

A terrific fact - but we can do better.  It might be explained however by the fact that pregnancies in general are going down.  Abortions would go down even faster with increased prevention assistance and criminalization.  Of the two measure, prevention is the single most important and effective measure we can take.  I believe that birth control, including IUD's should be state funded and easily accessible in every community, especially the lower income communities.  We simply need to reduce unwanted pregnancies first and foremost.   At the bare minimum, we need to do away with D&E procedures in the second trimester or later.  If we can at least start there, I would be happy.  It is inhumane and should not be legal.  It violates every medical ethic that I know of when there is no medical indication.  I feel strongly that legalizing fatal torture is a moral stain on our society.   

One troubling statistic is that while abortion rates are going down in general, and even while it remains legal in most states, we have seen a 6% increase in women who are self-inducing abortions without medical assistance.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/18/761753866/u-s-abortion-rate-continues-long-term-decline

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

Quote

The report noted a 25% increase in the use of medication abortion, with nearly 4 in 10 abortions in 2017 being performed using abortion pills instead of surgery.

The analysis also includes data suggesting an increase in women using pills or other methods to self-induce abortions without a medical provider's assistance; 18% of non-hospital facilities surveyed said they'd treated at least one patient for an attempted self-induced abortion — up from 12% in the last survey, according to Guttmacher.

Abortion pills...are they the "day after" pills or something else?

added:  hadn't stayed current with options apparently

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill

Allowing abortion pills up to 11 weeks for 'at home abortions' seems rather dangerous.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-11.aspx

Edited November 24, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Abortion pills...are they the "day after" pills or something else?

added:  hadn't stayed current with options apparently

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill

Allowing abortion pills up to 11 weeks for 'at home abortions' seems rather dangerous.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-11.aspx

The day after pill isn't the abortion pill.  It won't abort a pregnancy.  

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The day after pill isn't the abortion pill.  It won't abort a pregnancy.  

I haven't been paying attention to birth control, etc since 95ish, so I missed the introduction in 2000 of at home medication abortion.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

I haven't been paying attention to birth control, etc since 95ish, so I missed the introduction in 2000 of at home medication abortion.

My mother was an ER nurse for a few years in the early 2000s and she sometimes was asked to hand out the day-after pill so she spent a lot of time researching it.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't find it to be a moral contradiction of values to be pro-life and pro death penalty/defensive wars.  Unless God himself is a moral contradiction.  With the command, "thou shall not kill", I believe that God is pro-life.  Of course there are moral exceptions to that command, however.   There are clear exceptions in the scriptures of God justifying war and capital punishment, for example.  I don't think it is the moral contradiction you make it out to be. 

I agree with your points about making efforts with hunger, starvation, and environmental issues, etc.  Those are important.  I disagree that one has to give "equal effort" to all good causes which preserve life in order to avoid moral contradiction.  That is less effective and we would all spread ourselves too thin to be effective in any single cause.  We can morally support other causes while being more active in one or two.  We should not judge the moral intentions of others because they can't give equal effort to all morally worthy causes.  I would not say that I am particularly active in any pro-life effort.  But I will give moral support and voice my perspective whenever the issue comes up.  I do feel strongly about it, but there are other issues (some of which you mention) that I feel like I can be more effective at directing my attention and energies to.  

I agree in your point about pragmatism.  I view myself as a pragmatist too, which is partly why I am pro-life. 

The contradiction to me is in the absolute terms pro-life arguments are first set up...particularly when you run to the extremes. If there are exceptions, biblical or otherwise, then there’s likely exceptions and wiggle space with abortion. The church obviously believes there can be based on its policies. The other problem is that it’s often wrapped in emotive language....usually simply put as murder (as in this analogy) and baby killing specifically. It then focuses on the type of abortion people are least okay with and the most rare (late term) and often starts articles with a picture of an adorable infant. I remember seeing someone showing a “replica” of a 7 week fetus and it looked like a tiny baby. Except that’s not accurate. And it’s not the first time i’ve seen images that engance the look of babyness to 1st trimester fetuses to feed off the sense of discomfort already there on this topic. That to me is a problem. Because most abortions happen in this murky area where people aren’t fully sure they’re human souls. They may feel they are....but that’s heavily based in their religious beliefs. I see that difference in the way people grieve. People who hve a still birth grieve a person they didn’t get to fully know. People who grieve a miscarriage usually grieve a dream and a hope and a want. They’re more likely to question whether the fetus was a soul yet and they’re therefore more likely to dismiss prolonged grief for it as unnecessary or unwarranted. 

i mentioned i have problems with ideologically strict pro-choice people as well. At some point choices do and should get limited. A woman can always choose to not mother....but after birth no one questions prosecuting infanticide. Her choice now is only adoption, extended family care, or foster care. Her choice in that is automatically limited by the circumstance and undebated humannes of a baby. And birth is not a magical changing process from living to not really alive. At some point in pregnancy, a fetus is more baby than developing human. Everybody has a different set point as to when they think that is, but most assume around viability outside the womb, something’s fundamentally different about a fetus. And therefore choice then v choice before likely should start to become more limited. And there are issues bigger than a mom’s decision that should be thought about and have moral and social consequences, like gender selection abortions in china and india and the loss of special needs populations, such as Down syndrome children in iceland. 
 

