Jump to content

Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion


Recommended Posts

This article really made me think. I suspect that people like @Meadowchik and @stemelbow will just dismiss it, which is disappointing. The point of this essay is not to convince them to change their opinions or positions. The intent is to help them understand how their arguments sound to people like me.

https://www.ldsphilosopher.com/seeing-clearly-on-the-abortion-issue/

Edited by kllindley
Better reflect why I shared the article.
Link to post
48 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This article really made me think. I suspect that people like @Meadowchik and @stemelbow will just dismiss it, which is disappointing. The point of this essay is not to convince them to change their opinions or positions. The intent is to help them understand how their arguments sound to people like me.

https://www.ldsphilosopher.com/seeing-clearly-on-the-abortion-issue/

If we remain intent in suggesting abortion is murdering someone then why does the church allow for abortion in some cases?  This debate goes nowhere so often because there is little common ground and when someone points out possible common ground people are intent to respond with some sort of  inconsistency.  

And again if it's such a moral issue why did god set abortion as the norm until, with a secular enlightenment move, we humans fought way to limit the abortions?  

The strong arm moral appeal isn't very reasonable.  

Link to post
Quote

To this, they respond, “Well, be that as it may, we prefer a more gentle approach. We should focus instead on the social and economic conditions that put people in that position. We can reduce the incentives to murder instead of just jailing murderers.” Well, do that too, you reply. There’s no reason not to do both. But it seems strange to you — bizarre, even — to prefer that approach to one in which homicide is also criminalized.

This to me is the most important part of the thought experiment and it is very unfortunate that we can’t actually have this to measure. 
 

What if the world of the Denizens had less homicides than ours due to the way they worked on reducing the incentives to murder?  Would we have the higher moral ground to act all in shock at their refusing to see life as a fundamental right when they were more effective at preserving life than we were with all our rhetoric about that right?

———

My preference for an approach to stop all but the truly medically necessary abortions is to first emphasize the approaches that have clearly shown to decrease abortion, the social and economic supports for pregnant women and for the children afterwards, whether through making adoption and foster care both easier and safer (problems with foster care need to be brought way down so potential parents see that as a positive temporary option that isn’t going to damage their child or family if they run into problems and need to place children under another’s care while the parents get back on their feet).  I won’t itemize everything again as it has been done somewhat, but I would also expect a lot of research done during the process of trying to find what works best, so might as well just talk about it generically.

Why first?......I would be concerned if criminalizing abortion takes place prior to when the temporary and long term supports for potential parents and families are in place.   Removing the current options of legal abortions and replacing them with penalties or even prison time without other options supporting birth control or support of carrying the baby full term and beyond being made easily and reliably available could lead to a habit of illegal abortions as I believe there is an expectation in many that abortion should be a right and they will act with that expectation even if it becomes illegal.   This refusal to accept the new laws as valid may then create a social environment of significant distrust of the government so that even when needed supports are finally in place, illegal abortion is still seen as a more reliable, trustworthy option. 

I believe by criminalizing abortion first, this would convey a lack of care for the people actually involved, that the principle of fighting abortion is more important to society than acting to help people avoid it...and that will interfere with developing trust between potential parents and government/society. And trust is needed for not only committing the next nine months of one’s life to being pregnant, but risking the entire life of a child brought up in poverty or abuse, etc where death before birth may seen a better result even if horrendous (a few minutes of horrible pain may appear to be a reasonable cost to avoid decades of a likely nowhere life of poverty, fear, hardship, prison, oppression, etc).

Whatever increases use of birth control and/or decreases sex among those not ready or willing to be parents should be seriously considered even if it ‘feels’ wrong, such as providing free birth control rather than just insisting without action that anyone wanting to act like an adult by having sex needs to be an adult in assuming responsibility for what happens.

Next is to increase the desire to carry through with accidental pregnancies or intended pregnancies where a crisis happens such that the parents may change their minds....such as a father losing his job so the mother needs to keep hers, the father abandoning the mother where the plan had been he would support the family until the child was a certain age, the mother discovering some medical issues triggered by pregnancy with long term impacts...

