I generally shy away from discussing such a volatile topic as abortion, but only because it usually leads nowhere. Anyway, I thought the following was pertinent enough to post.
...
A friend of mine wrote a pro-choice letter to a local newspaper where she lives in response to a pro-life article and it was printed. What follows is her letter. Afterward I'll post my comments to her via email, which acted as sort of a constructive criticism of her letter as well as offered a few other arguments for her to consider. I've removed names and towns for obvious reasons of privacy.
Letter: In response to recent letters to the editor against abortion, I think {town name} can use another woman's voice on the issue. I've engaged the abortion issue enough to find that conversations about it tend to center on one question: should you kill a baby or shouldn't you? We won't make progress through discussions that ignore the complexities of the abortion issue. Accounting for the breadth of women's experiences everywhere might show why abortion has protected so many lives.
Rather than passively trusting the messages of male leaders who will never be pregnant (but who continue to decide for us), let's ask our own thoughtful questions. Regardless of race and class, do all women and men have accurate information about getting birth control? Do we all, at all times, interact with only those men who prefer sex with a happy and willing partner? Doesn't abstinence-only education in schools prevent young people from making completely informed decisions about sex? With the pregnancy at stake, so is the life of the mother, the emotional and physical health of women forcibly impregnated, the growth of young parents who give up school and take on jobs. If we actually talked to women who have had abortions, or who have thought about having one, we would find an even greater span of circumstances than the ones I list.
Thoughtful questions are often left out of conversations against abortion because they disrupt the simple "are you moral or aren't you?" stance. They cause us to notice connections between basic issues like access to contraceptives, violence against women, and our failed sex education--unwanted pregnancies can be the result of horrible misinformation and violence. Asking questions brings us closer to the abortion issue, revealing that the demand for reproductive justice is the demand for safer sex and the choice to postpone motherhood when necessary. After all, women might choose abortion because the last half century has prepared us for choosing full participation in America. Attempting to decide what is right for all women everywhere might make full participation nearly impossible. We must get closer to the abortion issue.
....
My comments: {intro omitted for privacy reasons}
Anyway, I liked the letter, and you made your points rationally so as to deflect inevitable rebuttals of extremism. The focus on issues of birth control education, rape, and the like are valid and important, but focusing solely on them leads to vulnerability in counter-arguments when posed with the occasions where it is neither of these things that led to the pregnancy, nor when expected health complications are the reason for the abortion. Those instances where the woman simply desires an abortion apart from these issues is where an argument that focuses solely on those specific problems gets into trouble. I don't know how frequent such cases are, but my guess is that they're frequent enough to become contentious, perhaps even in the majority.
Btw, this is solely for the sake of constructive criticism. I am in agreement with you, and am assuming that you're advocating pro-choice rights as a whole, not just in those specific instances where a root problem can be identified. For what its worth, I'll likely borrow some of your ideas next time I am coerced into such a conversation. The following might be known to you already, but it also might help you with your own opinions and approaches.
I usually approach the subject from a biological perspective. In vitro fertilization, which is almost universally endorsed (or at least ignored) by religious groups, inseminates multiples eggs and implants a few of them into the female who cannot reproduce otherwise. By its very nature, it is "aborting" many both in the lab and once they are placed within the female (usually only 1 survives). Yet the process brings joy to many couples who are otherwise unable to reproduce. Similarly, most (a slight majority based on current statistical research) fertilized eggs naturally abort themselves for a variety of reasons in the very first days of pregnancy, usually unknown to the female. Of course, this is "natural" rather than induced, so is generally batted away by pro-life advocates. Most, however, are irked by their inability to reconcile their beliefs with the in vitro process, which requires multiple eggs (and thus multiple abortions) to produce life, suggesting its merely misplaced zeal backing them, not conceptual logic that they uniformly apply to all situations.
I also enjoy seeing rationalizations for the idea that all sexual encounters should be "open to procreation" (an anti-birth control argument, rooted in religious belief). If I ask a girl to have sex with me and she says no, that is denying an opportunity for procreation (or vice-versa, since the guy could presumably say no as well). It is a potential baby that was "aborted" at the conversational level, rather than biological level. Or, even closer to the point, if a couple is intimate sexually but avoids penetration, how is that different? The idea behind "open to procreation" is that it's wrong to use the sex act as merely physical pleasure, and that birth control implies a lack of love rooted in selfishness. By that definition, any kind of foreplay, unless accompanied with unprotected intercourse, is sinful. Rationalizations are quick from any pro-life apologist, but generally ignore the argument outright or aren't logically coherent.
It's usually also spurious to point out to them that early in a baby's life cycle it can't feel pain, or even when it starts to develop a detailed nervous system, the feeling is so dulled as to be negligible. The pain of slaughtering a cow, for example, is exponentially more painful. Of course, I consider this valid but rarely use it, simply because the position that usually ends up being contended (and thus why debating on abortion is usually akin to banging one's head against a wall) is whether or not the baby possesses a soul at the moment of fertilization. I could debate this, of course, but it becomes such a tangent to abortion, and covers so many ideas in religion and science, that it rarely leads anywhere. Even stripped of religious intent, it's often hard to get people to see us as animals, not as something "higher and different" than the rest of the animal kingdom. Species-ism is much like racism or chauvinism, but is just a socially accepted form of bigotry, not anything with a logical foundation to it.
