The Rants of Issachar

So Caleb and I were having this interesting conversation online the other about Liberal vs. Libertarian vs. Conservative and how being a Christian fits in. Foolish man that I am I made the mistake of referencing what I would do about abortion if I were in politics. That went began a very long conversation we couldn't get into because we were both at work. A few minutes to say hi to your buddy in the morning is fine, but we can't exactly sit and chat online for an hour. (Well not ethically anyway)...

So I figured I'd transfer the discussion here. It also lets me carefully say exactly what I mean.

So what do I think of abortion? (Fair warning, this is going to be a long post).

The ethics of abortion rests on a very simple question. When does human life begin? If it begins at conception then abortion is wrong in all normal circumstances. If it begins at birth then there's nothing unethical about abortion at all. A couple of things: First, I'm excluding the possibility of life beginning before conception or after birth because I think those ideas are just silly. Secondly when I say "normal circumstances" I consider abortion to save the life of the mother when both mother and child would die otherwise to be perfectly ethical no matter when life begins. This is a very unlikely scenario, but that's what makes the other situations "normal circumstances". So I think that you can justify those very few abortions for the same reason that I think it's ethical to separate siamese twins who will eventually die without an operation even though the operation will kill one of them immediately. When faced with a losing situation, save who you can.

The important thing for me here is that if a fetus is "human", has a soul or however you phrase it, arguments about women's rights are completely irrelevant. A human's right to life automatically over-rules another human's right to convenience or a chosen lifestyle. If a fetus is not "human" or does not have a soul, then arguments about looking human or DNA or anything else are also completely irrelevant. Human rights trump non-human rights.

So when does human life begin? What I'm really asking is when are souls created? Animals are "alive", but killing them is not equivelant to murder. What is it that makes us people and when do we become people?

As a Christian I believe the Bible to be the revealed word of God, and there are several passages that suggest very strongly that life begins. One passage that I hadn't heard referenced this way until recently is the record of Mary visiting Elizabeth in Luke 1. For those of you who don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, I think it stands somewhat self-evidently that life beginning at birth is silly. How would moving a body in space, (from inside the womb to outside it), have any effect of the humanity of the child? So I think it's safe to say that life begins at some time before birth.

As I said I'm dismissing the "life before conception" possibility, so what about at conception itself? The Bible isn't terribly explicit at this point for the obvious reason that there was a shortage of ultra-sound equipment at the times. The bible wasn't written in the 21st century and therefore doesn't reflect a 21st century view of biology. The writers of the Bible simply didn't think it those terms. So just because an explicit "life begins at conception" reference isn't found doesn't mean that it doesn't begin then. Having said that, an explicit reference does not exist so we can't prove it that way either. What we do know is that there aren't a lot of clearly defined radical instantaneous changes as human fetuses develop. There's conception and pretty much everything else is gradual.

Given all of that however, I'm not prepared to go out on a limb and say that the Bible is cut and dried on life beginning at conception because it simply isn't. It's cut and dried on a lot of things, but this isn't one of those subjects because it simply wasn't an issue when the text was written.

At the same time, there are a lot of weird implications if you say that a zygote is a human being. Someone with more biology could help me out with this one, but I believe that the majority of conceptions end in spontaneous abortions? So if all conceptions result in humans then most humans are naturally aborted? Most human beings never saw the light of day? Possible, but it doesn't seem intuitive.

So I'm positive that life begins before birth, but I'm not sure when life actually begins. So what's the obvious ethical choice? Err on the side of caution. If you don't have abortions, then you can be 100% certain that you haven't murdered anyone. If you pick a point between conception and birth, you might not be murdering children, but then again you might be. Not a gamble I feel particularly comfortable taking.

So.... Is that a pro-life position or a pro-choice one? I call it reasonable.

But that wasn't the only issue Caleb & I discussed. The other is what I would do if I were a politician in Canada facing the issue and I said that I would not immediately outlaw all abortions. I stand by that. I think that abortions may be murder and I'm pretty certain that at least some of them are. So why not go ahead and outlaw them all?

For the very simple reason I wouldn't technically be able to do it. Canada is a democracy (and if you missed it I'm a firm believer in the value of democracy) and you simply can't outlaw something a majority of the population wants and expect your law to survive. If my political career would be the only casualty of such an action that might be different, but in reality there's no way an "all abortions are illegal" law would survive the democratic process even assuming you managed to get around the activist court/charter issue and get the law passed by parliament. If somehow you managed to get the law passed, the backlash would set the pro-life movement back immeasurably and you'd be worse off than you were before.

So what would I do? First of all, I'd make the things illegal that the majority of people agree on. I really doubt that partial birth / dilation & extraction abortions have a lot of support. I mean really, does anyone think these are a good idea? Even Clinton said abortion should be safe, legal & rare? Why rare? Because most people think that it's a bad idea. So outlaw the things that most people think should be outlawed.

Then next thing I would do is to make abortion alternatives ridiculously available. If we're against abortions we need to be willing to put in the effort to make alternatives available and easy. Along with this goes the demand that everyone should some respect for women & girls who make the tough decision to keep their baby when they could get an abortion. I still remember taking the bus home from high school and seeing a very pregnant girl on the bus. I was a teenager, so when I saw her I had the teenage reaction: slut. Walking home I had a bit of a revelation. She could have had an abortion and then she wouldn't have had to put up with condemning looks from arrogant idiots like me. I would have been none the wiser. Instead she chose the difficult path. That takes courage that I don't know that I would have had in her situation. I don't know who that girl was but she made a tough decision and a right one.

Finally I would continue saying that abortions are a bad idea and should be eliminated. I would keep giving my reasons why (which I think are pretty rock solid) and try to convince the people to go along with me. When I got a good majority agreeing with me, then passing a law would be trivial. It's not a terribly cool plan and it doesn't appeal to our need to fight very well, but I think it's the right thing to do because it might actually work.

So that's what I would do if I was the Prime Minister.

So if you're pro-choice do you find any of this threatening? Why? Why not?

If you're pro-life does this satisfy you? Seem like a good plan?

What does anyone think?

Posted by:  Sarah

Here's a link to my friend Zanne's blog, which I notice Andrew already commented on. (I hope that link works. If not, cut and paste).

I would like to point out that it would be an unusual person who did not think that they were being reasonable in any given matter. Andrew, can I assume when you say that you would (theoretically) make abortion alternatives "ridiculously available" that that would include all reasonable alternatives, such as increased education on how not to get pregnant for anyone aged 10 and over (becasue clearly there is something lacking with the current education offering)? Contraceptives would also be a very good alternative to abortion.

Also, while praising the tough decision of a teenager on your bus to keep her (presumably) unplanned child, you seem not to consider that the decision to abort a zygote would be equally tough. Pro-choice doesn't mean that it is an easy choice.

Posted by:  Drea

Another issue that NEEDS to be addressed is how can we stop the majority of our doctors, especially at walk-in clinics, (where women with unplanned pregnancies usually go) are not only supportive of abortions, but actually place pressure women to get one. Brutal.

Posted by:  Sarah

The majority of doctors put pressure on women to get abortions? I can smell something... yes, it smells like a conspiracy theory. Well [watch out for the irony] we could try shooting doctors that work in abortion-clinics. That would prevent the murder of some foetuses!

Posted by:  issachar

I too doubt that the majority of docs favour abortion, although I'm not a doc, so I'm pretty much pulling this out of the air... I'm sure a lot see a big distinction between late term abortions and early first trimester ones though... But why do we need to address that separately? Docs are people too.

Sarah: Of course I would include all reasonable alternatives. Different people have different definitions of reasonable of course, but I think we could arrive at a reasonable consensus.

And I don't think that aborting a zygote is as tough a choice as keeping a child. Maybe that's a function of being male, or maybe it's just because I haven't faced that choice, but I just don't see them as equally difficult. Keeping the child involves "going public". Having an abortion does not.

I'm not saying that choosing to have an abortion is an easy choice, I'm sure it's not. (Why is it a tough choice? Should the fact that it's tough give us pause?). I just think that the decision to keep the child is the brave one. Do you see it differently?

Posted by:  Sarah

Do you think the decision to have a child rests on whether you want to be public about the fact you're pregnant? Does that mean that there is some shame in being preganant under certain circumstances? Why should anyone feel ashamed for creating a life?

Andrew, you asked why would it be a tough choice to keep or not to keep a baby? Having an abortion is not an easy way out - I imagine someone who chooses to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, might feel similar emotions to someone who has miscarried or had a still-birth e.g. grief, guilt. I don't think any reasonable person (there's that word again) could find it an easy choice between terminating a life that is intrinsically their own, or to bring to life a child that they can not care for.
I'm not saying that I approve of abortion. Pro-choice appears to be considered synonymous with pro-abortion. Its not. Pro-choice doesn't mean that you have to choose abortion, but you at least have options. I don't think anybody can make that choice on behalf of the parents, but legislating against abortion would be making that choice for them.

Posted by:  zannebee

Doctors do not pressure women to get abortions. I work for a medical malpractice inurance company - do you know how much trouble a doctor would be in if he or she pressured women to have abortions? Well let me tell you - A LOT. They would be sued left and right. However, if a woman goes to a pregnancy crisis center which is really a pro-life outfit, she will be pressured NOT to have an abortion.