From my view, the society and state have to demonstrate to potential parents that they need not be fearful of being able to care for a child after birth or that even if it turns out they can’t handle being a parent, the child is more or less guaranteed to have a decent life without risk of abuse or abandonment by the system as well as filling of immediate needs a pregnancy creates. Those getting pregnant for whatever reason need to be able to expect that the mother and father will receive the help they need during the pregnancy to prepare to be decent parents with a promise of a decent life not only for the child, but for the parents...so that any longer term health issues from pregnancy and birth are dropped to the lowest rates possible through excellent prenatal care and that if there are long term health issues for the mother or child, the State or society in some fashion will provide the care needed so their life will not be a massive burden for themselves or others (at least to the extent outside help can manage this).

Once the admittedly massive system of support has been in place long enough to demonstrate to parents that there are better options and such options have been accepted as the norm of society...that they can be secure the protections are not going to be removed once funding has run out or interest of social groups fades—rather, support is seen as a fundamental protected right—potential parents will be much more likely to trust enough to commit themselves because the support system has been proven trustworthy in their commitment (and I am thinking this may take a decade or two to demonstrate...and it can’t be debated every legislature whether it will be continued or not...a potential parent needs to be able to trust help will be there for the minor part of the child’s life at least if they are currently living at poverty or close to poverty level)....once the system is shown to be reliable and a solid part of society so that it is safe to make plans for one’s future family based on it, then that is time imo to take further steps to show the significant value the society places on the unborn if it appears there are still those using abortion for convenience because they don’t want to be pregnant and don’t want to be responsible for using birth control. 
 

At that point, I would suggest doing the minimum penalties first to see if such actually help lower any remaining numbers of abortions and doesn’t hurt what is already in place to discourage abortion. If penalties show that they decrease abortions further, but more is still needed, then it may be of value to criminalize abortion at that point...but we need to be careful that any steps taken do not have unintended consequences of increasing abortion. We can’t make laws or programs based on what makes us feel better, but what works to decrease actual abortions. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, kllindley said:

This article really made me think. I suspect that people like @Meadowchik and @stemelbow will just dismiss it, which is disappointing. The point of this essay is not to convince them to change their opinions or positions. The intent is to help them understand how their arguments sound to people like me.

https://www.ldsphilosopher.com/seeing-clearly-on-the-abortion-issue/

What about this article is compelling to you?

I don't see in it anything that I haven't already deeply considered and processed already. And I feel very deeply that helping women and not criminalizing abortion is morally better and saves more babies than any other option.

Try to remember how you sound to other people who live the real challenges of pregnancy.

Try to consider that I've already walked and talked these things for many years and let them rest in my heart and mind and listened and counselled with people and held babes in my arms and given of my own life for them. I want to save babies.

It is disappointing to me when people cannot even consider that as a possibility, and instead imagine up their own ideas about what I think (which is what the article you posted does and thus what you do by extension) rather than take to heart what I actually say. But even more so, it is disappointing to see people prioritizing ideals over actually doing real good, who seem to be saying "I want this to be the law because the world should be this way," instead of "I want the law to be as effective as possible at helping humans value life."

If you want to help babies, please help women.

Link to post
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If we remain intent in suggesting abortion is murdering someone then why does the church allow for abortion in some cases?  This debate goes nowhere so often because there is little common ground and when someone points out possible common ground people are intent to respond with some sort of  inconsistency.  

And again if it's such a moral issue why did god set abortion as the norm until, with a secular enlightenment move, we humans fought way to limit the abortions?  

The strong arm moral appeal isn't very reasonable.  

As expected. Thank you for validating my prediction. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

This to me is the most important part of the thought experiment and it is very unfortunate that we can’t actually have this to measure. 
 

What if the world of the Denizens had less homicides than ours due to the way they worked on reducing the incentives to murder?  Would we have the higher moral ground to act all in shock at their refusing to see life as a fundamental right when they were more effective at preserving life than we were with all our rhetoric about that right?

———

My preference for an approach to stop all but the truly medically necessary abortions is to first emphasize the approaches that have clearly shown to decrease abortion, the social and economic supports for pregnant women and for the children afterwards, whether through making adoption and foster care both easier and safer (problems with foster care need to be brought way down so potential parents see that as a positive temporary option that isn’t going to damage their child or family if they run into problems and need to place children under another’s care while the parents get back on their feet).  I won’t itemize everything again as it has been done somewhat, but I would also expect a lot of research done during the process of trying to find what works best, so might as well just talk about it generically.