I don’t think it has to be all equal. Because I don’t think it’s all equal. But i do think it needs to be ideologically consistent. And the problem with the article i had is that it isn’t. There will be holes and exceptions and rules and beliefs around when it’s suddenly okay to kill. And in a community that hypothetically allows all killing, that will come off hypocritical or flippant. Why are your rules around killing so different from ours? Would be my thought. Particularly if this society has fewer or even equal killings to our own.i would seriously wonder why they think they could come into my community, critique our cultural differences, expect them to bend to their beliefs, all while holding some fundamental cultural holes of their own and likely other values around humanity i also find distasteful. 
 

For the record, I believe in the sacredness of life. When i was pregnant the analogy that came to mind was that i was weaving life. That i was like a loom that, thread by thread, was creating a person. I couldn’t tell you when my pregnancy became carrying a baby though. It wasn’t immediately. It was just parts of her in formation. But those parts deserve respect, as does all living things we are given stewardship over.
I also believe to some extent in choice. By the end of a fairly uneventful pregnancy (minus the last week where i was on bed rest), I found myself with a fundamental sense that i really couldn’t insist a person be that loom. My body took months to repair, spent months with lower key difficulties, and my mind took care and attention to avoid PPD and to work through family stuff i hadn’t fully done beforehand. I had heard plenty of difficult stories with chidbearing prior and during as well. From strokes to liver damage to prolapsed uteri to incontinence to psychosis to suicide attempts etc. 

In a sense my respect for all lives and what it means to balance those keeps me from fully embracing either as my go to ideology. Neither one fully answers my concerns or ideals. And worse yet i think the formatting to both leave better solutions arrested in manufactured culture wars.

 

with luv

BD

[pogi]

On 11/23/2020 at 7:30 PM, BlueDreams said:

The contradiction to me is in the absolute terms pro-life arguments are first set up...particularly when you run to the extremes. If there are exceptions, biblical or otherwise, then there’s likely exceptions and wiggle space with abortion. The church obviously believes there can be based on its policies. The other problem is that it’s often wrapped in emotive language....usually simply put as murder (as in this analogy) and baby killing specifically. It then focuses on the type of abortion people are least okay with and the most rare (late term) and often starts articles with a picture of an adorable infant. I remember seeing someone showing a “replica” of a 7 week fetus and it looked like a tiny baby. Except that’s not accurate. And it’s not the first time i’ve seen images that engance the look of babyness to 1st trimester fetuses to feed off the sense of discomfort already there on this topic. That to me is a problem. Because most abortions happen in this murky area where people aren’t fully sure they’re human souls. They may feel they are....but that’s heavily based in their religious beliefs. I see that difference in the way people grieve. People who hve a still birth grieve a person they didn’t get to fully know. People who grieve a miscarriage usually grieve a dream and a hope and a want. They’re more likely to question whether the fetus was a soul yet and they’re therefore more likely to dismiss prolonged grief for it as unnecessary or unwarranted. 

i mentioned i have problems with ideologically strict pro-choice people as well. At some point choices do and should get limited. A woman can always choose to not mother....but after birth no one questions prosecuting infanticide. Her choice now is only adoption, extended family care, or foster care. Her choice in that is automatically limited by the circumstance and undebated humannes of a baby. And birth is not a magical changing process from living to not really alive. At some point in pregnancy, a fetus is more baby than developing human. Everybody has a different set point as to when they think that is, but most assume around viability outside the womb, something’s fundamentally different about a fetus. And therefore choice then v choice before likely should start to become more limited. And there are issues bigger than a mom’s decision that should be thought about and have moral and social consequences, like gender selection abortions in china and india and the loss of special needs populations, such as Down syndrome children in iceland. 
 

I don’t think it has to be all equal. Because I don’t think it’s all equal. But i do think it needs to be ideologically consistent. And the problem with the article i had is that it isn’t. There will be holes and exceptions and rules and beliefs around when it’s suddenly okay to kill. And in a community that hypothetically allows all killing, that will come off hypocritical or flippant. Why are your rules around killing so different from ours? Would be my thought. Particularly if this society has fewer or even equal killings to our own.i would seriously wonder why they think they could come into my community, critique our cultural differences, expect them to bend to their beliefs, all while holding some fundamental cultural holes of their own and likely other values around humanity i also find distasteful. 
 

For the record, I believe in the sacredness of life. When i was pregnant the analogy that came to mind was that i was weaving life. That i was like a loom that, thread by thread, was creating a person. I couldn’t tell you when my pregnancy became carrying a baby though. It wasn’t immediately. It was just parts of her in formation. But those parts deserve respect, as does all living things we are given stewardship over.
I also believe to some extent in choice. By the end of a fairly uneventful pregnancy (minus the last week where i was on bed rest), I found myself with a fundamental sense that i really couldn’t insist a person be that loom. My body took months to repair, spent months with lower key difficulties, and my mind took care and attention to avoid PPD and to work through family stuff i hadn’t fully done beforehand. I had heard plenty of difficult stories with chidbearing prior and during as well. From strokes to liver damage to prolapsed uteri to incontinence to psychosis to suicide attempts etc. 