Posted by:  issachar

Sarah, I think that "going public" makes things harder for some people because there is a public shame to being pregnant in some circumstances. Unwed motherhood is looked down on by many people and that's particularly true when the woman is quite young or even a teenager. It's like the old double standard about sex for men & women. A man with many partners is a stud in our culture, a woman doing the same thing is a slut. That's nasty, unfair and stupid, but it's the way many people think. That's why "going public" is a tough road. My goal is not to minimize the problems a woman might with choosing an abortion, my point is that we need to remember the courage it takes to have a child knowing that many people will look down on you and counter-act that "she's a slut" mentality with a bit of "she's made the right choice despite the problems she will face" attitude.

Also, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, but it does necessarily imply that abortion is not an immoral action. This comes back to my point of whether or not a fetus is a human being. I'm not sure where you're coming from with the idea that the baby's life is "intrinsically" the mothers, but that seems a bit wishy washy to me.

Zanneby: Good to have you on. :)

Posted by:  Sarah

I'm well aware of the stigmas placed upon unmarried pregnant women. I have never conmsidered promiscuous men to be 'studs though' ;) I was subtly pointing out that perhaps these stigmas are the cause of many of our problems here...I really don't think anybody should be made to feel shame for being pregnant. Procreation is a beautiful thing.


The life of a foetus IS intrinsically the mother's, biologically, genetically and emotionally speaking. Nothing wishy washy about it. Of course you can argue about the role of the father, but the mother not only shares identical DNA with the foetus, but also her blood, oxygen, and nutrition. There is no life without that. Those would be some pretty tough bonds to break in making a decision to abort.

Pro-choice doesn't imply that abortion is a moral act. It allows the individual (i.e. the one making the choice) to decide what is moral and what is not. I consider it immoral to bring a child into the world that will not be loved or cared for - and I speak with experience at least on that point.

Posted by:  zannebee

Thanks for the welcome, issachar. You'll probably regret it later. :oD

One thing that is not addressed in your post is the reason why abortion was made legal in the first place: regardless if abortion is legal or illegal, women will have abortions. I know that some people would argue that women who have illegal abortions deserve what they get (Hemorrhaging and/or infections leading to hysterectomies, sterility or death). However, I believe that the more humane thing to do is to allow abortion to remain legal (if you don't think so, just imagine if this woman who went for a back alley abortion and died was your sister, best friend, girlfriend, wife or mother).

If someone really wishes to do something about reducing the number of abortions that are being performed, I believe that as Sarah has said, promoting sex ed and contraception is the best alternative.

You might find these statistics interesting: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/civilize.html#holland
"In the Netherlands, abortion is freely available on demand. Yet the Netherlands boasts the lowest abortion rate in the world, about 6 abortions per 1000 women per year, and the complication and death rates for abortion are miniscule. How do they do it? First of all, contraception is widely available and free -- it's covered by the national health insurance plan. Holland also carries out extensive public education on contraception, family planning, and sexuality. An ethic of personal responsibility for one's sexual activity is strongly promoted. Of course, some people say that teaching kids about sex and contraception will only encourage them to have lots of sex. But Dutch teenagers tend to have less frequent sex, starting at an older age, than American teenagers, and the Dutch teenage pregnancy rate is 9 times lower than in the U.S."

And here's an interesting story from 1962 for you to peruse at your leisure:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/26/newsid_3039000/3039322.stm

Posted by:  Drea

I sppologize that my statement was a blanket one. However, it is unfair to discredit this as an issue becuase it is wrong. Obviously it is wrong, no one disagrees with that. I should have stated that a lot of girls I know, and have talked to who have gone in for pregnancy tests have expierenced a convorsation that has made them feel pressured towards an abortion, I can think of five cases from my immediate memory. . .

Posted by:  zannebee

That's all right, we all make mistakes or assume things that may or may not be true. I guess I'd need to know what is meant by "pressured". I have two children and one of my pregnancies was confirmed at Planned Parenthood. When I was told that I was pregnant, they counselled me and asked me what I wanted to do and gave me information about my options. I felt no pressure from them to do anything, they just gave me information and allowed me to make my choice. I don't consider having information available to me to be "pressure", but maybe your friends would, I don't know.

Posted by:  Drea

I know the situations were definitely more than just providing information. Also, I have a few friends that work for the crisis pregnancy centre, they would also claim not to present a pro-life approach. Really, each situation is going to vary from expeirence to expeirence, and I think both of our prespectives are valid.

Posted by:  Liz

I knew you pressed a hot button with this blog and it has been interesting to read everyone's ideas. I have to point out Sarah's error though in saying that an unborn baby shares identical DNA with the mother. In fact, at the moment of conception, a zygote gets half of the information for it's genes from the mom's DNA and half from the father's. So this life has a completely unique DNA structure, traceable to the mom, but not the mom's exactly.

Now, to Gorman (and I think you knew this message was coming, cause Caleb warned you). I agree closely with your arguments about erring on the side of caution when life begins etc..but what I don't agree with is your hypothetical political agenda. If you really believe that abortion is immoral, why would you cater to the wishes of the public in leagally allowing an immoral practice to take place?

Posted by:  caleb reed

hey gorman.
you've already heard most of my thoughts on this but here goes any way’s...caution it's long =)

1. The "choice" argument. i agree that there is a choice involved....but the choice is whether or not to sleep with someone if you're not willing to accept responsibility for your actions. Not whether or not you can find some way to morally justify killing a human being because the consequence of your choice has now become inconvenient to you.

2.As for the argument regarding the unborn children of rape or incest victims, I think we should punish the criminal not the child. If seeing the child is too painful a reminder for the mother, fine there are literally thousands of people praying for the opportunity to adopt. But don't murder a child because of someone else's crime.

3. I disagree with you most strongly on how you would handle it legally. If abortion is in fact taking the life of human being (and you did agree that you would err on the side of caution and accept that) then how can you simply sit by and say "oh jee that's not right...please don't kill that child....i really wish you wouldn’t". I feel that as Christian's we are called to serve and protect the least of all people...those who have no voice of their own. I cannot and will not face my creator on judgment day and tell him that I stood by and watched infanticide occur because i didn’t feel it was politically viable or culturally popular to stand against it. Truth is Truth whether or not it's popular and whether or not it makes people feel warm and fuzzy and want to elect you.

http://bluereed.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=Wyatt-Halloween&id=Oct_30_02

Look at that link above. That's my son. That's what a human life looks like. Think of that face next time you think of an unborn child as a "choice" or an inconvenience. That's what you're killing. Not some faceless nameless collection of tissue. Now would I be justified in killing him if he was inconvenient? Or if I didn’t want him around at that moment? Should I say "I'm going to err on the side of caution and say you probably shouldn’t kill him...but if you want to I won't make that choice for you and if you decide to go ahead…..because I can't legislate your morality"?

I would gladly give my life in defense of his. And if I could give my life to save that of a single unborn child I would do it in a heartbeat. I grieve for us as a nation and as a people that instead of protecting children like my son we kill them by the thousands in the name of "choice" while they are at still in their mothers wombs. The one place they should be safest. I grieve that as Christians we sit idly by and allow this happen because we're afraid our stance is not the popular or politically expedient one.

Posted by:  David Welch

Maybe I'm just old fashinoned in my dealings with moral issues, but from where I stand, either abortion is right or it's not right. Either the child growing in his/her mother's tummy is a life or it's not a life. If it is a life, then killing it is morally wrong. However, we have made a stance that the baby is a life only if the mother wants it to be. For instance, if a man shoots a pregnant woman and kills the baby, the man is tried for murder. This happens because the mother wanted to keep the baby and the law regards this as a life to be preserved. If that same man were a doctor and the mother went into his clinic and requested an abortion, he would be paid for his services.

This inconsistency in the legal system only fuels the social dilemma that many people find themselves in. However, you cannot in one instance call a baby a life and in the next call it not a life based on the wishes of the mother. With the technology that is available now, I think that it is pretty easy to see a baby as life at very early stages in the pregnancy.

The fact is, the abortion issue should not be about the mother at all, it is about the life growing inside of her. The baby is depenedent on the mother, but it is not a part of the mother like her leg or her hand. Therefore it has rights outside of the mother's rights.

Whenever this debate is raised, the first response to a pro-life argument is what about cases of incest, rape or the life of the mother. If any of you have those statistics available, I would love to see the actual percentage of abortions performed in those circumstances. I suspect, that the vast majority are performed to save themselves from having to deal with the consequences of their actions.

In my opinion, the largest problem with the abortion debate is that it is a head game. We have turned it into an intellectual argument with all the sterility of a hospital. The real issue is what happens to the mother and the baby. How many people do you know who are really glad that they had their abortion. I no of no one. From the women that I have heard, it's a deeply painful experience, emotionally, that causes a wound that they never fully recover from. But this is simply glossed over as an unfortunate side affect of our great freedom of choice. There are millions of babies that we will never know. Babies that would have grown up alongside my kids and your kids. Babies that would grow to be firemen and doctors, street sweepers and garbage men. And those mothers will never know that little person now and neither will we. And you cannot replace the one with another. I know from how different mine are that they are all unique and unreplacable. I've heard it said that 1/2 of all fertilized eggs die. That maybe so, but that is God's choice, and as the creator of the life, not just the two people who acted through His natural plan, that's His choice. But even in that, we grieve for the lost life. Just ask any mother who has had a miscarriage. But when you add the conscious decision of ending the life inside of you, the grief and the guilt must be unbearable. So the next time you debate about this issue, please take it out of the classroom and bring it into the livingroom.

Posted by:  Sarah

Liz: I apologise for my choice of words. My PhD in genetics did not teach me to write such misleading statements. When I said "share identical DNA", it is true that mother and child share identical DNA. I neglected to specify that 50 % of their DNA is identical (in theory). Of course DNA mutations are not uncommon, and 50 % is probably not exactly accurate in most cases. Even identical twins are unlikely to have 100 % identical DNA. Kudos for picking up the error! Biology lesson over.

Caleb: I agree with you absolutely that the choice *should* be about whether or not to make the baby in the first place, not how to deal with it once it happens. As I've said already, being pro-choice with regards to abortion rights doesn't make me pro-abortion. Prevention is the best medicine! But we are talking in the context of our VERY priveledged existences, and we are fortunate enough (I assume) to have been educated in how babies are made and how to prevent unplanned pregnancies from occurring. We are a very fortunate tiny percentage of the world's population. I have personally taught anatomy to university students who literally had no idea where babies came from. To give you an example, one (very intelligent) girl thought semen was placed in the woman's belly button - I am not joking, this is all too common a problem! Other than making for an interesting day in the anatomy lab, this really brought home to me the fact that even within our priveledged, supposedly educated communities, there is absolutely no avoiding the fact that too many people do not know how to avoid pregnancy. And for the most part, these are at least people who can physically or financially take responsibility for a child. But there are literally billions of people in different societies (although I realise we're focusing on the issue in North America)that not only have no idea how to avoid pregnancy, but have absolutely no resources to take care of the resulting children. Many of these children have a very short life expectancy due to appalling living conditions. I'm not suggesting abortion is the answer to the worlds's problems. I think a massive overhaul of the education system is the key, followed up by a massive overhaul of govenment aid programs so that pregnant women stand a chance at looking after their babies. Adoption is also a possibility, but the list of children to be adopted far exceeds the number of couples who are looking to adopt a child, particularly in less fortunate societies than North America. There are no easy answers to these problems, but outlawing abortion will not help. It only makes certain people feel like they have the moral highground. Clearly, not the same thing!

Posted by:  Sarah

To add one more very important piece of information...
Outlawing abortion, will not prevent abortion from taking place. It will just make abortion an unregulated, less safe practice. And that will lead to not only the death of the foetus, but the death of some of the mothers. I believe I am correct in saying that this is why abortion was legalised in the first place, to regulate the practice and make it as safe a procedure for the mother as possible.

Posted by:  Liz

Do I think the public, particularly teens, should be better informed about sex. You bet! But is it the public school system's job to take on a topic that is not only physical in nature, but social and moral as well? I for one don't feel comfortable sending my kid into a classroom to be told about all different aspects of sexuality, each view being presented as acceptable. I think that's my job as the parent (how sad that so many parents haven't built good relationships in the first place with their kids). Also, I've heard statistics that suggest that as we spend more and more money on public sex ed classes, the teenage pregnancy rate keeps climbing. Why is that?

Is unwanted pregnancy stressful? Diffucult emotionally, physically, and financially? I bet it is (I watched three of my very closest high school friends go through it). But is taking the unplanned life a cure? No way! A life is a wonderful thing, any life...the life of an unborn baby, the life of my 90 year-old grandma who has dementia, the life of an autistic or mentally retarded child. None of these lives are easy to care for, but if we begin thinking that it's an option to take inconventient lives, we are reverting to Hitler's way of thinking. And as to the "abortions are going to happen anyway" argument, that doesn't justify them. Just because something happens doesn't make it ok. Rapes happen. Are they ok? Students cheat on tests. Should we just regulate cheating because it's going to happen anyway? My son is one-and-a-half, and no matter how well I parent him, he will occasionally disobey me. Sometimes he let's go of my hand and heads toward traffic. He's been doing this since he could walk, but does that mean I should just give up and let him, because even when I tell him not to, he's just going to do it anyway? No way, I have to preserve his safety. Preserving his life takes precedence over his tendency to do it anyway.
For the people who keep defending abortion, do you think late-term abortions are ok?

Posted by:  David Welch

I'm curious. I hear regularly that the problem with outlawing abortions is that some people will then go and do it illegally. I'm really curious about your thoughts on this one. Should we simply legalize everything that so we can regulate more safety? Should we legalize all forms of drugs to help the people who get a bad batch of meth? Should we legalize theft so that the thieves don't hurt themselves going through a window. Should we legalize murder so that the murder does not end up being injured himself by his victim or a malfunctioning weapon? Etc. Etc. you get my point.

This argument always has sounded like a emotional knee jerk reaction to avoid a specific set of consequences while overlooking all of the consequences for having it be legal. I'm curious to here your thoughts on this.

Posted by:  Sarah

Liz: I haven't seen a single person defend abortion in this forum. Just the right to choose one, which is entirely different.
I do not think late-term abortions are ok - you might like to notice that I have not said that I think early-term abortions are ok. By late-term the woman should be well aware that she is pregnant, and all decisions to keep or not to keep the baby should have been made long before - a case of speak now or forever hold your peace. Although I personally know people who honestly did not know they were preganant until they gave birth. Am I correct in saying that legally, abortions have to be performed in the first trimester if at all, unless under extreme circumstances (like the life at mother at risk). Premature babies born as early as 6 months have survived, although with great difficulties, so an abortion at the late stage of pregnancy could be terminating the life of something that had potential to survive outside of the mother's body - with medical intervention of course.

For those pro-life advocates who have children, did you bother to have an amniocentesis? There is about a 0.5% chance of abortion/miscarriage associated with this procedure. If yes, why?

Posted by:  Sarah

David: I was not suggesting for a second that keeping abortion legal was the ideal solution to the consequences of abortion. I believe I have said this several times now. My suggestion was that illegalising abortion would make no difference to the existing problems, but would create further problems to boot. There are no easy answers (have I made that clear yet?).

I've noticed that the common response to my suggestion that illegalising abortion would be non-productive, is a knee-jerk reaction similar to yours, and I note that it offers no possible solutions, only obstructive arguement.

Posted by:  zannebee

Hey Sarah, I agree wholeheartedly. I mentioned earlier about back alley abortions, but apparently the subject was sidestepped.

Caleb, I have no problem with you having your beliefs, but I do think that they are quite stringent and I have a problem with you pushing your beliefs onto other people. I too have children. I have a boy and a girl. I know what a human life looks like, so let's not condescend. Knowing the value of human life, I would never force someone else to have a child when they are not ready to, emotionally, physically or financially. Actually, I think about my daughter when I think of what it would be like if abortion were illegal. I would hope that it would never happen, but there is no guarantee that she would not ever become unintentionally pregnant. If abortion were illegal and she decided to have an abortion anyway, how devastating would it be, not only to me, but to all of the members of my family, if she decided to have a back alley abortion (which would be extremely painful by the way) and she died as a result. And if she were, God forbid, raped, I would never dream to force her to have a child that was conceived as a result of rape if she did not want to. Do you know how emotionally devastating that would be? I remember hearing a story on NPR about a woman who was raped when she was a teenager. She found out a few weeks later that she was pregnant as a result. When she was told, she began screaming and screaming and could not stop. She said it was like being raped all over again. How can you just dismiss that experience without ever knowing what it is like? Walk a mile in another's shoes my man, before you judge so harshly.

You say that women have a choice when they choose to have sex with someone. OK, so what is this choice? By your standards, if a woman never wants to conceive, they should never have sex because no contraceptive is totally foolproof. Therefore, if she wants to get married, she needs to find a man who would never want to have sex with her and she should somehow (I don't know how) deaden her sexual urges. What are the odds of that? And what kind of choice is that? It's a pretty ridiculous concept. Here, I think you are assuming that a woman who becomes unintentionally pregnant is sleeping around and you are insinuating that this woman is a slut and deserves what she gets if she has sex. This woman could be a wife and mother of 4 whose contraception has failed and she and her husband can afford no more children.

Did you know that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible tells them that blood transfusions are a sin, so they don't believe in them. I came across a case at work where a child born to Jehovah's Witnesses needed a blood transfusion, but they refused to allow the child to have one based on their religious beliefs. The child is now mentally retarded and physically damaged as a result. The Jehovah's Witnesses gave the child to the state because they did not feel capable of raising it. This poor child would have had a perfectly normal life if it had just been given a blood transfusion as an infant. Suppose Jehovah's Witnesses tried to make blood transfusions illegal? You would balk at this wouldn't you? Why? They believe that they are right. Just like you believe that you are right. However, they are not trying to force this belief on you. They are not trying to make blood transfusions illegal. I think that they are wrong and I think it's criminal what they did to that child (and what they continue to do to other people) but at least they are not forcing the rest of us to follow their beliefs.