Why first?......I would be concerned if criminalizing abortion takes place prior to when the temporary and long term supports for potential parents and families are in place.   Removing the current options of legal abortions and replacing them with penalties or even prison time without other options supporting birth control or support of carrying the baby full term and beyond being made easily and reliably available could lead to a habit of illegal abortions as I believe there is an expectation in many that abortion should be a right and they will act with that expectation even if it becomes illegal.   This refusal to accept the new laws as valid may then create a social environment of significant distrust of the government so that even when needed supports are finally in place, illegal abortion is still seen as a more reliable, trustworthy option. 

I believe by criminalizing abortion first, this would convey a lack of care for the people actually involved, that the principle of fighting abortion is more important to society than acting to help people avoid it...and that will interfere with developing trust between potential parents and government/society. And trust is needed for not only committing the next nine months of one’s life to being pregnant, but risking the entire life of a child brought up in poverty or abuse, etc where death before birth may seen a better result even if horrendous (a few minutes of horrible pain may appear to be a reasonable cost to avoid decades of a likely nowhere life of poverty, fear, hardship, prison, oppression, etc).

Whatever increases use of birth control and/or decreases sex among those not ready or willing to be parents should be seriously considered even if it ‘feels’ wrong, such as providing free birth control rather than just insisting without action that anyone wanting to act like an adult by having sex needs to be an adult in assuming responsibility for what happens.

Next is to increase the desire to carry through with accidental pregnancies or intended pregnancies where a crisis happens such that the parents may change their minds....such as a father losing his job so the mother needs to keep hers, the father abandoning the mother where the plan had been he would support the family until the child was a certain age, the mother discovering some medical issues triggered by pregnancy with long term impacts...

From my view, the society and state have to demonstrate to potential parents that they need not be fearful of being able to care for a child after birth or that even if it turns out they can’t handle being a parent, the child is more or less guaranteed to have a decent life without risk of abuse or abandonment by the system as well as filling of immediate needs a pregnancy creates. Those getting pregnant for whatever reason need to be able to expect that the mother and father will receive the help they need during the pregnancy to prepare to be decent parents with a promise of a decent life not only for the child, but for the parents...so that any longer term health issues from pregnancy and birth are dropped to the lowest rates possible through excellent prenatal care and that if there are long term health issues for the mother or child, the State or society in some fashion will provide the care needed so their life will not be a massive burden for themselves or others (at least to the extent outside help can manage this).

Once the admittedly massive system of support has been in place long enough to demonstrate to parents that there are better options and such options have been accepted as the norm of society...that they can be secure the protections are not going to be removed once funding has run out or interest of social groups fades—rather, support is seen as a fundamental protected right—potential parents will be much more likely to trust enough to commit themselves because the support system has been proven trustworthy in their commitment (and I am thinking this may take a decade or two to demonstrate...and it can’t be debated every legislature whether it will be continued or not...a potential parent needs to be able to trust help will be there for the minor part of the child’s life at least if they are currently living at poverty or close to poverty level)....once the system is shown to be reliable and a solid part of society so that it is safe to make plans for one’s future family based on it, then that is time imo to take further steps to show the significant value the society places on the unborn if it appears there are still those using abortion for convenience because they don’t want to be pregnant and don’t want to be responsible for using birth control. 
 

At that point, I would suggest doing the minimum penalties first to see if such actually help lower any remaining numbers of abortions and doesn’t hurt what is already in place to discourage abortion. If penalties show that they decrease abortions further, but more is still needed, then it may be of value to criminalize abortion at that point...but we need to be careful that any steps taken do not have unintended consequences of increasing abortion. We can’t make laws or programs based on what makes us feel better, but what works to decrease actual abortions. 

I am almost completely on board with this approach. I think it is extremely reasonable to pursue all of the best efforts to prevent all but the rarest of abortions by the most effective means possible, even if that does not mean making them illegal. 

I do hesitate to suggest that we have to spend decades building those more supportive means before we can consider efforts at deterring abortion. Maybe we do have to as a result of how far we have fallen as a society-to the point where so many see abortion as an unquestionably good thing.  But this doesn't even have to mean criminalization in my mind. I would think that efforts to sway social opinion about the morality of responsible sex, the benefits of adoption, and the negative emotional impact of elective abortion are all important steps we can take regardless of the legal staus of abortion. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What about this article is compelling to you?