In a sense my respect for all lives and what it means to balance those keeps me from fully embracing either as my go to ideology. Neither one fully answers my concerns or ideals. And worse yet i think the formatting to both leave better solutions arrested in manufactured culture wars.

 

with luv

BD

I think that perfect ideological consistency is an extreme rarity to the point of being myth in any ideology or belief system.  I think if you were to lay out your personal ideals in regard to life vs choice for all to examine and dissect, we would likely find inconsistencies between your ideals and your proposed middle-ground approach to abortion.   There are always exceptions to every ideal/rule.  The more middle ground we get, the more likely we will find inconsistencies and compromises between conflicting ideals.  Unless one is an extremist, there will always be compromises.  Perfect ideological consistency can only be found on the extreme ends, which few embrace.   The ideal of having "rights" itself is inconsistent with the ideal of liberty.  It is a compromise/conflict between the two ideals.   The more of one - the less of the other.  

For me, it is about identifying moral fundamentals and working compromises around those fundamental ideological moral trajectories in a pragmatic way.  For me, human life is the most fundamental and basic human right that there is.  I view this is a self evident truth.  All rights, liberties, and morals and ideologies themselves stem from the genesis of human life.  The zygote.  That is as primary and fundamental as it gets when it comes to human beings.  Everything else branches from this. 

Bodily autonomy is a good and important right.  But even it is a branch which stems from the more fundamental trunk of human life.  If we are going to violate the trunk of life, we destabilize every branch that stems from it and weaken the legitimacy of all other rights and morals that stem from it. 

Unless we are extremists, there will be compromises and inconsistencies. I accept that.  But above all else, we have to strive to preserve the trunk, or we threaten the moral legitimacy of everything else.  In no universe does the right to bodily autonomy trump the right to life as a general rule.  I am not saying that there can never be compromises, but those are always exceptions.  The foundation of life is the rule and everything else should be the exception.  The pro-choice argument, from what I have witnessed, is that bodily autonomy should be the foundational rule/right, with the fundamentality of human life being a secondary consideration/exception.  I simply cannot swallow that. The risks vs benefits to both individuals involved in abortion (mother and child) need to be considered when deciding if an exception to the fundamental rule of protecting human life is justifiable.  

I guess my point is that I am more concerned about the rule, more than the inconsistencies/exceptions.

I think the one area both sides can agree on however, is that we should do everything in our power to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  That is good because that is where the most good can be done anyway.  If we can successfully address that challenge, the whole debate becomes moot anyway.  But I guess that ends up being a whole new can of worms with the conflicting abstinence vs contraception moral arguments and approaches to birth control.  I do think that argument is less divided and split down the middle however.  I think promoting contraceptive use wins consensus there, big time. 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by pogi

[The Nehor]

On 11/22/2020 at 3:45 PM, cherryTreez said:

It's not that expensive to cremate a stillborn baby. Many Catholic cemeteries will bury stillborn or babies for free. You do need to pay for the headstone if you want one.  

I cannot imagine not doing something with my daughter's body.  She was stillborn.  There is no way on this earth I would have left her body to be thrown away as medical trash.  I do not understand any of this. She is my baby. It was my last chance of being her mother here on earth. 

I am not knocking anything you would choose to do in such a situation. I am knocking the ultra-controlling mandates of how everyone should deal with these situations. Add in the requirement being extended to what are spontaneous and generally not noticed "natural" abortions for various reasons and you are basically criminalizing female biology. It was a disgusting law.

[BlueDreams]

On 11/24/2020 at 11:18 AM, pogi said:

I think that perfect ideological consistency is an extreme rarity to the point of being myth in any ideology or belief system.  I think if you were to lay out your personal ideals in regard to life vs choice for all to examine and dissect, we would likely find inconsistencies between your ideals and your proposed middle-ground approach to abortion.   There are always exceptions to every ideal/rule.  The more middle ground we get, the more likely we will find inconsistencies and compromises between conflicting ideals.  Unless one is an extremist, there will always be compromises.  Perfect ideological consistency can only be found on the extreme ends, which few embrace.   The ideal of having "rights" itself is inconsistent with the ideal of liberty.  It is a compromise/conflict between the two ideals.   The more of one - the less of the other.  

For me, it is about identifying moral fundamentals and working compromises around those fundamental ideological moral trajectories in a pragmatic way.  For me, human life is the most fundamental and basic human right that there is.  I view this is a self evident truth.  All rights, liberties, and morals and ideologies themselves stem from the genesis of human life.  The zygote.  That is as primary and fundamental as it gets when it comes to human beings.  Everything else branches from this. 

Bodily autonomy is a good and important right.  But even it is a branch which stems from the more fundamental trunk of human life.  If we are going to violate the trunk of life, we destabilize every branch that stems from it and weaken the legitimacy of all other rights and morals that stem from it. 