Personally, I believe that a zygote is a zygote. If there is a loving omniscient God who watches over us, he or she would know if a zygote is going to become a human being or not, and would not assign a soul to a zygote which will never become a human being. However, I will not force you to believe what I believe. I would just ask that you allow others to have their own beliefs.

Posted by:  caleb reed

sarah -
you say that you are defending the right to choose an abortion rather than defending abortion itself. " Liz: I haven't seen a single person defend abortion in this forum. Just the right to choose one, which is entirely different. "

I don't see how any reasoning person could morally justify arguing for the right of one person to "choose" to murder another person. At that point you might as well argue that it would be perfectly all right for you to choose to murder my son. After all if you have the right to arbitrarily choose to murder one person why not another? Or should you only have the legal choice to murder members of your own family?

by saying that a woman somehow has an inherent right to murder another person...any person. You start down a very slippery slope indeed.

By defending that right to choose an abortion you are in fact defending the killing of a child itself.

caleb

Posted by:  zannebee

By the way Liz, abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany - to increase the birth rate. You can find that info on the web site I posted earlier, if anyone bothered to read it.

Posted by:  caleb reed

zann -
your post of tolerance sounds quite nice.. it's pretty silly when you think about it but it sounds nice.

So how far should my tolerance extend? should i allow you to "choose" to kill my son or my brother or myself....because i'd hate to push my belief in "murder=bad" on anybody.

by your reasoning i should be free to choose to kill anyone i want. because for society or you or anyone else to tell me otherwise is "pushing your beliefs" on me.

caleb

Posted by:  zannebee

Caleb - No, I don't think so. The majority of people would agree that murdering a human being is wrong, regardless of their religion. The trouble here is that you and I disagree on when human life begins. Therefore, we have a conflict of beliefs and it becomes more of a religious or philosophical question. If the majority of people agreed that people should not have abortions, we would not be having this debate.

Posted by:  caleb reed

Zan -

so if a majority of a population agrees something is morally right then that makes it morally right? that would be a very interesting position to try and defend......say going back to everyone's favorite nazism.....so because the majority of germans believed the propoganda that the jews where responsible for their troubles....that would make the final solution morally ok.

Or take slavery. there was a time when the vast majority of the population of the US felt that slavery was morally right.....does that mean that it was morally right?

If you don't have an absolute to base your morals on....what is right and what is wrong will always fluctuate with current opinion.

and thats where you and I will never agree.....I beleive that there is an absolute standard for morality that is not dependant on the whims of current culture.

Posted by:  zannebee

I think that you misunderstood what I said. What I meant was that humans have agreed that murdering a human being is wrong and that humans have believed this for as long as we have been conscious that we are human, not as a result of a "whim of current culture".

Can I assume that what you mean by an "absolute" to base your morals on that you mean your religion (specifically Christianity)? I also have moral standards, but they are not based in Christianity. Just because I am not a Christian does not mean that I have no standards of morality. To assume that all non-Christians are immoral would be a very erroneous assumption and to assume that people who have no religion have no standards of morality would also be erroneous. Most people agree on certain standards of morality regardless of religion, and have done so for aeons.

In fact, I believe that most of the 10 commandments are just common sense.

But see, here we are back to our basic disagreement, which is that we don't agree on when life begins and that I believe that zygotes are not humans and I feel that it is more important to take care of the people that are living right now, whereas you feel that zygotes are living human beings.

Posted by:  Sarah

Just to clear up any confusion with terminology...
A zygote is merely a fertilized ovum, unimplanted in the uterus.
An embryo, which I think is what people mean when they say zygote, is the term given to the developing group of cells until the 8th week of pregnancy.
After 8 weeks, it is referred to as a foetus.
It would be the embryo that is aborted in an early-term abortion, and is physically nothing more than a ball of undifferentiated cells.

Posted by:  Liz

Sarah- Maybe I am missing something here, but isn't an emryo more than just "a ball of undifferentiated cells"? By the time a woman usually finds out she's pregnant (about 14 to 16 days after ovulation), the unimplanted zygote has already become a embryo and has three different types of cells. Between three to four weeks it has a primitive beating heart, and by eight weeks it has brain waves. I believe that most states allow abortions until about 20 weeks, at which point it can breathe, swallow, suck, blink, sleep, and sense pain. I can't speak for my friends, but I myself did not have an amnio.

Zanebee- Has society really always agreed on its definition of murder? The ancient Romans and Greeks practiced infanticide, the Romans turned murder into entertainment in the colluseum, free Greeks could kill their slaves without punnishment. And what about human sacrifice in other cultures? Or killing black slaves in America? So while humans do generally agree not to kill each other,the definition of who qualifies as a person gets blurred. And you're right...since you don't think human life begins when I do, we'll go around in circles arguing. About Nazi Germany, I didn't mean to literally compare today's abortion practices with theirs, just to draw a comparison between the taking of unwanted lives...and since Germany wanted them, that would make sense for them to outlaw abortions.

I am very proud to live in a free society. Part of that freedom involes protection of it's citizens from the harms of others. I just happen to believe that an unborn baby deserves equal rights, and as hard as it may be for the mother to carry an unexpected child, the most brutal thing would be taking away someone's chance at life at all.

Posted by:  Marco

I might regret getting involved in this, but just a few questions to Sarah:

You say that a zygote's DNA is 50% identical to its mother's -- somehow this is used as an argument that it is a part of the mother. How does that make it a part of its mother? If I understand genetics, I STILL consist of my mother's DNA (50% anyway). Am I still part of my mother?

You say you're against late-term abortions, but I don't think you specified whether you're in favor of mothers having the right to decide whether to have a late-term abortion or not.

Lastly, I do think the others have a point about the question of whether something might be outlawed even if it happens anyways. If an unborn child is indeed a human being (and I warn you that you'll go NUTS trying to prove that it isn't) then it should be protected in the same way other humans are, shouldn't it? I mean, we legislate against hate crime or war crimes even though they occur anyways, and even though you can't really say that humanity has come to a consensus that it is a bad thing.

Posted by:  zannebee

Liz - yes, it is true that there are instances where people have made excuses to murder other people. However, most of these have been the exception and not the rule. In any case, the reason why I mentioned anything about "moral standards" is because Caleb seemed to be alleging that the only way that people can have morals is through an "absolute" - by which I am assuming he means religion.

However, many people have been murdered in the name of religion: The Crusades, The Salem Witch Trials, "holy wars"... even human sacrifice was done in the name of religion. As for slavery in the United States.... most slave owners were Christians. So I don't think that Christians have a moral high ground to stand on really.

Posted by:  zannebee

I don't think anyone bothered to read the statistics about Holland that I posted earlier, so I'll go ahead and post them again:

"In the Netherlands, abortion is freely available on demand. Yet the Netherlands boasts the lowest abortion rate in the world, about 6 abortions per 1000 women per year, and the complication and death rates for abortion are miniscule. How do they do it? First of all, contraception is widely available and free -- it's covered by the national health insurance plan. Holland also carries out extensive public education on contraception, family planning, and sexuality. An ethic of personal responsibility for one's sexual activity is strongly promoted. Of course, some people say that teaching kids about sex and contraception will only encourage them to have lots of sex. But Dutch teenagers tend to have less frequent sex, starting at an older age, than American teenagers, and the Dutch teenage pregnancy rate is 9 times lower than in the U.S."

Posted by:  Marco

I think there are two issues at hand here, and two that get constantly confused (especially in politics). One is whether abortion (in itself) is morally wrong or morally neutral (some may in fact argue that it's morally right, but I have yet to hear someone claim that without heavy reservations). Another issue is whether, if it were morally wrong, the government of a given country should legislate against it. That I find a trickier question. Zan, even you seem to agree that lower abortion rates in the Netherlands are a good thing. The question is whether legalizing something is the right way to go if it means diminishing it -- as if (to name an example we no doubt all agree on) child pornography laws should be repealed if it were proven that countries without such laws actually have less child pornography.

Posted by:  issachar

Wow...

Thank you everyone for contributing to the conversation. I think I see the limit of not having threads though... Must find a solution to that.

But I want to play too, so I'll do responses as individual posts.

Posted by:  issachar

Liz:

Nice to have you on. You asked:

"If you really believe that abortion is immoral, why would you cater to the wishes of the public in leagally allowing an immoral practice to take place?"
Two reasons:
1) Jesus didn't use force to achieve his ends although as God he could have. If he won't do use force, how can I justify it?
2) Having said that, Jesus wasn't the civil authority, as a politician I would be the civil authority. But in a democratic system, I lack the power to impose my will on an unwilling majority. So if I want to change things I have to first convince a healthy majority that my view is correct. And that's actually exactly what I'm doing here. I think abortion is immoral. I believe that I can PROVE that at least some abortions are immoral. (Is anyone disagreeing with the my assertion that "partial birth" abortions are immoral & should be stopped?) So I'm trying to convince as many people as possible to share my views so that at least those abortions will not occur.

I believe in standing up for what is right and I believe in actually making a difference. Pissing into the wind trying to get all abortions to stop with a single act of legislation and achieving nothing is not what I want. Getting rid of the abortions most people know are wrong first and then talking about the rest of them actually achieves some good.

