Abortion
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 03:33
VIEWED: 22628
PAGE 10 of 28
I don't really want to weigh into the whole wrong/right, legal/illegal aspect of this thread, but I do want to point out to some of the posters who have been saying that women should just practice safe sex and 'take responsibility' for their 'mistakes', that this isn't always the case.
Condoms break, the pill doesn't always prevent pregnancy (I have two friends who became pregnant while on the pill and using condoms with their boyfriends) and the morning-after pill isn't available everywhere for a 'the condom broke' situation.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that pregnancies do occur in instances of rape and incest, so all these factors need to be taken into consideration in this discussion too.
Mal gives control of the ship to Zoe...
Mal: If I'm not back in an hour, you come, and you rescue me.
Zoe: What? And risk my ship?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BulletInTheBrainPanSquish:
I don't really want to weigh into the whole wrong/right, legal/illegal aspect of this thread, but I do want to point out to some of the posters who have been saying that women should just practice safe sex and 'take responsibility' for their 'mistakes', that this isn't always the case.
Condoms break, the pill doesn't always prevent pregnancy (I have two friends who became pregnant while on the pill and using condoms with their boyfriends) and the morning-after pill isn't available everywhere for a 'the condom broke' situation.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that pregnancies do occur in instances of rape and incest, so all these factors need to be taken into consideration in this discussion too.
Mal gives control of the ship to Zoe...
Mal: If I'm not back in an hour, you come, and you rescue me.
Zoe: What? And risk my ship?
Well, I'd just like to note for the record that I haven't said that women (and only women) need to "take responsibility" for their "mistakes." That wasn't me that said that. No sir.
Reason I caveat this is that I do want to address something, and that is the notion of responsibility. We're all adult-type-personages on this board, I think; by this point we know how babies are made. If babies were made in some process that was as pleasant as a root canal, there'd be no issue with abortion--nobody'd undertake the process unless they really, really wanted a baby. But let's face it: sex is really pleasant! (Understatement of the year.) So people who don't want to have babies take their chances because they want to have that experience (and believe me--that's totally understandable). Prior to the mid-20th century, when the first hormonal oral contraceptives were introduced, having sex carried a significant risk of pregnancy. Today, with the advent of reliable birth control, that risk has diminished greatly. But it's still there. As Bullet pointed out, condoms break, and the pill fails--and pregnancy ensues. There's a choice (to have sex) and a risk (of pregnancy) that sometimes leads to an effect (the actualization of the risk).
But here's where I get fuzzy. I totally understand the impulse to not want to be a mother--parenthood is tough, in the best of situations, and single parenthood must be especially difficult. I am not ready to be a father yet, so my wife and I use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. Please understand--I get the not-wanting-to-be-a-parent thing. But sometimes, in spite of that desire, pregnancy occurs as a result of the choices we make, and at that point something has to be done. There seem to be three viable alternatives: 1) go to term and keep the baby; 2) go to term and give the baby up; 3) abort the pregnancy. So now the effects of actions have to be faced. And this is why I don't think that we can completely eliminate the moral dimension from this question: your commitments in terms of the ontological status of that thing in the womb are going to determine which of those three choices remain live options. I think that thing in the womb is a fully distinct human being (having its own completely unique set of DNA) and therefore is entitled to the protection of the law as such, so in my opinion #3 is no longer a live option. Both #1 and #2 will prevent a woman from having to be a mother if she doesn't want to be--but they will not prevent her from having to go through pregnancy and childbirth. So it seems that #3 is the most attractive option, not simply because it will prevent a woman from being obligated to be a mother, but because it will prevent her from being inconvenienced by pregnancy and childbirth. But it doesn't seem that the desire for convenience should be allowed to trump what I take to be the right to life of human beings. Don't forget also that not having sex is a guaranteed method for preventing pregnancy. This will, of course, be scoffed at--but to the scoffers, I humbly submit that we, as humans, have a rational capacity. We are
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
See, what you're forgetting is that pregancy isn't just an "inconvenience". It's something that changes both your body and your life forever - whether you keep the baby or not. And it's risky. It can kill you. It can leave you injured an in pain for the rest of your life. It can go badly wrong and you'll lose the chance of ever having kids again. It can destroy you emotionally - and financially! - unless you have strong support from the people around you. Pregnancy is a huge, huge deal.