Unless we are extremists, there will be compromises and inconsistencies. I accept that.  But above all else, we have to strive to preserve the trunk, or we threaten the moral legitimacy of everything else.  In no universe does the right to bodily autonomy trump the right to life as a general rule.  I am not saying that there can never be compromises, but those are always exceptions.  The foundation of life is the rule and everything else should be the exception.  The pro-choice argument, from what I have witnessed, is that bodily autonomy should be the foundational rule/right, with the fundamentality of human life being a secondary consideration/exception.  I simply cannot swallow that. The risks vs benefits to both individuals involved in abortion (mother and child) need to be considered when deciding if an exception to the fundamental rule of protecting human life is justifiable.  

I guess my point is that I am more concerned about the rule, more than the inconsistencies/exceptions.

I think the one area both sides can agree on however, is that we should do everything in our power to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  That is good because that is where the most good can be done anyway.  If we can successfully address that challenge, the whole debate becomes moot anyway.  But I guess that ends up being a whole new can of worms with the conflicting abstinence vs contraception moral arguments and approaches to birth control.  I do think that argument is less divided and split down the middle however.  I think promoting contraceptive use wins consensus there, big time. 

 

 

I am absolutely certain there would likely be inconsistencies or things people would see as holes in my logic. To me that’s not as much of a problem for me because it’s not something i hold onto one way or another.  on this i’m not an idealogue or a purist or wish to be. As i mentioned, I’m neither pro-life or pro-choice. Which means it’s often not actually holes i find when people poke at my ideas but rather i may questionmy balance and/or incorporating more information and perspectives I hadn’t prior. I truly don’t fall into or want to associate with one camp or the other.
So for example, i’m for reducing access to abortion post 20 weeks. In the sense of it would need to have a doctor’s prescription and have some sort of serious psychological or physiological factors tied to it. But with that, to reduce demand of these i’d want an increase in access to early abortions and comprehensive s*x ed/easier access to contraception and coverage of contraception under insurance plans. One of the big reasons outside of medical problems for later abortions is hurdles to receiving earlier abortions. I’m not big into curbing abortion by making it very difficult for women to have one in the first place. I prefer cultural, preventative, and social security measures to reduce the reasons that make the choice to keep a baby healthily more tenable and to reduce unwanted pregnancy in the first place. I wouldn’t call that idea pro-life or pro-choice. Those adamently either will likely disagree with it to some extent.

 

As for the zygote being the trunk of humanity, I definitely disagree. To me that over elevates it’s place in overall life. Keeping in the plant analogy, a zygote is probably closer to a seed or a seedling. Important, true, but not something thaf all life hinges from...at least not individually. A zygote doesn’t represent humanity to me. It represents the potential for humanity to have another offshoot/manifestation. It’s the building black for human life, not human life itself. Whenever i see a picture of an early fetus/zygote....that’s what i see. I don’t see a baby, i see potential. Something unformed, without much human characteristics beyond DNA and the start of major organs. And i could be wrong, but i’ve never seen concrete evidence otherwise. Just feelings or belief. And that’s really not enough for me to insist that others live by my moral code.

 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited November 26, 2020 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

On 11/25/2020 at 7:22 PM, BlueDreams said:

I am absolutely certain there would likely be inconsistencies or things people would see as holes in my logic. To me that’s not as much of a problem for me because it’s not something i hold onto one way or another.  on this i’m not an idealogue or a purist or wish to be. As i mentioned, I’m neither pro-life or pro-choice. Which means it’s often not actually holes i find when people poke at my ideas but rather i may questionmy balance and/or incorporating more information and perspectives I hadn’t prior. I truly don’t fall into or want to associate with one camp or the other.
So for example, i’m for reducing access to abortion post 20 weeks. In the sense of it would need to have a doctor’s prescription and have some sort of serious psychological or physiological factors tied to it. But with that, to reduce demand of these i’d want an increase in access to early abortions and comprehensive s*x ed/easier access to contraception and coverage of contraception under insurance plans. One of the big reasons outside of medical problems for later abortions is hurdles to receiving earlier abortions. I’m not big into curbing abortion by making it very difficult for women to have one in the first place. I prefer cultural, preventative, and social security measures to reduce the reasons that make the choice to keep a baby healthily more tenable and to reduce unwanted pregnancy in the first place. I wouldn’t call that idea pro-life or pro-choice. Those adamently either will likely disagree with it to some extent.

 

As for the zygote being the trunk of humanity, I definitely disagree. To me that over elevates it’s place in overall life. Keeping in the plant analogy, a zygote is probably closer to a seed or a seedling. Important, true, but not something thaf all life hinges from...at least not individually. A zygote doesn’t represent humanity to me. It represents the potential for humanity to have another offshoot/manifestation. It’s the building black for human life, not human life itself. Whenever i see a picture of an early fetus/zygote....that’s what i see. I don’t see a baby, i see potential. Something unformed, without much human characteristics beyond DNA and the start of major organs. And i could be wrong, but i’ve never seen concrete evidence otherwise. Just feelings or belief. And that’s really not enough for me to insist that others live by my moral code.

 

with luv, 

BD 

Sorry I took so long to respond. 

I agree with you completely on preventative measures.  Above all else, that should be the focus of both sides.  It is some of the only common ground that both sides will agree on and happens to be the safest and most affordable option there is.  I think that reducing abortion post 20 weeks is a good start, but to stop there is - from my perspective - to devalue the life of other humans by suggesting they are not as worthy of legal protection.