Generally if abortion is being debated, the pro-choice advocate is Christian, or if not religious they are so adamantly pro-choice that rational debate is difficult. And with such a heated topic, attempting to debate against their entire religion is an impossibility. At least your article got around that by speaking informally to an audience rather than specifically to a person.
I used to look at this topic with no thought of what to say at all, as it did not interest me at all. It is in all form a very delicate and controversial topic as it has already been dealt with by being legal in the United States. However, I feel there are quiet a few flaws with it being legal. As for the poll, I am Pro-Life! . Despite all religious views, logic is also used upon my reasons. You see, sexual relationship occurs with safe sex or with out the condom. Now days, you must have intercourse with responsibility among all ages if you are willing to face having a child or not. You see, once the couple irresponsibly has sex (without a condom); you must face the consequences of it all. Now let us just say the couple chooses not to abort the child and deliver it. Once he/she is born, the couple cannot raise the child so they decide to give the child up for adoption. I understand how this can be very hard for the parents but now they understand that this guilt they feel has no one to blame but themselves. That’ll teach em’ a lesson…But why can’t others ever learn the possible consequences before having the child? It is like you gamble in the casino, you lose and you must pay the consequences. I believe that abortion should apply mostly to these types of situations of having sex with out protection. Rape and being infected with AIDS is very understandable, but how can you decide the other way, be pregnant, and decided “Nah, I’ll get rid of it.”….That is killing a human.
Now, I see how many of you say that there is no proof of that the embryo is a human, especially when it is being debated by bioethics but I stand behind those that believe that the Embryo is still human with having DNA, structure, and life. Just like I stand behind my opinion. If the mother lives in extreme poverty, foster homes will gladly accept them. Your conscious does not matter nor do other concequences. It's better that you learn your lesson on unsafe sex.
If this topic was suppose to stay dead, my apologies.
__________________ (MEMBER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
The more you question it, the less you will understand.
A) They do not HAVE to endure any consequences that you wish them to. They have the freedom to get rid of it, or should do.
B) Yes, idiots will misuse abortion, that's no reason to be against abortion.
C) It's not a human, end of. Don't just "stand behind" people cos you agree. People who think it's a human at conception or for most periods after that, are wrong.
If so, then teenage pregancy will be encourged. That is another HUGE reaosn why I am against it. And please do not get me started on how it can impact our society.
__________________ (MEMBER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
The more you question it, the less you will understand.
It's much better for a teenage pregnancy to be aborted than carried out, which would actually affect society more. So thanks for proving the point that abortion is needed.
The only times I personally think abortion is acceptable is if the pregnancy is potentially harmful to the mother. Possibly also if the Mother was raped. Although I do believe adoption is a better solution, I would understand the mother not wanting to carry a child that was the result of a horrible act such as rape. Yet do two wrongs make a right?
I know a guy whose mother chose adoption instead of abortion, and I assure you he is very happy his mother decided not to kill him. Why rob an unborn baby of it's right to life because you ****ed up and got pregnant? (this doesn't apply to the rape scenario obviously, that isn't an easy answer to that one. I feel the mother should just do whatever is best for her after seeking counseling. There are psychological repercussions to abortion afterall and all options should be explored.)
Pez, why not just say "I don't like abortion."? That's all you need to say.
Your beliefs as to why are irrelevant, nobody is robbing you of your beliefs, but they should not be forced. Abortion should be available to whoever wants it, no matter why. Nobody is saying you have to agree with why, but it certainly should not be banned.
People say "They need councelling first.". Of course they don't, people just don't accept that a woman's sane, rational decision could just be "I want an abortion.".
Stop giving a lump of flesh, or worse, cells, the same rights as a human being. It's utterly retarded.
Also, abortion isn't wrong nor right, inherently. There is no problem with abortion, people have, do and always will use abortions "sensibly". People will also use them irresponsibly, the responsible ones shouldn't suffer. Abortion should be open to all whatever the reason.
It's clear you don't learn anything ANY way, so we may as well leave it there.
You are basically skipping my point because I was talking about teenage sex and how safe sex can keep these situations from happening. Why are we given sex ed or any advices such as this if people are just going to go straight to taking advantage of abortion? Many have and that shows how many still haven't learned. I just came here to share my opinion. If you are pro-choice, I respect that. But an an embryo having life is still being debated so I might as well leave it that.
__________________ (MEMBER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
The more you question it, the less you will understand.
I'm not skipping it. Teenage pregnancy can happen by accident, or it can happen through irresponsibility. It's no use saying "You f*cked up, you deal with it.", cos who are you to them? It's their choice, their vagina, their foetus.
Safe sex CAN prevent it, ok great. So what?
Because that's what it is meant to be, objective EDUCATION.
"Here are the options, use whichever you desire.".
Not "education" as a means to push what YOU think they should choose. Education isn't meant to instill fear, but knowledge. Knowledge that "Yes, abortion is an option and in any sane, fair country, you are free to use it.".
It's still being debated cos people are idiots, that's why this thread lives. The pro-lifers emerge once in a while and they get whooped. There's nothing necessarily left to discuss.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 30th, 2007 09:56 PM