Posted by:  issachar

Zannabe...

You make a very powerful point about dangerous illegal abortions. (No sidestepping intended, I just didn't get around to posting). Those deaths are tragic and should be avoided. But those are the result of TWO things.

Abortion being illegal is the obvious cause, but the second cause is those women believing that they have no alternative. If either one is removed, so is the problem of "back-alley" abortions.

I want to remove the second. That's why I believe it's important to change the mindset about the decision to keep a child and have alternatives promoted.

You said that you think that Zygotes are not human. Fair enough. When do you think a fetus becomes human? And should you not be opposed to abortions after that stage? Would you support a law that would outlaw abortions after that stage?

Posted by:  issachar

Caleb:
Point 1) I agree.
Point 2) I agree.
Point 3) I disagree. But it's was more than "please don't". It's "That's wrong, you mustn't do that. Here let me give you an alternative." I still love Mother Theresa's challenge to us. "I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child." The thing is that she meant it and proved it every day. Can I step up like that? I honestly don't know. But I should be able to.

I don't take my legal stance because "I can't legislate morality". Governments legislate morality all the time. I take that stance because in a democratic system I lack the capacity to impose an unpopular decision. So I must make the decision popular in order for it to happen. I know you'd die for this issue, but this isn't the kind of fight you can win that way. The only way to win is to convince people that abortion is wrong.

(And I love Wyatt's Robin Hood outfit)

Posted by:  issachar

David:

The fact is, the abortion issue should not be about the mother at all, it is about the life growing inside of herYou are so right. That's exactly my point on the ethics of abortion. Is it human? I say think it is, and unless someone can prove that it isn't, then we'd better not do abortions.

Most of the pro-choice stuff I read sidesteps this issue. This is central.

Posted by:  issachar

Sarah:

I did think you have some sort of biology training somewhere... :P

While I'm sure that outlawing abortion will not elminate it, let's be frank. Outlawing abortion would definately reduce it's frequency. And if you accept the premise that a fetus is a human life (and therefore has human rights), that is a good thing.

So when do you think a fetus "becomes human" and thus aquires human rights?

Posted by:  issachar

Sarah:

Apparently I should read all the posts before contributing because you already sort of answered my question.

I'll rephrase:

Would you support a law that outlawed late term abortions? (My previously stated saving mothers lives comparison to cojoined twins exception still stands)

Posted by:  issachar

Zanne:

Thanks for the posting on the Holland stats. I'd heard them before, but the reminder is good.

I think sex ed is a good thing. I teach high school, so I occaisionally think about social education. Sarah's story about the girl thinking semen goes in the belly button is unbelievable. Well I do believe it, but you know what I mean. That's seriously messed up and school's should correct that. That's biology. It's part (or should be part) of the curriculum.

What school's should not do is indoctrinate kids with ideas that reasonable people disagree on. So promoting non-coital sexual experimentation to reduce pregnancies is not okay. (Yes I have heard this proposed, though not in my school).

Do you think this is reasonable?

Posted by:  zannebee

Marco - The argument about child pornography really doesn't hold water. Women who have abortions are not sexual deviants, they are normal people, stuck between a rock and a hard place making a difficult decision. There is no evidence that making child pornography legal would reduce it. I realize that you were trying to take something that would be repugnant to me and relate it, but there is no relation.

Issachar - I understand your points. However, I have to disagree with you on one thing, and that is that you assume that there could be a time when abortion was completely eliminated. I don't think that this is possible - there will always be incidences of abortion. I also think that making abortion illegal has little effect. In America, it has been shown that the states that have the most stringent abortion laws tend to also have the most abortions. So obviously, just outlawing abortion is not the answer. I think the Holland has a terrific example to follow to lower abortion rates. You might also be interested to know that in Sweden in the 1990's, their birth rate increased to more than two children per woman. Why the baby boom? "the creation of a 15-month paid parental leave, a doubling of the number of day care centers, and other perks, such as paid leave for parents of sick children. The government's policy is not to increase the birth rate, though -- it's to help children successfully integrate into society. A lesson can be learned from that policy, because many countries that made abortion illegal -- Nazi Germany for instance -- did it to increase the birth rate. Obviously, a far more humane and effective way of increasing the birth rate, as demonstrated by Sweden, is to give parents the time and the resources to raise children well."

I know that a lot of pro-life people like to call pro-choice people "pro-abortion". I am not pro-abortion. I simply believe that the evidence shows that 1.) there will always be incidences of abortion, 2.) lower abortion rates ARE a good thing... nobody really "wants" to have an abortion, 3.) we need to take care of the people who are already living on this earth before we start worrying about the unborn.

As far as when a zygote becomes a human being... as I said, I don't think that an omniscient and loving God would assign a soul to a fertilized egg that he or she knows will never become a human being. That said, I do draw a line somewhere. I don't believe in late term abortions except in cases to save the mother's life. I guess that I believe what Sarah believes, that the choice should be made early on. I also think that the "morning after" pill and Mifepristone are good options.

Here's something that you may or may not have thought of: one reason why abortion is legal in the United States is because the courts have determined that women have a right to their reproductive choices. If abortion were made illegal, it would reverse this decision. If it were decided that women do not have a right to reproductive choice, that means that the government could theoretically force women to have abortions if they so chose.

Posted by:  Sarah

Its a shame that this discussion had to embark on personal attacks.

Posted by:  Liz

I just wanted the thank you all for the good discussion and make it known that any of my arguments were not meant to be personal at all, just intellectual.

Zanne- I wouldn't insinuate that you are an immoral person. I have been friends with people of diverse beliefs and a lack of belief in Christ does not mean the person is without decency. But I do see popular culture heading in the direction of pluralism. If you adopt the notion that no one person's truth is any more valid than another's, how do we agree on right and wrong? Or does right and wrong sinply become popular vs. unpopular. I'll say that it's a shame that the Christian legacy includes so many atrocities and hurts, which is why I don't worship the church. And I don't like to be called religious either. I did read your post on Holland, both times. They made good points in the discussion on education. Finally, you don't like giving women the choice of late-term abortions, but you think they should have the choice of early-term. Where exactly do you draw the line between the two and why?

And by the way, I worship loving and forgiving God, who would forgive any woman for having an abortion. I'd just like to see abortion discouraged from happening in the first place.

Take a look at http://www.visembryo.com/baby/
Where can we arbitrarily decide when abortion is humane and when it's not? As I said, by the time a woman usually finds out she is pregnant, she's at least 14 days along, and I imagine she might wait another week or two before going in and getting one.

Issachar-"Jesus didn't use force to achieve his ends although as God he could have. If he won't do use force, how can I justify it?"
What is it that you would be "forcing" a woman to do? Couldn't you also look at it as "forcing" an unborn baby to die?

Posted by:  Marco

Zanne -- the brief exchange of words we've had is revealing an OCEAN of misunderstandings already. I'm trying to come to grips with how I should explain this, and I'm not sure I can, but I'll just warn you that this is gonna be a long comment.

First of all: my posting was on the fact that the question of whether or not you believe abortion is morally wrong (in the same way that murder, theft, etc. would be) is NOT THE SAME QUESTION as whether or not you believe that the government should legislate against it. I believe that adultery is morally wrong, but I'm not lobbying for any government to outlaw it.

It was in addressing the SECOND question that I used the example of child pornography because I'm pretty sure we all at least agree on that being morally wrong. You meet that with the words
"I realize that you were trying to take something that would be repugnant to me and relate it, but there is no relation." -- and thereby address the FIRST question (i. e. whether we are talking about something being morally wrong).

I know that for you there is no relation because you don't believe abortion to be wrong. I was trying to illustrate the dilemma that we're faced with when we believe something is wrong, but have to admit that it occurs less if it is not legislated against.

If the example of child pornography is too repugnant or smacks too much of emotional manipulation, I'll try to illustrate this with poaching. Say you believe that shooting endangered African animals is wrong (you probably already believe this, and I do too). Then say that one African country decides to repeal all poaching laws, and ends up five years later with much lower poaching statistics than its neighboring countries. Do you understand that you and I might be a little torn as to how to feel about this? On the one hand, poaching has been reduced -- great! On the other hand, the government is not really taking a stand against this, and we sort of feel that such a position is a wildcard.

This is the dilemma that pro-lifers face. Since you are not a pro-lifer, I don't expect you to be facing it, but it would be good if you were aware of it. (I posted it on the blog mostly as a clarification to some of the other discussions going on.)

HOWEVER, if I understand your position correctly, you view abortion as something legitimate but not ideal. Because it's legitimate it shouldn't be outlawed, but because it's not ideal we should be happy to see abortion rates drop. Someone else might feel the same way about poaching -- isn't really glad that it's happening, but doesn't believe it should be outlawed (because, perhaps, many poor African families have no other source of income). Both of you have the common ground of wanting to see poaching decrease, and both of you also don't want families to starve.

The problem with these debates is that both sides may often be striving for the same positive goals, but will be fighting as to which one is more important. I think you and I both agree that the world would be better if there were fewer abortions and if the women who do have abortions were not seen as criminals.