I disagree completely about the zygote.  It absolutely is the thing that "all life hinges on".  I personally have not met someone who was not a zygote.  It is the genesis of humankind.  We do not exist as humans before it, and we are not anything other than human from that point on.   Without the zygote, humanity collapses.  We cannot in biological/moral integrity distinguish it from humankind - it is human.  

Quote

It’s the building black for human life, not human life itself.

Scientific consensus from biologists suggest otherwise.  It is human life itself.  

Quote

Whenever i see a picture of an early fetus/zygote....that’s what i see. I don’t see a baby, i see potential.

Yes, I think this is the disconnect for many people.  Many think that because it doesn't look like a fully developed human, it must not be human and they have a hard time emotionally connecting to it as a human because it doesn't look like them.   It is a human being however, and that is exactly how it is supposed to look in that stage of development.  If you think about it, most would agree that it is not ok to oppress other humans or deny them the right to life because they don't look like us, or because they are different in some way - but that is exactly what we are doing here.   Humankind exists on a continuum of development.  Wherever one happens to fall on that continuum, they are still human and should therefore be entitled to the natural inalienable and very human right to life, just like the rest of us humans.  

My position is biologically sound.  Anything else requires us to illegitimately dehumanize other human beings and deny them the right to life based on how they look.  That might be culturally acceptable for half the population based on traditions, but you know what Joseph Smith said about our traditions/culture...

Edited December 1, 2020 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

On 11/30/2020 at 10:58 AM, pogi said:

Sorry I took so long to respond. 

I agree with you completely on preventative measures.  Above all else, that should be the focus of both sides.  It is some of the only common ground that both sides will agree on and happens to be the safest and most affordable option there is.  I think that reducing abortion post 20 weeks is a good start, but to stop there is - from my perspective - to devalue the life of other humans by suggesting they are not as worthy of legal protection.

I disagree completely about the zygote.  It absolutely is the thing that "all life hinges on".  I personally have not met someone who was not a zygote.  It is the genesis of humankind.  We do not exist as humans before it, and we are not anything other than human from that point on.   Without the zygote, humanity collapses.  We cannot in biological/moral integrity distinguish it from humankind - it is human.  

Scientific consensus from biologists suggest otherwise.  It is human life itself.  

Yes, I think this is the disconnect for many people.  Many think that because it doesn't look like a fully developed human, it must not be human and they have a hard time emotionally connecting to it as a human because it doesn't look like them.   It is a human being however, and that is exactly how it is supposed to look in that stage of development.  If you think about it, most would agree that it is not ok to oppress other humans or deny them the right to life because they don't look like us, or because they are different in some way - but that is exactly what we are doing here.   Humankind exists on a continuum of development.  Wherever one happens to fall on that continuum, they are still human and should therefore be entitled to the natural inalienable and very human right to life, just like the rest of us humans.  

My position is biologically sound.  Anything else requires us to illegitimately dehumanize other human beings and deny them the right to life based on how they look.  That might be culturally acceptable for half the population based on traditions, but you know what Joseph Smith said about our traditions/culture...

I would assume you would find things that you agree with as well as things you’d disagree with. As I mentioned my views are neither pro-life or pro-choice. They’re somewhere in between.  

 

I think part of the problem is in our definitions and parameters. Being a human zygote is a necesary step to becoming a person but is not sufficient. The analogy you gave of a tree ties well with me because i’m an obsessive gardener. So let me flesh out my thoughts on that end.

I start most of my plants from seed at this point. Each year i overseed trays and trays of dirt. You overseed just in case one of the seeds doesn’t take. The older your seeds, the more likely that’ll happen. Once it sprouts i check for weaknesses. Some may be too leggy and will collapse with more growth. Some are overcrowded and will stunt growth for all of them. Most will be fine. Delicately i split healthy clusters into smaller/individual plants and cross my fingers. The process will often kill one or two. Once i know they’re solidly in place i pluck the extras and compost them. This process for me reminds me of early human development in utero. The first trimester especially is much like this process.  Each plant in my garden must at one point have been a little seedling/seed. But not every seedling or seed will become an established plant. It’s first stages are necessary but not sufficient. In agregate if i killed all my seedlings or had no seed, you’d be right....i will have no life in the garden. But my success as a gardener does not and cannot hinge on a single seedling individually. And the sudden death of an established plant from say transplanting or a later harsh storm is far more impactful and meaningful than when one of my seedlings is pulled. It’s why I don’t have problems with Infertility treatments. Or that i can be okay with the possibility that some may choose genetically a human seed, per se, that doesn’t have my daughter’s genetic disorder. These are feasibly the most parallel to my seed analogy: picking human seeds based on viability and a little bit of medical luck...where most these won’t end up becoming anything beyond part of the process to get to a healthy baby. It is a necessary stage but not sufficient for me to ascribe personhood to it.