It made me question some of the beliefs that I have held about why a more pro-choice approach to abortion policy might be the best, both in terms of efficacy and morality.

Quote

I don't see in it anything that I haven't already deeply considered and processed already. And I feel very deeply that helping women and not criminalizing abortion is morally better and saves more babies than any other option.

Can you answer the following question honestly?

Do you also deeply believe that helping people and not criminalizing homicide is morally better and would save more lives than any other option?  

If not, why? What is the logical grounds for carving out an exception for abortion? 

Quote

Try to remember how you sound to other people who live the real challenges of pregnancy.

Why do you assume that I do not think carefully about how I sound to others?

Quote

Try to consider that I've already walked and talked these things for many years and let them rest in my heart and mind and listened and counselled with people and held babes in my arms and given of my own life for them. I want to save babies.

It is disappointing to me when people cannot even consider that as a possibility, and instead imagine up their own ideas about what I think (which is what the article you posted does and thus what you do by extension) rather than take to heart what I actually say. But even more so, it is disappointing to see people prioritizing ideals over actually doing real good, who seem to be saying "I want this to be the law because the world should be this way," instead of "I want the law to be as effective as possible at helping humans value life."

To the bold: what makes you think that the author is imagining up his own ideas about what you think? He in fact uses the exact statements that he has seen used to justify policies supporting the availability of elective abortion. Do you have reason to believe that he was referencing you and your beliefs? 

Are you not guilty of imagining my beliefs when I have never said anything about what I want the laws to be. 

Can you accept that I actually do believe that "I want the law to be as effective as possible at helping humans value life?"

Quote

If you want to help babies, please help women.

 

Edited by kllindley
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It made me question some of the beliefs that I have held about why a more pro-choice approach to abortion policy was the best, both in terms of efficacy and morality.

Can you answer the following question honestly?

Do you also deeply believe that helping people and not criminalizing homicide is morally better and would save more lives than any other option?  

If not, why? What is the logical grounds for carving out an exception for abortion? 

Why do you assume that I do not think carefully about how I sound to others?

To the bold: what makes you think that the author is imagining up his own ideas about what you think? He in fact uses the exact statements that he has seen used to justify policies supporting the availability of elective abortion. Do you have reason to believe that he was referencing you and your beliefs? 

Are you not guilty of imagining my beliefs when I have never said anything about what I want the last to be. 

Can you accept that I actually do believe that "I want the law to be as effective as possible at helping humans value life?"

 

Abortion is not an exception. It is not comparable to killing a human being that has already been born.

Look, you posted an article while also mentioning me and making assumptions about my reaction to it. You crossed that line into assuming and it's only reasonable for me to think you're projecting stuff in it onto me. That's indeed how you introduced it. So check yourself please.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Abortion is not an exception. It is not comparable to killing a human being that has already been born.

You fundamentally misread the article if you think the point is to compare abortion to homicide. In the context of the article homicide is only comparable to abortion in that it an action that many people state they would like to see happen less frequently. But abortion seems to be an exception in that we actually have disagreements about whether it is unethical to criminalize the unwanted behavior.  

I think the point could just as easily be made with other actions. Theft. Let's not criminalize theft, instead let's focus on removing the reasons people steal to actually reduce theft. Drunk Driving? We need to remove penalties and instead provide free transportation for all intoxicated individuals to remove any risk of driving under the influence.  Or child abuse. Can you get on board with removing criminal penalties against child abuse and instead taking care of parents and other adults so they never find the need to abuse children? Rape? Is there any law against behavior that society deems undesirable that stands up? On what grounds?

Quote

Look, you posted an article while also mentioning me and making assumptions about my reaction to it. You crossed that line into assuming and it's only reasonable for me to think you're projecting stuff in it onto me. That's indeed how you introduced it. So check yourself please.

I did make a prediction about your response-an observable behavior, not your beliefs.  I do not deny that.  In what other elements would you like me to check myself?

Edited by kllindley
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, kllindley said:

would think that efforts to sway social opinion about the morality of responsible sex, the benefits of adoption, and the negative emotional impact of elective abortion are all important steps we can take regardless of the legal staus of abortion. 