But this is where it's so difficult. If abortion actually takes a human life, then that would mean that there is a whole holocaust taking place. This has nothing to do with whether or not you or I believe in God. If an abortion takes a human life (biological, not theological, criteria would have to do), then millions of human lives are being lost because of the abortions being performed.

I know I'm sounding like a typical right-wing nut right now, but I have found it very difficult to establish that 1.) life does not begin before birth, and 2.) taking the life of an unborn child that would complicate your life is somehow morally different than, say, taking the life of members of a minority group that causes trouble in your society. What, besides age, is the difference?

THIS is the difficulty. And I think the conflict has gotten so extreme because it is easy to see the mothers as criminals instead of victims. This is a great pity, but you see how easy it is to do that. When I mention child pornography, you immediately talk about "sexual deviants" -- as if they were only base criminals. Well aren't sexual deviants victims too? Should we not treat and help them rather than condemn?

I know that by returning to this topic I may be doing the argument some harm, but I think that this is because there are such strong emotions attached to something like this. But do you see that if a society were to devote itself to treating and helping sexual deviants, child pornography would stop because there would be no market for it? You say that there is no evidence that decriminalizing it would reduce it -- but could that be because no one has decriminalized it yet? Any "evidence" you could possibly have on the matter is theoretical anyways. At the moment these sexual deviants are too ashamed and afraid to seek help because the laws and the society are very much against them.

The victim-agressor is a very difficult role to approach. I know it looks like cheap emotional manipulation for me to bring this up. But one thing you have to accept is that, like it or not, there are many people (probably the majority of the world's population) who feel about abortion more or less like you feel about child pornography. WHETHER THEY SHOULD FEEL THAT WAY is a different question, but the fact is that, if you're going to understand them, you need to understand that that's how they DO feel.

For every abortion there are two primary victims (and of course many secondary ones). The biggest pity is that most approaches right now will try to save either one OR the other -- either the unborn child from an abortion OR the mother from unnecessary pain and difficulty. Most will say that they are trying to save both, but everyone has an agenda as to which of the two is more important, and if push comes to shove, that one becomes all-important. Truly loving, respecting and saving both victims is a true challenge.

I'm not sure if any of this will help. I realize I've cut open about a dozen topics.

Posted by:  zannebee

Marco - no, you did not do harm to your argument. Believe me, I do understand your position. With the poaching example, yes, you are right, I do think it is wrong. But I would also say that if legalizing it reduces the poaching, then yes, by all means legalize it. Sometimes the end does justify the means. However, I also threw in the example of Sweden to show what I think a compassionate society can do to help women make the choice NOT have an abortion, if that is truly what they wish, rather than just outlaw abortion. In the example of poaching, if people are poaching because their families are starving, perhaps a compassionate society would try to solve the problem of starvation, rather than just outlaw poaching.

As far as child pornography is concerned, I think it's comparing apples and oranges, which is why I did not respond to it. That said, I do understand what you are saying about the perpetrators being victims. I can only assume that you mean that these people were also victims of sexual abuse and that is why they become abusers. That is true in a lot of cases. When someone is abused, as they get older, they generally identify with either the victim or the abuser and adopt one role or the other. I have studied some psychology, so that's where this is coming from. And yes, I can feel some compassion for the abuser AS THE VICTIM. And I have no problem with my government giving them psychological help in the form of counseling or what have you. However, AS THE ABUSER I have to cut my compassion short, if you understand what I am saying. I know for a fact that it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to stop sexual abusers (whether they be child molesters or rapists or sexual sadists) from abusing again, because somehow, their wires were crossed when they become of age sexually, and their abuse and need for power over another human being as an abuser is tied to their sexual urges.

Have you ever seen the movie "The Cell"? I think that's a great movie. It shows everything that I just talked about.

Posted by:  Marco

Zanne, you're awesome. You've managed to continue the conversation with a tight response to my sprawling mess of a comment.

So two things:

1. As you see with the poaching example, the end often justifies the means. I think that indeed we can often expect problems like abortion, drug abuse, etc. to decrease if they are not treated as crime. (I mean, check out what prohibition did to alcohol consumption.) The reason is obvious: people do not respond well to being told what's right and wrong, and they'll feel that all their dissatisfaction springs out of the guilt that they're being made to feel. If you don't make them feel any guilt, they have the freedom to ask themselves what it is that they REALLY want, and surprisingly they will often choose what they would not have chosen if someone had been guilt-tripping them. HOWEVER like I said with the poaching example, it would be comforting to know that governments take a stand on moral issues. [The developments we see in Sweden and the Netherlands may only be temporary glitches in a curve that may head elsewhere someday.] To give a most extreme example, can you imagine coming to a country with the lowest crime rate in the world, only to find out that their laws against murder only amount to a slap on the wrist? I mean, the low crime rate would make you feel safe, but the fact that there would be no consequence for someone abusing the legal system would make you feel a little queasy, wouldn't it?

Like I say, an extreme example to show how ridiculous this principle could become. As you see, the ends justifying the means is a precarious thing here. If indeed a relaxation (or complete repealing?) of murder laws were to lead to lower murder rates, we would not necessarily feel safer.

2. Yes, in a way I'm comparing apples to oranges. Deviant sexuality is usually a pathological state, whereas abortion is usually a desperate decision in a desperate situation. But what interests me is the role of the victim. As Issachar points out, most pro-choice arguments focus on the mother as the victim who should be given the right to have options open for finding her way out of the situation. The question of whether the fetus is a human being and, as such, also has rights that stand in conflict with those of the mother's -- that question is sidestepped. And both are victims. I, too, see the mother as a victim, but I would apply to her the same words you applied to a deviant aggressor:

"I can feel some compassion for the abuser AS THE VICTIM. ... However, AS THE ABUSER I have to cut my compassion short, if you understand what I am saying."

If the fetus/zygote is a blob of the mother's tissue, then the morality of abortion is about the same as the morality of an appendectomy. If, however, it is a real human being, then we do have to talk about the mother not only as a victim, but also as an abuser. It sounds harsh (and I certainly don't believe that judging or guilt-tripping them will help in any way), but I see no other way out.

Posted by:  zannebee

But I do see a way out, as the example of the Netherlands. The end justifies the means.

Posted by:  Marco

It only remains to be seen whether this solution is satisfying in the long term. But I agree, of all current models, it seems to be producing the best results.

Posted by:  Marco

Correction to previous post: I have no idea what I mean by "all current models". It's not like I've researched every country's stance on the issue and what results it is producing. I do think that there may be countries where abortions aren't performed and pregnant women aren't victimized either. The "back alley abortions" argument holds no water -- unless you also want to argue that countries should legalize female circumcision since the illegal ones are taking place anyways, and in a much more painful and less sanitary way than would be the case if they were performed in hospitals.

Posted by:  zannebee

See if you can find a country like that. I am interested.

I didn't respond to your other statement about women having abortions being abusers because I don't buy into that. It is comparing apples and oranges because as you say, deviant sexual behavior is not the same as trying to make a "desperate decision in a desperate situation".

By the same token, the female circumcision argument is also not the same. In the pedophile instance and the female circumcision instance, women and/or children are being sexually abused. I don't think that a woman making the difficult choice of whether to have a child or not constitutes abuse, sexual or otherwise.

But to get back to my initial point - which is that pro-lifers, in my opinion, focus on the wrong issues. personally, I wish that they would focus more on making the world more family/child friendly rather than insisting that every woman who gets pregnant must give birth, regardless of whether the child will have a decent life or not. I'd like to see people working harder towards a world where all children have the opportunity to have decent lives before we talk about forcing women to give birth when they are not prepared to do so, and the children are not really welcomed into the world. Not every child gets adopted.

I don't know if you read the article that Sarah posted from my blog, but you can see it here. This article really spells out the problem that I have with a lot of pro-lifers.

Posted by:  Marco

Zannebee -- I read your blog posting, and I agree with what you say: there is a strange dissonance in America. The idea of the "religious right" has always seemed very odd to me anyways, as it implies that if you believe a fetus to be human you will also believe that medicine should not be socialized, guns should be readily available to all, and that any country having either oil or weapons of mass destruction should be made to kneel before the USA. And the worst thing is that these incongruous ideas are all fought for under the banner of Christianity.

So it's true that a lot of pro-lifers focus on the wrong issues. But is it a majority of pro-lifers? Maybe it's just the ones who get the publicity. In my experience, I can say that I know maybe three pro-lifers who regularly go to rallies and open demonstrations (and even they don't go more than once a year I think). But I know dozens (maybe over a hundred actually) who actively support adoption, women's counselling services, orphanages, medical aid for the lower classes, and other social services. Some have dedicated their whole lives to these things. Maybe my personal experience would be different if I lived in a red state, but I think it's pretty representative of pro-lifers worldwide.

Meanwhile, Issachar's beef with pro-choicers still stands: the question of whether or not the fetus is a human being is largely ignored. If it is human, then abortion becomes a question of human rights, and the comparisons to child porn and female circumcision aren't that far off. And this is not a question of whether or not you believe in God or a human soul. If I'm in an accident and the paramedics arrive on the scene and say "he's alive" they don't mean "it's been established that he has a soul." They more likely mean "he has a pulse and/or brainwave activity." Which I've had since before I was born.