 

Also, i think we’re talking about human life from differing definitions. When i said human life i mean moreso personhood or a complete human soul. A body doesn’t equal that. My husband pointed out that even in the adam and eve accounts, there was a body before there was a soul. That part science can’t answer since there’s not even consensus as to what a soul equals (possibly consciousness?) or at the very least what is enough of a viable human to assert basic human rights. when that should be recognized is why this and other human life gray areas are still up for debate. 

 And it’s not simply a hard time forming an emotional connection. It’s the actions, functionality, and capacities that make one cognizant/conscious. It’s what i tie

 to a soul. A heartbeat or distinctive DNA isn’t enough for me. There needs to be a certain amount of organ and brain function. And when i look and see and study up on this stage of development i just see seedings. Most of the organs that first trimester aren’t fully formed or formed period. You’d need a DNA test to know its sex, and even then there’s a slight chance that an anomaly could lead it to be dna male and physiologically female. At several stages one has to be trained to know the difference between the human embryo from say a pig embryo. Early movements are eratic and likey tied to neuroconnections barely forming. Even when i was pregnant and started feel small movements around 13 weeks, i could feel a gradual difference between the spaz butterfly movements to later complex more intentional movements. It’s amazing, there’s awe in the process but i just can’t value it in the same way i value an adult human or an infant or even a later stage fetus. It’s not devaluing all humanity though. It’s recognizing its place in the cycle and giving proper differentiation and expectations based on that. 

 

For example though I value a baby and believe infants have said right to life, I don’t think a baby has a right to vote. It’s personhood has become unquestionable to me, but it’s capacities are still not developed and ergo it’s rights, power, and position in society matches said capacity. We weigh human life and it’s position/capacities in society constantly. We have definitely done so incorrectly in the past, valuing people on assumed racial or class differences. Some were “backed by science” for a while (think social darwinism). So i know there’s risks to that. But i would argue there’s risks to overvaluing too. The risks of having a toddler vote is obvious. The problem of giving adult decisions to a child is pretty clear too. But there’s more difficult ones as well. Most recently are contingency plans for hospitals due to the pandemic. The ones in utah include preferencing care to those more likely to survive. These people’s personhood isn’t in question here. But not preferencing and taking in everyonce to icu could increase the deathrate by ignoring other factors. It’s no one’s first choice, but it’s a needed backup plan. 

 

Zygotes’ personhood is definitely questioned in society from just about every perspective and institution: parents, community advocates, ethics, religion, government and science. The pregnant woman’s personhood isn’t. Equalizing them can inadvertently lead to undervaluing her and her experiences by placing as equal value/importance to a zygote. Without meaning to, hyper-focusing on the growing body of a baby, can make women less visible. I saw it just recently when I was looking up articles/perspectives on when human life begins and was finding only extremely conservative perspectives at first. It was interesting to see how the woman became “the womb” as they focused on the zygote and overhumanized its moments of earliest distinction from sperm/egg. But i’ve seen that effect in other ways. Like how at ultrasounds i became “mama” as opposed to a person with a name. Or the over-glorification of pregnancy leading to false expectations for pregnant women as how they should feel around the “miracle of life.” Or how women’s health issues right after birth or during pregnancy often are overlooked due to the cultural emphasis on a healthy baby being the most important thing. Etc. And that’s before you get to draconian legal policies that would disproportionately affect women when codifying the assumption of zygote = personhood.  

 

I think i’ve probably made this too long. I could go on with reasserting that i would not trade the discomforts and sacrifices of bodily autonomy to bring my child to earth. I see parallels in the sacrifice with the one christ made for all of us. But I also think that in every way Christ chose that sacrifice and that path and within some restraint i’d want to make sure the pregnant woman can make that choice for herself as well. I know we disagree. I don’t expect that to magically change. I just want to paint how that is placed in a moral context outside the common narratives. i do agree we can focus on arras of agreement, but i also think it important to learn how to meet in the ideological middle of this. That’s part of living in a pluralistic society, IMHO. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[LDS Watchman]

 

Early leaders of the Church, like John Taylor and George Q. Cannon, taught that abortion is murder.

I agree with them.

 

[smac97]

Abortions Have Dropped 57% Since 1990, More Babies Saved From Abortion Than Ever Before

Quote

On Wednesday, November 25th, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released its annual “Abortion Surveillance Report” for the year 2018. Based on an in-depth analysis by National Right to Life’s Department of Education and Research, the numbers continue to show a steady decline in abortions since 2009, although the 2018 survey shows a slight increase in abortions compared to the previous survey.

“While it looks like, in the long-term, abortions are definitely down, there may be a small increase in the number, rate, and ratio of abortions since the CDC’s last full surveillance report in 2016,” said Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., Director of Education and Research for National Right to Life.

Relying on reports from health departments across the country, the CDC reported 619,591 abortions for 2018. While it is an indication of abortion trends, this figure does not provide a complete picture of abortion in the United States. California, the nation’s most populous state, New Hampshire, and Maryland do not report abortion data to the CDC.
...
“We are grateful that more women are rejecting abortion and choosing life for their unborn children,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “However, the abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, continues to perform hundreds of thousands of abortions every year, putting the lives of women at risk and destroying their unborn babies.”

The full report from the CDC can be found here.

I fine elective abortion to be immoral and abhorrent.  Nevertheless, it is legal.  Moreover, advancements in medicine and education have apparently lessened the need for abortions.

The question I have is whether the Pro-Life movement has succeeded in persuading some regarding the sanctity of life, the value of the unborn, and so on, and if these efforts have contributed to the decrease in abortions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I would assume you would find things that you agree with as well as things you’d disagree with. As I mentioned my views are neither pro-life or pro-choice. They’re somewhere in between.  

 

I think part of the problem is in our definitions and parameters. Being a human zygote is a necesary step to becoming a person but is not sufficient. The analogy you gave of a tree ties well with me because i’m an obsessive gardener. So let me flesh out my thoughts on that end.

I start most of my plants from seed at this point. Each year i overseed trays and trays of dirt. You overseed just in case one of the seeds doesn’t take. The older your seeds, the more likely that’ll happen. Once it sprouts i check for weaknesses. Some may be too leggy and will collapse with more growth. Some are overcrowded and will stunt growth for all of them. Most will be fine. Delicately i split healthy clusters into smaller/individual plants and cross my fingers. The process will often kill one or two. Once i know they’re solidly in place i pluck the extras and compost them. This process for me reminds me of early human development in utero. The first trimester especially is much like this process.  Each plant in my garden must at one point have been a little seedling/seed. But not every seedling or seed will become an established plant. It’s first stages are necessary but not sufficient. In agregate if i killed all my seedlings or had no seed, you’d be right....i will have no life in the garden. But my success as a gardener does not and cannot hinge on a single seedling individually. And the sudden death of an established plant from say transplanting or a later harsh storm is far more impactful and meaningful than when one of my seedlings is pulled. It’s why I don’t have problems with Infertility treatments. Or that i can be okay with the possibility that some may choose genetically a human seed, per se, that doesn’t have my daughter’s genetic disorder. These are feasibly the most parallel to my seed analogy: picking human seeds based on viability and a little bit of medical luck...where most these won’t end up becoming anything beyond part of the process to get to a healthy baby. It is a necessary stage but not sufficient for me to ascribe personhood to it.

 

Also, i think we’re talking about human life from differing definitions. When i said human life i mean moreso personhood or a complete human soul. A body doesn’t equal that. My husband pointed out that even in the adam and eve accounts, there was a body before there was a soul. That part science can’t answer since there’s not even consensus as to what a soul equals (possibly consciousness?) or at the very least what is enough of a viable human to assert basic human rights. when that should be recognized is why this and other human life gray areas are still up for debate. 

 And it’s not simply a hard time forming an emotional connection. It’s the actions, functionality, and capacities that make one cognizant/conscious. It’s what i tie

 to a soul. A heartbeat or distinctive DNA isn’t enough for me. There needs to be a certain amount of organ and brain function. And when i look and see and study up on this stage of development i just see seedings. Most of the organs that first trimester aren’t fully formed or formed period. You’d need a DNA test to know its sex, and even then there’s a slight chance that an anomaly could lead it to be dna male and physiologically female. At several stages one has to be trained to know the difference between the human embryo from say a pig embryo. Early movements are eratic and likey tied to neuroconnections barely forming. Even when i was pregnant and started feel small movements around 13 weeks, i could feel a gradual difference between the spaz butterfly movements to later complex more intentional movements. It’s amazing, there’s awe in the process but i just can’t value it in the same way i value an adult human or an infant or even a later stage fetus. It’s not devaluing all humanity though. It’s recognizing its place in the cycle and giving proper differentiation and expectations based on that. 

 

For example though I value a baby and believe infants have said right to life, I don’t think a baby has a right to vote. It’s personhood has become unquestionable to me, but it’s capacities are still not developed and ergo it’s rights, power, and position in society matches said capacity. We weigh human life and it’s position/capacities in society constantly. We have definitely done so incorrectly in the past, valuing people on assumed racial or class differences. Some were “backed by science” for a while (think social darwinism). So i know there’s risks to that. But i would argue there’s risks to overvaluing too. The risks of having a toddler vote is obvious. The problem of giving adult decisions to a child is pretty clear too. But there’s more difficult ones as well. Most recently are contingency plans for hospitals due to the pandemic. The ones in utah include preferencing care to those more likely to survive. These people’s personhood isn’t in question here. But not preferencing and taking in everyonce to icu could increase the deathrate by ignoring other factors. It’s no one’s first choice, but it’s a needed backup plan. 

 

Zygotes’ personhood is definitely questioned in society from just about every perspective and institution: parents, community advocates, ethics, religion, government and science. The pregnant woman’s personhood isn’t. Equalizing them can inadvertently lead to undervaluing her and her experiences by placing as equal value/importance to a zygote. Without meaning to, hyper-focusing on the growing body of a baby, can make women less visible. I saw it just recently when I was looking up articles/perspectives on when human life begins and was finding only extremely conservative perspectives at first. It was interesting to see how the woman became “the womb” as they focused on the zygote and overhumanized its moments of earliest distinction from sperm/egg. But i’ve seen that effect in other ways. Like how at ultrasounds i became “mama” as opposed to a person with a name. Or the over-glorification of pregnancy leading to false expectations for pregnant women as how they should feel around the “miracle of life.” Or how women’s health issues right after birth or during pregnancy often are overlooked due to the cultural emphasis on a healthy baby being the most important thing. Etc. And that’s before you get to draconian legal policies that would disproportionately affect women when codifying the assumption of zygote = personhood.  

 

I think i’ve probably made this too long. I could go on with reasserting that i would not trade the discomforts and sacrifices of bodily autonomy to bring my child to earth. I see parallels in the sacrifice with the one christ made for all of us. But I also think that in every way Christ chose that sacrifice and that path and within some restraint i’d want to make sure the pregnant woman can make that choice for herself as well. I know we disagree. I don’t expect that to magically change. I just want to paint how that is placed in a moral context outside the common narratives. i do agree we can focus on arras of agreement, but i also think it important to learn how to meet in the ideological middle of this. That’s part of living in a pluralistic society, IMHO. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Thanks for sharing.

Clearly I place greater emotional value on my 4 year old boy now than when he was a zygote.  I place greater emotional value on sentient beings than zygotes.  But I sometimes wonder if we place too much emphasis on emotional value when speaking of human rights.  I think it is human nature to want to protect those we identify with more and relate with better, or that which is more practical or useful to us, but I also think this leads to many of the human rights violations we see in our world today.  When we only protect the natural inalienable rights of those humans which we place greater emotional value on, or even practical value on, then we leave the door open for oppression and human rights abuses in the world.  For example, I place greater value on my son than my neighbor.  Does that mean that my neighbor is less deserving of human rights?  Some place greater emotional/practical value on white people than black people.  Should that subjective value we place on other humans, or lack thereof, justify denying them basic natural human rights because they look different, or because we don't perceive any immediate practical value to them?      When speaking of basic natural and inalienable human rights, the right to vote is not one of them, so I don't think it is a fair comparison when speaking of natural human rights.  The foundation ones outlined by Locke, which we base the constitution on are life, liberty, and property.   This is a natural human right that all humans  are innately endowed with.  This is not a person right.  It is a human right.  

I think part of the disconnect between us however is the language we use.  Where I am using "human", you are using "person".   For me, I don't morally understand why a person is more deserving of basic "human rights" than a human.  The word "person" is not a biological term and has nothing to do with biological human life.  It is not a recognized stage of human development.  It is an arbitrary made up legal term and has no biological significance to what human life really is.  No one knows what it is, because it doesn't really exist biologically, it only exists legally, and no one can agree on how it should be defined.   Why it matters in relation to the basic human right to life is beyond me.   Think about it, in defining the human right to life, what we need to know is 2 things, what is human?  ...and what is life?  With that there is consensus. 

I agree that it only has potential to become a person (whatever that is), what I don't agree with is that it is not equally deserving of the fundamental human right to life on the basis that it is alive and it is fully human.  We are absolutely no different from it in that regard.  We stand on equal ground. We are the same in those terms.  I don't care what a person is.  No one will ever agree on that.  It is completely arbitrary and should have no bearing on the natural and inalienable human right to life.

Quote

I see parallels in the sacrifice with the one christ made for all of us. But I also think that in every way Christ chose that sacrifice and that path and within some restraint i’d want to make sure the pregnant woman can make that choice for herself as well.

I think this is another fundamental difference between us.  For me, that choice was made when two people decided to have unprotected sex.  To engage in unprotected sex is to choose the risk of life.  It is a choice to gamble, and they need to be morally accountable and responsible for the results of that gamble.  They made the gamble and cannot back out when odds end up being against them.  That is not how it works.  That is why ALL emphasis and education needs to be on prevention.  That is where the choice is made.  That is where life is made.   The human inside her didn't make that choice.

Edited December 2, 2020 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Abortions Have Dropped 57% Since 1990, More Babies Saved From Abortion Than Ever Before

I fine elective abortion to be immoral and abhorrent.  Nevertheless, it is legal.  Moreover, advancements in medicine and education have apparently lessened the need for abortions.

The question I have is whether the Pro-Life movement has succeeded in persuading some regarding the sanctity of life, the value of the unborn, and so on, and if these efforts have contributed to the decrease in abortions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not likely. I'm looking at public opinion surveys and from the guttmacher institute. There doesn't seem to be a good correlation there. Attitudes have only moved a little bit and younger generations (millenial and z) are more, not less likely to believe that abortion should be legal in most cases and are less religious (which, certain religions/demographics are tied to believing abortions should be illegal). They're also the ones who would be getting an abortion (18-49)

The guttbacher institution is tying it to lower likelihood of having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. 

Sources I looked at:

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2016/abortion-rates-declined-significantly-developed-world-between-1990-and-2014

 

With luv,

BD

[rodheadlee]

On 12/1/2020 at 9:39 PM, LDS Watchman said:

 

Early leaders of the Church, like John Taylor and George Q. Cannon, taught that abortion is murder.

I agree with them.

 

It is murder, no matter what the stage of growth is.

[LDS Watchman]

53 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It is murder, no matter what the stage of growth is.

That's what I believe.

The baby has a heart beat, which makes it a living person, before the mother even knows she's pregnant. Having an abortion is always killing an innocent defenseless baby.