I agree and it is unfortunate if my comments didn’t make this clear...I think we should start immediately (if we haven’t already) be doing all the positive types of reinforcement of the value of human life all the way back to the moment of conception to change perceptions and attitudes, both of those having abortions and those reluctant to support programs that have been clinically demonstrated to decrease abortion.
 

It is only the negative punishments, the penalties and criminalizations, I would be cautious about implementing in order to avoid creating moredistrust of the society or government by those most needing the help to prevent abortions, legal or illegal, to be their chosen option. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, kllindley said:

You fundamentally misread the article if you think the point is to compare abortion to homicide. 

I was answering your direct question:

"Do you also deeply believe that helping people and not criminalizing homicide is morally better and would save more lives than any other option? "

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

I did make a prediction about your response-an observable behavior, not your beliefs.  I do not deny that.  In what other elements would you like me to check myself?

You assumed I would be dismissive of its points when I've been an active participant on this thread and I have consistently engaged responsively and with substance to other posters and ideas. CFR of me exhibiting a pattern of dismissiveness. Consistent disagreement is not dismissiveness.

By the way, to address the line of questioning in your post, I have presented arguments for why abortion is permissable in ways other types of harm are not. I have also given arguments for the best methods of remedying abortion. I don't mind discussing the points anew, but it is strange to be asked questions to these answers by someone who also says I have behaved dismissively. It feels like my posts have been ignored or...dismissed.

That also poisons the well and it distracts from the issue. 

Edited by Meadowchik
Missing a word
Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

Those two are about what they did with the body afterwards rather than the spontaneous abortion itself. Not the same thing. Was this when abortion was criminalized?

El Salvador bans abortion with no explicit exceptions. There are women in prison there who miscarried or delivered stillborn babies.

In the examples in America, those cases were in states with abortion restrictions and where abortion is a controversial issue. In other words, those prosecutions could be examples of spontaneous abortion being criminalised indirectly.

Why prosecute someone who buried a stillborn baby to manage their grief? Why prosecute someone who discards their miscarried fetus in a moment of trauma and panic?

 

Link to post
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why prosecute someone who buried a stillborn baby to manage their grief? Why prosecute someone who discards their miscarried fetus in a moment of trauma and panic?

Probably for the same reasons they prosecute anyone who does something similar with any type of dead body, whether out of grief or fear.  There are likely cultural taboos as well as health concerns. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Probably for the same reasons they prosecute anyone who does something similar with any type of dead body, whether out of grief or fear.  There are likely cultural taboos as well as health concerns. 

Is that a reason to send someone to prison? How about getting help for the traumatized woman? How about fining (at most) the other or helping them find a more appropriate method of burial? DAs do not have to pursue cases and oftentimes the choices are politically-motivated. Suffice it to say (as I said originally when I said caution and circumspection is in order) that we should watch out for instances like these and be vigilant about how law enforcement is used.

Edited by Meadowchik
punctuation
Link to post
4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

El Salvador bans abortion with no explicit exceptions. There are women in prison there who miscarried or delivered stillborn babies.

In the examples in America, those cases were in states with abortion restrictions and where abortion is a controversial issue. In other words, those prosecutions could be examples of spontaneous abortion being criminalised indirectly.

Why prosecute someone who buried a stillborn baby to manage their grief? Why prosecute someone who discards their miscarried fetus in a moment of trauma and panic?

 

Talking about the Indiana law? That thing was so extreme even some pro-lifers thought it was nuts. It required cremation or some kind of funerary care for any stillbirth or abortion, whether occurring naturally or medically with no timeframe limitations. In other words a woman who has a spontaneous abortion without even realizing she is pregnant and does not collect what is left for proper disposal/veneration was violating the law. It heaped additional costs on parents who had a stillbirth child or a traumatic miscarriage.

Women protested by calling in to the governor’s office to report possible miscarriages which basically drowned the governor’s staffers with listening to women describe their period in graphic detail.

Luckily the courts gutted that law.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Talking about the Indiana law? That thing was so extreme even some pro-lifers thought it was nuts. It required cremation or some kind of funerary care for any stillbirth or abortion, whether occurring naturally or medically with no timeframe limitations. In other words a woman who has a spontaneous abortion without even realizing she is pregnant and does not collect what is left for proper disposal/veneration was violating the law. It heaped additional costs on parents who had a stillbirth child or a traumatic miscarriage.

Women protested by calling in to the governor’s office to report possible miscarriages which basically drowned the governor’s staffers with listening to women describe their period in graphic detail.

Luckily the courts gutted that law.

I wasn't specifically but thanks for reminding me of it.

Link to post
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Is that a reason to send someone to prison? How about getting help for the traumatized woman? How about fining (at most) the other or helping them find a more appropriate method of burial? DAs do not have to pursue cases and oftentimes the choices are politically-motivated. Suffice it to say (as I said originally when I said caution and circumspection is in order) that we should watch out for instances like these and be vigilant about how law enforcement is used.

Don’t disagree. 

Link to post
On 11/21/2020 at 11:38 AM, kllindley said:

This article really made me think. I suspect that people like @Meadowchik and @stemelbow will just dismiss it, which is disappointing. The point of this essay is not to convince them to change their opinions or positions. The intent is to help them understand how their arguments sound to people like me.

https://www.ldsphilosopher.com/seeing-clearly-on-the-abortion-issue/

I’ve been reading parts of this off and on. 

 

i also haven’t participated in this thread. Or if I have it’s now buried. I remember writing something and then losing it and not having the initiative to write it again. 
 

personally, I don’t identify as either prol-life or pro-choice. As it mentioned in the beginning we tend to be tribal in labels. And within said labels there’s some pretty big ideological holes to both of them. Both oversimplify a topic into slogans and that’s a problem IMHO. I tell people i’m pro-pragmatism and then explain further my hodge podge of ideas around this, balancing out several moral and medical perspectives as opposed to waving the flag of just one idea and, worse, one aspect of one idea that often isn’t equally applied to other situations.
 

so when i read this analogy it still falls short. If i were in a society that didn’t prosecute killing peipke and i had someone who came from our country start poking holes in it, these aren’t the first questions or arguments i’d make. My first one would be: do you fight wars? Do you find war justified all the time? If not, when is it not? Do you have those type of wars in your society? And if all human life is equal and all killings are bad then why do you differentiat between say iraqis or afghanis killed compared to American soldiers? Sometimes you guys forget to point out local casualties all together in reports...that seems like a problem being pro-life. Or what about the death penalty. Why is it that you protect life by killing someone...even though it doesn’t actually solve a problem. Why do you put more energt focusin on one specific type of life but ignore others? Why are many who are pro-life seemingly unwilling to make life changes for a little bit to protect other vulnerable people from a plague? Have you thought and put in equal effort to other lives at risk from hunger, starvation, death, and other dangers that could kill the but are easily preventable? Are you okay with lethal police force for petty  crimes or just an assumption there might be Danger? And why is human life so exceptional but you ignore the massacre of animal and plant life around you? Whole species and ecosystems are dying and with it, people are also suffering, struggling and dying too. Why should i believe you that life is such a high priority value in your society when there seems to be so many exceptions to that value? 

I don’t expect all of that to be answered. Only to point out my problem with the morals aspect to abortion arguments. At some point the moral stance runs into a moral exception to life (and yes choice) that they’re ok with or at leash aren’t as emphatic about protecting. And for me personally, those cultural exceptions in other areas of life is one of my bigger problems with a strictly pro life stance.

 

i could say more but i’m wanting a nap more. 
 

with luv, 

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 2
Link to post
15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I’ve been reading parts of this off and on. 

 

i also haven’t participated in this thread. Or if I have it’s now buried. I remember writing something and then losing it and not having the initiative to write it again. 
 

personally, I don’t identify as either prol-life or pro-choice. As it mentioned in the beginning we tend to be tribal in labels. And within said labels there’s some pretty big ideological holes to both of them. Both oversimplify a topic into slogans and that’s a problem IMHO. I tell people i’m pro-pragmatism and then explain further my hodge podge of ideas around this, balancing out several moral and medical perspectives as opposed to waving the flag of just one idea and, worse, one aspect of one idea that often isn’t equally applied to other situations.
 