We're not some tiny species breeding like heck and clinging to life any more - quite the opposite, since our populations are out of control. We're conscious beings capable of making a decision if bringing a life into this world is the right thing to do. We have to be allowed that choice. Pregnancy is too huge and too life changing not to allow us that.
Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
See, what you're forgetting is that pregancy isn't just an "inconvenience". It's something that changes both your body and your life forever - whether you keep the baby or not. And it's risky. It can kill you. It can leave you injured an in pain for the rest of your life. It can go badly wrong and you'll lose the chance of ever having kids again. It can destroy you emotionally - and financially! - unless you have strong support from the people around you. Pregnancy is a huge, huge deal.
We're not some tiny species breeding like heck and clinging to life any more - quite the opposite, since our populations are out of control. We're conscious beings capable of making a decision if bringing a life into this world is the right thing to do. We have to be allowed that choice. Pregnancy is too huge and too life changing not to allow us that.
Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com
In case you all forgot, I'm not in favor of legislating against abortion.
But I have seen many times on this board the argument that pregnancy is a life-injuring, possibly deadly ailment.
Certainly a pregnancy has the possibility of threatening your life and causing permanent injury, but is this really a valid argument? I mean, is being pregnant as dangerous as being shot, as some of these alarmist statements seem to suggest? Some kind of dangerous incident where there is a 25% chance that you're going to die?
I had always believed that serious complications and death from pregnancy were relatively rare. (And this from someone whose wife once had serious complications from pregnancy.)
Is pregnancy much more dangerous than driving a car? Going for a swim? Are there any statistics on how many pregnancies end in permanent debilitating injury and death?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For some people yes.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Certainly a pregnancy has the possibility of threatening your life and causing permanent injury, but is this really a valid argument? I mean, is being pregnant as dangerous as being shot, as some of these alarmist statements seem to suggest? Some kind of dangerous incident where there is a 25% chance that you're going to die?
Quote:With proper medical intervention it is somewhat rarer, but actually complications are somewhat common and would often if untreated lead to serious maybe even life threatening complications. A friend of mine has had two children, both times she retained the placenta, with her first child she almost bled to death.
I had always believed that serious complications and death from pregnancy were relatively rare. (And this from someone whose wife once had serious complications from pregnancy.)
Human pregnancy is naturally pretty much the most dangerous of any in the animal kingdom.
By the way she had an abortion some years back, which she was forced into having by her then violent and abusive boyfriend. If Abortion was illegal she would have still had an abortion, but instead of having a relatively safe procedure performed by trained medical staff she would have been forced to have one by Bob "The Baby Butcher" Hatchett using a coat hanger and an aqua vac. A procedure that one imagines would be somewhat less safe and probably would have had a greater chance of leaving her dead or infertile than going off without a hitch.
But perhaps her life and the lives of her two children are forfeit as punishment for having an abusive boyfriend once, I don't know, perhaps our resident Troll can tell us.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I actually tried to get statistics when I started arguing in the thread initially, but I'm having trouble finding them.
You're right, complications are relatively rare, but they do happen. I know I sound alarmist since I keep harping on about the worst case scenario, but it's something every potential mum *has* to think about. Especially since factors like family history can make a massive difference. I've known a couple of people that have had to make some pretty serious choices in that regard.
Is being pregant more dangerous than driving a car or going for a swim? Don't know. But I know I choose to get behind the wheel or take a dive. And speaking on behalf of me and my body, I don't care how small a chance there is of me getting hurt. If there's a chance, I choose to take it!
Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
See, what you're forgetting is that pregancy isn't just an "inconvenience". It's something that changes both your body and your life forever - whether you keep the baby or not. And it's risky. It can kill you. It can leave you injured an in pain for the rest of your life. It can go badly wrong and you'll lose the chance of ever having kids again. It can destroy you emotionally - and financially! - unless you have strong support from the people around you. Pregnancy is a huge, huge deal.