About female circumcision: in whatever respects it may be DIFFERENT from abortion, the analogy has to do only with back-alley abortions. If you say to legalize something because it's happening anyways, and it would happen in a safer environment if it weren't illegal, you are forcing a position. Or are you telling me you'd PREFER women in Africa to be circumcised with a shard of glass in the bush rather than in an operating room with anaesthetic and sterile equipment? (it's happening anyways, might as well happen safely, right?)

If the fetus is human and has human rights, then even the turmoil of a mother (which I do not mean to understate at all) does not really change that. Even something as minor as cheating on a test doesn't become morally right (or even neutral) just because the person cheating would destroy his or her future if he or she should fail.

Meanwhile, let me say that I do agree that if we are fighting for the rights of the unborn, we had better back it up by fighting for the rights of the born as well. But if many people miss that point, that does not mean that all their other views are invalid.

Posted by:  zannebee

As far as female circumcision is concerned... from what I understand, the women to whom this practice is beiung performed do not choose to have it performed, it is being done to them... and many of them are young girls. In that respect, it would be like an abortion being performed on a woman without her consent. And that is why I say that it is different from the choice to have an abortion because it is forced upon them and is the on par with sexual abuse.

If these women are choosing to be circumcised, then yes, it should be legalized. But I don't think that that is the case.

I do understand your point of view. But I have a different perspective and there really isn't anything that anyone can say to me that would persuade me to change my opinion.

It could be that the pro-lifers that, as you say, have "incongruous ideas fought under the banner of Christianity" are just the ones getting attention and not the majority. I would like to think that. However, after this last election, it's hard to believe.

Posted by:  zannebee

PS sorry for the typos. It's Monday. :o/

Posted by:  Marco

Zanne, I realize that I've been using the analogy of female circumcision in two different ways.

1. if it happens anyways, it should be legalized and made safer, right? There ARE actually a few African girls who WANT to get circumcised (rite of passage and solidarity with the tribe may be considered worth more than the pain).

2. But what I'm really saying is this: if a fetus is a human being, then its plight is much the same as that of an African girl getting circumcised (which often happens at the hand of her mother or grandmother). I. e. something is being done to her against her will. But you're still sidestepping the question of whether or not a fetus is a human being, so we're still not agreed as to whether this analogy holds or not. I wasn't comparing a girl getting circumcised against her will with a pregnant woman who is deciding whether to abort or not.

And a last point: as to your last paragraph on the political and religious platform of most pro-lifers, you have to consider that the U. S. is not necessarily representative for the rest of the world. It's not everywhere that it's primarily the far right that is pro-life. Also, even in the U. S. there are many people who are pro-life (and a lot of Christians) who vote democrat because they believe in more of their ideals.

But I do believe you when you say that nothing anyone will say will change your opinion.

Posted by:  zannebee

Good point about the pro-lifers not all being American.... true enough. I guess I was just speaking about what I know, which is America.

There'sa reason why I didn't discuss whether or not the fetus is a human being.... because I think it's irrelavant. My position is that we need to take care of the people who are already on this earth before we worry about the unborn. But if I must elaborate on my beliefs, here is what I believe: I see bodies as vessels carrying souls. If a body is not born to carry a soul, the soul will be born to another body. I think it is preferable to have bodies being born into favorable environments so that the souls can live comfortable lives. Given a choice, I would prefer not to have been born at all rather than to have been born into a terrible environment. I think that all children should be wanted (of course this includes women who do decide to give birth and put a child up for adoption as the child would be wanted by it's adopted parents)... to be unwanted is a terrible, terrible burden a child should never have to bear.

Posted by:  Marco

I understand you well, Zanne. Even though I've had a wonderful childhood and can't complain about life having dealt me a bad hand, I STILL don't always feel that it was a good thing I was born. You meet it everywhere, even in the most fortunate people (i. e. King Solomon). And I can imagine that living with the knowledge of being unwanted is living hell.

But the strange thing is that this does not conform to my experience. Some of my friends who were "accidents", and very nearly aborted, actually have much more desire to live than I, the "fortunate son", do. Sure, if they had been aborted, no one would ever have been the wiser (to our knowledge), right? Same with me. I have a hard time viewing life as having meaning. I know that I do feel pain, but if I had been aborted, no one would have known the extent of the pain my in-utero self would have felt.

But there are two problems I encounter.

One is that if I sometimes wish that I hadn't been born, I cannot really distinguish that wish from the wish to have died in infancy, except that that would have been less convenient for my parents. So even in this respect I can't really tell the difference between abortion and infanticide.

The other problem is that, no matter how much I bitch about being alive, I think, if I'm honest, that I would have had it no other way. It's easy to say "I wish I had never been born", but I think had I been asked, and had I been told the stakes and the risks and the amount of pain that is possible to the living, I still would have gone for it. And I think that, as unhappy as most people are and as meaningless as their life may seem, they still would have chosen it had the choice been offered to them and had they been aware of it. (Of course, I think most people would also be living a radically different life if they reflected on this more often.) So my second difficulty is that I have yet to find someone who would really, always, consistently and honestly accuse their mothers of not having lifted the burden of existence from their shoulders before they saw the light of day.

Sure it's easy to see starving African children and think, "someone should have put them out of their misery before they were born." I find it about equally easy to think, "someone should put them out of their misery". I TOTALLY agree with your call to social consciousness and improving life all around, but I have a hard time seeing where my arguments to "end certain lives before birth" end and where they just start becoming arguments to generally "end certain lives."

Posted by:  zannebee

Marco, I would have responded sooner, but something was wrong with the "post comment" function on Friday and I haven't been on the computer all weekend. But anyway, this article, which I found on , really states my position better than I ever could.

Also, if you are interested, you can go to and read some interactive true life stories.

Posted by:  zannebee

Hm, don't know why that came out like that, it looked OK on preview. Oh well.

Posted by:  zannebee

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Posted by:  Marco

Zannebee, I'm disappointed. I looked at the article, and found it to be a standard collection of the sort of simplistic tripe one hears from the mouth of every lazy-thinking dropout who needs to arm himself/herself with some arguments against "those damn Republicans". (Oh the tragedy of the American two-party system!) Please don't say that it states your position better than you ever could, because you have stated your position much more eloquently and humanly in your statements on this blog than that heap of platitudes could. "Pro-lifers' one aim is to make women suffer"? Come on, how much more simplistic and inaccurate and malicious and emotionally charged can you get? It's like saying, "Pro-choicers' one aim is to butcher unborn children." I'll grant you that there probably are pro-life activists who don't care so much for the feelings of women as they do for some platform they're wanting to hold up, but most pro-lifers I know care deeply about women, and are (like I mentioned in a previous post) actively involved in social work (often with women). But even among those who disregard the feelings of the women involved, how many do you really think there are who are primarily concerned with seeing women suffer?

And you'll notice that neither Issachar nor I have argued that life begins at conception. What we've been saying is that it is indisputable that life begins before birth. This is not (despite your article's claim) an inherently religious position.

The interactive real-life stories are of course more effective in arguing your point, because real-life stories have a way of being more effective anyways. It's the sort of thing that makes me look like an insensitive bastard if I suggest that the fetus in these cases was probably not too happy about how things turned out either. But the fetus does not have the ability to tell its story, while the unfortunate mothers do.

Posted by:  zannebee

Hey Marco,

Not sure what you mean.... for the most part I do agree with the positions stated on that article. I don't see anywhere where it says that "Pro-lifers' one aim is to make women suffer".

I do see at the end that they say that one hidden agenda of the pro-life movement is to punish women for having sex. While I do not think that this is every pro-lifer's aim, I would say thet it is a hidden agenda to some (and that many don't even understand that it is their hidden agenda!).

When people make statement such as "Women have a choice when they choose to have sex" and "(women) need to have sex when (they) can afford to deal with the consequences - with or without Mr Right Now" - the message is clear that if a woman has sex and she gets unintentionally pregnant, pregnancy is the punishment for choosing to have sex. It also infers that the woman involved is a slut who does not control her body. This argument always irritates the hell out of me because many women who become unintentionally pregnant are in relationships or are married... this argument assumes that these women are running around sleeping with anyone and everyone and have no self control... and that the woman should be punished for this behavior. I would like to see one married man who would choose to not have sex with his wife for three years because they will be ready to have children in 3 years. Yeah, it's not going to happen.

OK, maybe that article was too short and to the point for you. I suppose I could write paragraphs about each of those topics. I thought it was good because it was succinct.

The second article wasn't meant to make you look like an insensitive bastard!!! Sorry if it came off that way. Obviously, you have feelings because you care about fetuses - and I wouldn't keep responding to you if I thought you were. I just thought it was well done and eye opening.

Posted by:  Marco

OK Zanne, I see that I've perhaps worded my objections too strongly. That article that went through all the "facts and myths about abortion" (or however they put it) seemed to me like the pro-choice equivalent of those little Christian tracts that say things like, "MYTH: the universe is billions of years old and it took a long time for life to evolve. FACT: God in fact created it all in exactly six days." You know, the sort of simplistic reasoning that takes as its authority the very conclusions it is trying to reach. ("Abortion is not in fact immoral" -- that kind of thing.) I can see that they are a summing-up of pro-choice beliefs, but they are a very poor defense of them.

What I meant with my other comment (the "insensitive bastard" one) is that when you read about a woman who is shattered and panicked about an unwanted pregnancy and gets an unsafe illegal abortion done and dies in the aftermath, it would be cold indeed if I were to say, "she shouldn't whine. She should think about the poor baby she just killed." But that's more or less how I will come across if I ever try to point beyond the pain and the human rights of the woman and to the pain and the human rights of her unborn child. (But even if we were to leave her child out of this: we don't know that, in the long run, she might not have been much happier being a mother to the child than even a safe and legal abortion and then forget the whole thing. My -- very limited -- real-life experience in such things seems to confirm this scenario.)

Regarding punishment for sex -- wow, this would fill volumes, but I guess it is an unavoidable topic. I am much more hesitant to talk about this because I think this comes much closer to being a religious (or at least a faith) issue. I know that the question "is a fetus a human being?" is often relegated to the realm of religion, but I don't believe it belongs there at all. However, the question "to what extent are we responsible for our sexual activity" is perhaps equally important, though I doubt I could find any common ground to even BEGIN such a discussion with someone whose worldview is significantly different from mine. What I do think is that the beauty of sex is constantly negated, both by the church (where it is too often warned and preached against and turned into a somewhat unfortunate side effect of fallen humanity) and by the world (where it is used as an easy and cheap means to sell cars, advance socially, feed addictions, etc.). It is unfortunate that the words "punishment" and "sex" are so often used in conjunction. It is also unfortunate that the burden of using it responsibly is shuffled off so much more easily by the man than by the woman.

Good grief, I've opened a new can of worms just agreeing to TALK about this. I'm realizing again that I don't have a chance of conveying what sort of glory I believe can result from treating sex responsibly. No doubt you agree with that statement on its own, and no doubt we'll find we have huge differences in how we define "responsibly". And again, I am at the disadvantage, because anytime one talks that way, it sounds like moralizing, pontificating legalism meant to keep the unbridled youth in line or just generally control people. That's where religion so often ends up, which is a pity because the FREEDOM that it is really about is so difficult to describe in any way that does not sound like some killjoy's book of rules.

Ah, I fail. One of the many things I wonder, though, is this: does it not strike anyone as somewhat unnatural that there should be such a fear of the natural consequence of sex? To say that women get unintentionally pregnant -- for whatever reason, whether they are faithfully married or sleeping around -- seems to me a bit like saying that I get unintentionally tired if I stay up all night or unintentionally fit if I eat a healthy diet and follow a good workout regimen. These are natural consequences, and why should I try to sever the result from the cause? I know, it's because sex is fun and pregnancy is not always practical. But eating is fun while obesity is not always practical either. And maybe we think the happiest people are, say, those who can eat whatever they want and then liposuction it right back off again (thereby avoiding the natural consequence of their pleasure), but I think those who learn to eat responsibly are happier (just talk to any recovered bulimic). Likewise, I don't think the secret to a fulfilled life is to have sex with the knowledge and intention that any consequences of this action can be undone or interrupted, but to have sex responsibly, having first come to a knowledge and peace and *acceptance* of the consequences.

Ay, I'm sorry. This will be very difficult, and it's already sounding uncharitable.

Posted by:  zannebee

You say "women get unintentionally pregnant -- for whatever reason, whether they are faithfully married or sleeping around -- seems to me a bit like saying that I get unintentionally tired if I stay up all night or unintentionally fit if I eat a healthy diet and follow a good workout regimen."

I'd say that it's not quite the same and that's that’s kind of a hollow analogy. No matter how "responsible" a woman is - and I see "responsible" as using birth control - birth control can fail. It would be more like being careful to exercise and eat healthily, but unintentionally, you become obese anyway.

And women have good reason to fear pregnancy. I'd say men fear it too... many do not want or are not ready to become fathers. But for women, there are also changes in their bodies and social obstacles to deal with as well. And it's not just a mere inconvenience or minor annoyance. It is a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE life changing event in a woman's life.

Your body changes and there are hormone changes also. This means that you can have terrible mood swings. One of my co-workers was pregnant for the first time a couple of years ago and she was going through a lot of mood swings due to hormones. Her husband was just a jerk about it. He said that he didn't believe in that "hormone thing". So she basically had to deal with it alone and it was extremely difficult for her. And unfortunately, many women don't get support from their significant others. Those that do are lucky. And most women get morning sickness - which can go on all day, not just in the morning. In the case of my sister, her “morning sickness” went on for 6 months. Can you imagine being sick - throwing up for 6 months straight - every single day? Can you imagine how difficult it is to carry on doing the normal things that you do when you are this ill all the time?

Then there is labor to deal with, which is extremely painful - plus there is always the risk of death in childbirth. Some women get post partum depression. If a cesarean was done, there will be scars and other body changes. Many people don’t know that any type of abdominal surgery can cause abdominal adhesions, which can make future abdominal surgery difficult. Plus the milk in your breasts... if you give the baby up for adoption, your body still produces milk which can become very painful if you don't nurse or pump regularly... and it leaks too.

Then there are the social obstacles, like the description Issachar had of the pregnant girl on the bus whom he labeled as a slut (although he later regretted it, a lot of people wouldn't). There is not only that, but there is also the problem of a job. If your work environment is not supportive, they may fire you. Of course, they aren't allowed to do that, but they can make up other reasons to fire you, I’ve seen it happen. And it’s extremely difficult to find a job you are pregnant. If you are able to keep your job, there are all your co-workers to deal with... you have to explain to them what's going on - which isn't hard if you are married and you want a child, but is extremely difficult if you are not married and/or you are giving the baby up for adoption. Plus, your significant other, if he is not ready to become a father, may leave you. It sucks, but it's true.

Then there are just people you have to deal with in the general public.... my sister actually did give her baby up for adoption. But people would ask her personal questions... for some reason, people seem to think that they can ask pregnant women personal questions... like, "Are you hoping for a boy or girl?", "How does your husband feel about it?", "Do you have the nursery ready?" My sister felt violated when asked these questions. How do you explain to some random person that you are giving the baby up for adoption, so you don't really "want" a boy or girl, that you have no husband - you had a boyfriend, but he took off as soon as he found out that you were pregnant and that there will be no nursery in your house? She resorted to short answers and lying a little because she didn't want to have to explain. But it still made her feel pretty awful.

Then if you keep the baby, you have to raise it. This is no small feat. I have two children and I am a single mother raising them on my own. My ex-husband is not really involved in their lives. He pays child support when he feels like it - which is very irregularly - and that’s about it. I love my children, but raising children on your own is not easy by any means.

And really, I am just scratching the surface here as to the obstacles that have to be overcome when one becomes pregnant. So as I said, it is not just a mere "inconvenience".

Posted by:  Marco

Zannebee, I take your point that calling an unintentional pregnancy an "inconvenience" is an understatement. (What would you call it? A catastrophe?)

Posted by:  zannebee

It would depend on the woman, wouldn't it? I mean for some, it is an unexpected joy. For others, it is a catastrophe. That is exactly why I am pro-choice: because I believe that it should be up to the woman to decide, not the government - because it is her life and body that is effected.

Posted by:  Marco

Yeah, it was a bit of a dumb question on my part. You put it well on your previous comment when you said:

"It is a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE life changing event in a woman's life."

Which is why I argue that sex should be taken seriously and responsibly. That's another thing we agree on, though we may disagree on what those words mean exactly.

One more point: we agree that a pregnancy is a huge life-changing event, and it is easy to conclude that an abortion is not a similarly huge life-changing event. After all, an abortion is a relatively brief medical procedure which does not leave all the physical, social and hormonal consequences your previous comment talked about. What I wonder is whether women who have had an abortion see it that way. I'm not really qualified to answer, since I don't really know that many women who have aborted, but what I do hear is that for many of them that event left deeper scars and changed their lives more than any consequence of an unwanted pregnancy may have done.

Posted by:  zannebee

Again, it probably depends on the woman.

I can tell you that I know some women who have aborted and I know some women who have given children up for adoption. While I'm sure that some women are very emotionally scarred by the choice to have an abortion (a friend's sister felt that she commited a grevious sin and several years later felt that she needed to have as many children as possible to atone - but I think she's a little off her rocker anyway) and I think that many women don't feel "good" about the whole process and that it's not easy for them. But most of the women that I have talked to who have chosen abortion have felt relieved afterward, regardless of the fact that they didn't feel "good" about it.

And although adoption is a good choice, many women are scarred emotionally by that choice as well. I guess it's difficult to know that you have a child out there in the world and that you have chosen to have someone else raise it. I suppose one must wonder how the child is doing, what the child looks like, what his or her personality is like, if the parentsa are taking care of it emotionally and physically etc. My sister had kind of an open adoption and we have met her biological daughter, but I also know that she has spent many a sleepless night crying over her choice to give the child up, even though it was for the best at the time. And that even though we have met her daughter and my sister sees her sometimes, my sister is more of an "Auntie" than a mother and I think that hurts her too.