so when i read this analogy it still falls short. If i were in a society that didn’t prosecute killing peipke and i had someone who came from our country start poking holes in it, these aren’t the first questions or arguments i’d make. My first one would be: do you fight wars? Do you find war justified all the time? If not, when is it not? Do you have those type of wars in your society? And if all human life is equal and all killings are bad then why do you differentiat between say iraqis or afghanis killed compared to American soldiers? Sometimes you guys forget to point out local casualties all together in reports...that seems like a problem being pro-life. Or what about the death penalty. Why is it that you protect life by killing someone...even though it doesn’t actually solve a problem. Why do you put more energt focusin on one specific type of life but ignore others? Why are many who are pro-life seemingly unwilling to make life changes for a little bit to protect other vulnerable people from a plague? Have you thought and put in equal effort to other lives at risk from hunger, starvation, death, and other dangers that could kill the but are easily preventable? Are you okay with lethal police force for petty  crimes or just an assumption there might be Danger? And why is human life so exceptional but you ignore the massacre of animal and plant life around you? Whole species and ecosystems are dying and with it, people are also suffering, struggling and dying too. Why should i believe you that life is such a high priority value in your society when there seems to be so many exceptions to that value? 

I don’t expect all of that to be answered. Only to point out my problem with the morals aspect to abortion arguments. At some point the moral stance runs into a moral exception to life (and yes choice) that they’re ok with or at leash aren’t as emphatic about protecting. And for me personally, those cultural exceptions in other areas of life is one of my bigger problems with a strictly pro life stance.

 

i could say more but i’m wanting a nap more. 
 

with luv, 

BD

It's pretty simple. Children are innocent, murderers are not. In all of your scenarios everyone has a choice except the unborn child. How would you like your unborn child to ask you in the next life "Why did you decide to kill me Mom?"

Edited by rodheadlee
Link to post
58 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It's pretty simple. Children are innocent, murderers are not. In all of your scenarios everyone has a choice except the unborn child. How would you like your unborn child to ask you in the next life "Why did you decide to kill me Mom?"

That’s not true. In several of those circumstances, several innocent people - young and old - would likely have died from little choice of their own. Just the war part includes many people dying with little capacity to decide whether they wanted the war or not. 
 
but again, that still leaves me with the initial problem i’m pointing out. The values system still hold an exception to being pro-life.

with luv,

bd

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Talking about the Indiana law? That thing was so extreme even some pro-lifers thought it was nuts. It required cremation or some kind of funerary care for any stillbirth or abortion, whether occurring naturally or medically with no timeframe limitations. In other words a woman who has a spontaneous abortion without even realizing she is pregnant and does not collect what is left for proper disposal/veneration was violating the law. It heaped additional costs on parents who had a stillbirth child or a traumatic miscarriage.

Women protested by calling in to the governor’s office to report possible miscarriages which basically drowned the governor’s staffers with listening to women describe their period in graphic detail.

Luckily the courts gutted that law.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
18 hours ago, 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 so sorry for your loss. In the cases of other women who reacted differently, I think empathy goes further to getting to the solution. People can have all sorts of reactions during trauma. The point in this case is that the thing that happened happened to them, and what they did afterword was how they managed the trauma. IMO it's not a situation that merits penalties and legal threats, but instead assistance and education.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 11/21/2020 at 10:09 AM, Meadowchik said:

I absolutely address that by arguing in favor of what reduces abortions and what helps the unborn and babies in general. A law criminalizing abortion if it causes more suffering would be a pyrrhic victory indeed, right?

Quote

Again, yet again, and again and again, I am talking about what reduces the total abortion rate, where less abortions occur, not more. Hopefully you agree that reducing the ripping apart of babies' bodies is better than not. 

Again, yet again, and again and again, we can both criminalize abortion and take every proactive approach at educating and serving women in ways which reduce abortion.  You are holding dearly onto a false dichotomy with no solid reason.  We don't need to legally devalue the life of the baby and argue for unequal rights in order to help women in other ways to reduce abortions.    

To decriminalize abortion is to legally devalue the life of the baby.   It does not have the same legal protections.  I am principally opposed to any legislation which does not acknowledge the natural rights of all human beings.  Equal natural rights for all in terms of life, liberty, and property.  

How does criminalizing abortion "cause more suffering" for babies?  I think the point you keep avoiding is that I AM IN FAVOR of doing everything you propose to serve and help women.  This need not be a one or the other scenario.  We can both serve and help women, AND protect the equal natural rights of all human beings.   We don't need to violate that essential and fundamental principle and right to life.  NOTHING is more sacred and worthy of every legal protection. 

Quote

It's pretty concrete and logical, and stating the obvious issues related to the road of criminalization.

Not at all.  Make your case. 

Quote

I absolutely have thought about it. That is the point at which I began thinking about abortion years ago. Over the years, I have made pretty much every argument you have in this thread and others as well. Eventually I started to understand that what actually happens matter much more than ideology and good intentions.

I agree that what happens matters more than ideology and good intentions.   I suggest that by doing everything you propose AND giving legal incentive/motivation to not abort is more likely to succeed at reducing abortions, if that is indeed our common goal. 

 

 

 

Link to post
On 11/22/2020 at 12:52 PM, BlueDreams said:

I’ve been reading parts of this off and on. 

 

i also haven’t participated in this thread. Or if I have it’s now buried. I remember writing something and then losing it and not having the initiative to write it again. 
 

personally, I don’t identify as either prol-life or pro-choice. As it mentioned in the beginning we tend to be tribal in labels. And within said labels there’s some pretty big ideological holes to both of them. Both oversimplify a topic into slogans and that’s a problem IMHO. I tell people i’m pro-pragmatism and then explain further my hodge podge of ideas around this, balancing out several moral and medical perspectives as opposed to waving the flag of just one idea and, worse, one aspect of one idea that often isn’t equally applied to other situations.
 

so when i read this analogy it still falls short. If i were in a society that didn’t prosecute killing peipke and i had someone who came from our country start poking holes in it, these aren’t the first questions or arguments i’d make. My first one would be: do you fight wars? Do you find war justified all the time? If not, when is it not? Do you have those type of wars in your society? And if all human life is equal and all killings are bad then why do you differentiat between say iraqis or afghanis killed compared to American soldiers? Sometimes you guys forget to point out local casualties all together in reports...that seems like a problem being pro-life. Or what about the death penalty. Why is it that you protect life by killing someone...even though it doesn’t actually solve a problem. Why do you put more energt focusin on one specific type of life but ignore others? Why are many who are pro-life seemingly unwilling to make life changes for a little bit to protect other vulnerable people from a plague? Have you thought and put in equal effort to other lives at risk from hunger, starvation, death, and other dangers that could kill the but are easily preventable? Are you okay with lethal police force for petty  crimes or just an assumption there might be Danger? And why is human life so exceptional but you ignore the massacre of animal and plant life around you? Whole species and ecosystems are dying and with it, people are also suffering, struggling and dying too. Why should i believe you that life is such a high priority value in your society when there seems to be so many exceptions to that value? 

I don’t expect all of that to be answered. Only to point out my problem with the morals aspect to abortion arguments. At some point the moral stance runs into a moral exception to life (and yes choice) that they’re ok with or at leash aren’t as emphatic about protecting. And for me personally, those cultural exceptions in other areas of life is one of my bigger problems with a strictly pro life stance.

 

i could say more but i’m wanting a nap more. 
 

with luv, 

BD

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. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
30 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, yet again, and again and again, we can both criminalize abortion and take every proactive approach at educating and serving women in ways which reduce abortion.  You are holding dearly onto a false dichotomy with no solid reason.  We don't need to legally devalue the life of the baby and argue for unequal rights in order to help women in other ways to reduce abortions.    

To decriminalize abortion is to legally devalue the life of the baby.   It does not have the same legal protections.  I am principally opposed to any legislation which does not acknowledge the natural rights of all human beings.  Equal natural rights for all in terms of life, liberty, and property.  

How does criminalizing abortion "cause more suffering" for babies?  I think the point you keep avoiding is that I AM IN FAVOR of doing everything you propose to serve and help women.  This need not be a one or the other scenario.  We can both serve and help women, AND protect the equal natural rights of all human beings.   We don't need to violate that essential and fundamental principle and right to life.  NOTHING is more sacred and worthy of every legal protection. 

Not at all.  Make your case. 

I agree that what happens matters more than ideology and good intentions.   I suggest that by doing everything you propose AND giving legal incentive/motivation to not abort is more likely to succeed at reducing abortions, if that is indeed our common goal. 

 

 

 

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

But afaik you did not respond.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...