We're not some tiny species breeding like heck and clinging to life any more - quite the opposite, since our populations are out of control. We're conscious beings capable of making a decision if bringing a life into this world is the right thing to do. We have to be allowed that choice. Pregnancy is too huge and too life changing not to allow us that.
No, not forgetting that at all. I know that pregnancy is the most traumatic and dangerous bodily cycle that humans go through. That would be why death in childbirth was so high in the premodern world. My point was this: abortion is not the only way to avoid being pregnant. Not having sex is also a way to avoid being pregnant. But many (most?) people act as though that's impossible, and so either ignore it as an option in their decision making process, or cast it as some monstrous perversion when brought up in a discussion like this one; and consequently, the other option for not being pregnant is the only one that remains on the table. But I think to cast the decision not to have sex as either impossible, impracticable, or contrary to human nature, is to deny to humans that which Aristotle attributed to them: that we are rational animals. Do we have the same instincts and urges as other animals (including the drive to procreate)? Of course we do. But we also have a rational faculty that allows to overrule our animal instincts on rational grounds. So it is at least possible for a human being to make the following sort of decision making process: 1) I want to have sex, but 2) I don't want to have children, and 3) If I have sex, I might become pregnant, so 4) I will not have sex. That is at least possible.
Of course, most people do not take that route; they do have sex, and often, they do become pregnant. At that point the question is, "Is the thing-in-the-womb entitled to continue to live, or is it not?" It's true that pregnancy is a pretty daunting physical process--but let's not forget that mortality rates due to pregnancy are, in the West, exceedingly low given the level of medical care available. So we can't simply cast the decision as one between safety and catastrophy.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which pretty much brings us back to the same argument, because it comes down to the right of the child to be born verses the right of the mother to choose not to be a mother. And my argument is that, even if it's unlikely, the right of the mother to choose has to come before anything - even the child in her womb - because the decision she is making could be the decision between safety and catastrophe, and no one else can decide that for her.
After all, the safety factor is relative too. Abortion can lead to pretty nasty complications. Which is why this is not a decision any woman takes lightly. Or if they do, they're so stupid they really shouldn't be breeding anyway.
Personally, I don't think I'd ever have an abortion, but that's very easy for me to say when I'm sitting here all happy and healthy and non-pregnant. Much as I respect life, much as I think it's the most precious gift this world has, it goes against the very grain of me to think that anyone but me chooses whether or not I become a mother.
As for sex, it's important to remember that even biologically speaking it's not purely a tool for procreation. It's a very important part of how we socially interact. Having our sex drives switched on 24/7 instead of having "breeding seasons" like a lot of animals is a very large part of the reason we evolved into conscious beings. It's a trait seen in many social animals, like chimps and apes, the ones we think of as more intelligent. It was that very interaction that allowed us to form communities and cultures. Still, that's a whole other thread.
Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
As for sex, it's important to remember that even biologically speaking it's not purely a tool for procreation. It's a very important part of how we socially interact. Having our sex drives switched on 24/7 instead of having "breeding seasons" like a lot of animals is a very large part of the reason we evolved into conscious beings. It's a trait seen in many social animals, like chimps and apes, the ones we think of as more intelligent. It was that very interaction that allowed us to form communities and cultures. Still, that's a whole other thread.
Nothing particular to pick with here; we've just arrived at the irreducible point beyond which discussion will only get circular. As with Citizen (see above), I just wanted to say thanks for the engaging, stimulating, and above all civil discussion. I can happily say that I would be proud to be your friend, disagreements or no, and that's something.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aw, shucks 
No big. I like a good debate, and it *is* an important issue. One that's worth talking on.
I'll tell you one thing though - after two days of arguing my point of view and being challenged on every aspect of my beliefs on this I'm bloody tired! I think I'll vacation in some nice, gentle party threads for a while!
Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME