ironphoenix | Current issue

Current Location: Home
Current Music: Byrd--various choral works

Current issue

I've been reluctant to post on this subject for a while, because my position isn't a popular one, I fear. Recent events, however, have made it harder to stay silent, so here goes. If you don't stop reading here, I ask that you go all the way to the end.

I believe abortion is wrong. I believe it is a killing of a helpless human being, with all that entails. In cases where if the child doesn't die then the mother will, I can support it, but not otherwise.

That said, I believe a lot of other things, too.

I believe that safe, effective contraception and thorough, realistic sexual education should be universally available. I believe that sexuality, and current reality being what it is, women's sexuality in particular, should not be stigmatized. I believe that child care should be available and affordable. I believe that staying at home to look after children should not be a "CLM." I believe that victims of rape should be supported and treated with dignity and respect, not further victimized. I believe that in law and in practice, women should have free access to safe abortions. I believe that women who choose to have abortions should not be stigmatized either, and should have access to support and counselling services. I believe that we as a society need these things. I believe that the consequences of not having these things are contributing or would contribute to a lot of suffering and oppression. I hope that we, as societies, can overcome the systemic and structural factors which lead women to consider having their children aborted. I believe that the best ways to do this are by providing the support I described, not by imposing restrictions on vulnerable women at the time of their need.

That beling my fundamental position, let me now write a few things about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller, a doctor who specialized in late-term abortions, apparently motivated by his practice.

I believe that killing this person was wrong and unjustified. I believe it was an intrinsically wrong act of itself, and more. I understand the position that could be taken, that killing someone who would themselves kill many others is the lesser of two evils, and I reject it. I believe that it's a false saving, and one which merely contributes to the violence and oppression that encourage women to seek out abortions. I believe that "preemptive" acts or punitive vigilanteism undermine the social relationships of trust and mutuality that build lasting solutions to systemic problems. Let me say this again clearly and unequivocally: I repudiate this killing.

In closing, I ask that you not quote me out of context. I've written short sentences here, but they're part of a whole. It would be easy to misrepresent me by taking bits of this and leaving the rest behind; please don't.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't think that your position is an unpopular one.

It isn't one I've often seen presented in this rather polarized discussion; I guess I'm afraid of being seen by each "side" as part of "the enemy."

I think the American debate is very polarized. I think, in Canada, your position may be within a reasonable range of the majority opinion -- the debate doesn't seem nearly as polarized here, except as contaminated by the fall out from the debate in the USA.

I would guess that most of the pro-choice people have similarly nuanced opinions -- that abortion is unfortunate (at best), not something they want to have happen, but that the choice of forbidding it is far worse. While, the other side, the "pro-life" people, seem to have less nuanced opinions, being more absolutist about it. But, when arguing against an absolutist position, it is hard to take a nuanced stance, and least in public debate.

But I identify as pro-life, to the extent that I pick a side.

Perhaps it's that the most vocal pro-life folks are the absolutist ones, and the circles you move in tend more towards the pro-choice, so you know the moderates on that side of the table?

I suspect that the moderates on both sides actually agree with each other.

I hear that you identify as pro-life.

"I believe abortion is wrong." ... "I believe that in law and in practice, women should have free access to safe abortions."

I think of that combination as the classic pro-choice statement.

I see it as a moderate statement: the radical pro-choice statement is that "abortion is morally neutral." This was perhaps most clearly expressed by Mary Anne Warren in "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" (Monist 57, 1973, sec. 1): "abortion is not a morally serious ... act, comparable to killing in self-defense ..., but rather closer to a morally neutral act, like cutting one's hair."

Ah, ok. That is pretty radical.

It leads me to wonder, though, how you feel about hormonal birth control that allows fertilization to happen, but prevents implantation. Or the "morning after" pill.

Both fall into the "do not want" category, for me.

Also, I'm not sure there are non-moderates, extremists, on the pro-choice side the way there are on the pro-life side. I don't think there are any people on the pro-choice side calling for the murder of Drs, or actually performing such murders/assassinations. I don't think there are people on the pro-choice burning down buildings.

I made the mistake of reading some of the comments on the articles about the "suspect." Some of those comments are pretty virulent stuff, including threats of violence towards him and his family. As far as I can tell, you're correct that there are no proven cases of arson traceable to this motive, although there is a remarkable amount of church vandalism and arson. There have been some pretty serious crimes against protesters, though, including some causing permanent injury or death. Both sides, of course, argue that the other started the violence.

I know there has been violence around abortion clinics. I have no idea which side would have started the violence -- likely, in many cases, there was some amount of mutual escalation.

I try to avoid reading the really inflamatory stuff, anywhere. It lets me feel better about humans as a whole.

Probably a good idea.

On further thought, I realize that pro-life people see advocating abortion as advocating murder.

It is a very unclear and fraught choice, either way.

I don't know how unclear I would find the choice, were I ever in a non-hypothetical situation to have to make it in a specific instance.

The general case, though, is much harder, because I think there are very real limits on how much morality should be legislated.

Your point of view seems pretty much in line with most people I know who identify as "pro choice".

And yet, I identify as pro-life.

It's all really just words.

The labels on people and "sides" certainly are.

Thank you.

You're welcome... and thanks for your support, too.

Thank you.

I don't know why your opinion would be unpopular. You have a belief, a strong one, but you also do not want to legislate your opinion on those that wouldn't share it. I think your position is a perfectly sensible one.

You're welcome!

See reply to

dagibbs' comment above...

Thanks for your encouragement!

I consider myself pro-choice and I think your position is awesome: you think that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, because we are going to help women have children only when and if they want, and with lots of support. If all pro-lifers thought this way, we would not HAVE the debates about this problem and related ones that we do as a society; we would all be doing something productive about it together. The problem is all the pro-lifers who use "but what about the helpless unborn babies" as a pretext to shame and control women.

From what I've read Dr. Tiller was doing his best to save the lives of the mothers, cases where the baby was either hideously malformed or would kill the mother before or during birth, or both. So, to my mind, if you know you can't save the baby, but you can save the mother, you save the mother. At least that's one out of two still alive and healthy.

Well, if everybody thought the same way, there wouldn't be debates no matter what the position was, but I agree with your point.

I think people on both ends of the polarized spectrum are part of "the problem".

I didn't actually know that that was what Dr. Tiller's practice was about; I'm happy that that's how he saw it.

I think your position is excellent. I believe that abortion should be safe and available to women, but I frown on it being used as birth control.

That being said, I could never have one myself. But expect everyone to think and feel the way I do about it? Not so much.

I applaud you for posting this.

Thank you!

I don't see how your position would be unpopular - in fact, I believe that it is likely shared with a large portion of the pro-choice folks.
Thank you for getting this out there.

You're welcome! And, thanks for your support!

As for the position being unpopular, see my reply to

dagibbs' comment above.

I mostly agree with you, however, I don't know if society will ever get to such a state where abortion is eliminated by way of comprehensive education/contraception/childcare/etc. The entitlement society we live in is the main reason why I don't think it will be, because more and more people think "I can do anything I like and I don't need to be responsible for the consequences of my actions" - and thus there is less of the "prevention" side going on (education, use of contraceptives, etc.). This is also why STD rates are still rising, even though basic contraceptives are easily available. (This theory is not restricted to sexual behaviour, it also applies to obesity rates, among others)

The most important aspect of sex education I believe should be self-esteem. To teach people that they don't need to have sex to fit in, or to keep a partner, or because it is expected on X date, or whatever else. Kids are also starting into sexual adventures way too young these days (and not just "these days" I guess, I thought the same thing when I was in high school and my peers were having sex and I was like "WTF? Already?").

*nod* Consequences don't care who's responsible for them, do they? They just are. Prudent people consider the consequences of what they do, and act accordingly. Sadly, none of us are always prudent, and even when we are, sometimes things beyond our control or low-probability events lead to bad consequences anyway.

I agree that self-esteem is critical; I have no idea how to teach it if the parents and social circle are undermining it, though!

The pickle is that artificially elevated self-esteem leads to an entitlement society. "I am awesome and have never failed/done wrong so there are no consequences".

Good points, I just think the solution is a bit more difficult then what you propose.

*nod* Self-esteem needs to be grounded in reality; it's about one's worth (which is unconditional), not the perfection of one's judgment, morals, or accomplishments. Believing oneself infallible leads to just what you mention.

The actual evidence shows that the lack of education and limited use of contraceptives has little-to-nothing to do with entitlement and arrogance.

Thank you for sharing.

I don't agree with you on everything, but as a society we should be able to hear and listen to all sides of an argument.

I think it a shame that political discourse is often reduced to sound bits and policies often have all the nuances removed.

Thanks for reading!

And I agree.

I believe it is a killing of a helpless human being, with all that entails.

This statement is not, in any way, consistent with the rest of your position.

No.

"No, I disagree", or "No, I'm not going to discuss this"?

No, I disagree, and will not add to that until you explain your statement.

It seems simple enough:

If abortion is killing a helpless human being, then the rest of your opinion, where you hold that it should be legal, that it should not be punished, that it should carry no stigma? Is monstrous.

(My initial version of the previous comment said "argue" rather than discuss, which I feel is more correct in the sense of "debate" but can too easily be miscontrued as an implication that failure to dispute would be acceptance. Which is not intended.)

It is fully consistent, if you are looking at the reality of what can actually be factually decided, and have the point of view that people *also* have the right to control their bodies.

Assuming the truth of the statement leads to two questions:

#1: Why does the allegedly-fully-human blastocyst *not* have a right to control it's own body?

#2: Why do *you* have the right to refuse to give *me* bone marrow or a kidney?

(and assuming that "we have no way of knowing" is the same as "we can reasonably assume" is a nightmare when you start discussing human reproduction. For the record)

Well, since most people wouldn't argue that a 1 year old has a right to control their own body #1 should be "right to life". The answer in this case seems to be that there is a conflict of rights that can be in opposition, and there is no way at least with anywhere close to current technology to have both rights be respected.

When I said "no way of knowing" I meant that the question is almost teleological in nature. You can't produce an answer through scientific reasoning, because it's not a scientific question.

Yes, that.

There's a good side discussion to be had on what constitutes a scientific question... but perhaps that belongs elsewhere.

So I should be allowed to get blood tranfusions, bone marror transfusions, yank out a spare kidney, etc from a 1 year old without restraint, because they have no right to control their own body and none of those are fatal?

The answer in this case seems to be that there is a conflict of rights that can be in opposition,

If you accept that a microscopic clump of undifferentiated cells is a human being with all the rights of a human being, then yes, you have rights in conflict.

So I should be allowed to get blood tranfusions, bone marror transfusions, yank out a spare kidney, etc from a 1 year old without restraint, because they have no right to control their own body and none of those are fatal?

No, but the 1 year old has no say if a surgery is to be performed. It is entirely up to the parents and the state, and to some degree the medical staff.

If you accept that a microscopic clump of undifferentiated cells is a human being with all the rights of a human being, then yes, you have rights in conflict.

Which was my point.

Which was my point.

And now we're right back at the start of the discussion, where Mike said that abortion was the killing of a helpless human being, and I pointed out that if that's true, the rest of his position is inconsistent to the point of incoherency.

It's not inconsistent.

He's seeming to take the position that making it illegal—or at least stigmatizing—for women to control their bodies by having abortions is more abhorrent for a number of reasons than the killing of a late term foetus.

Yeah.

Abhorrence, to me, has little to do with feeling good about something, and a lot to do with (probable) consequences.

zenten already got #1 for me.

#2 is tricky. I believe that there is a difference between what's morally right and what's legally enforceable. Giving bone marrow or a kidney is morally right, but it can be argued (and usually is, implicitly) that it should not be legally enforceable, because the negative consequences of diluting the right of sovereignty of the body outweigh the positive consequences of saving lives by such involuntary "donations". I can imagine a society that might decide otherwise, and in fact it could make a very good premise for a science fiction story.

Your last statement is a bit loose. I believe that human identity begins at fertilization, at which time the genotype is set. I think it's not an ironclad argument, but to say that it's an unreasonable assumption would be hard to justify.

I believe that human identity begins at fertilization, at which time the genotype is set. I think it's not an ironclad argument, but to say that it's an unreasonable assumption would be hard to justify.

You need to define "human identity" before we can continue, here.

(While we're at it: What's your opinion on IVF and HeLa? Is HeLa fully human with all human rights? It's got a MUCH stronger case for being a separate, individual organism, given that, unlike a blastocyst, it *can* survive nonparasitically. And they've got the exact same amount of functional brain matter!)

Why are assuming that he's caring about how "parasitic" something is to determine personhood? He's choosing to base his definition on religion, you're choosing to make up some definition based on what feels right, and probably a desire to take fundamentally arbitrary concepts and put some sort of scientific sounding reasoning behind them. His method is hardly less legitimate than yours.

Do you even know what HeLa is, or why I might be bringing it up in a discussion of human-ness?

His method is hardly less legitimate than yours.

Define "legitimate" for me, will you?

(And, if you look at the thread, I haven't expressed a definition or claimed a superiority of method. I've simply been pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions.)

Do you even know what HeLa is, or why I might be bringing it up in a discussion of human-ness?

The cancer cells originally taken from Henrietta Lacks. You're suggesting for some reason that cancer cells are able to be kept alive under specific laboratory conditions are more viable to be called a person than an unimplanted embryo, in an attempt to discredit

ironphoenix's religious views by suggesting they are ridiculous.

Define "legitimate" for me, will you?

In this context? "Non-arbitrary" pretty much sums it up.

(And, if you look at the thread, I haven't expressed a definition or claimed a superiority of method. I've simply been pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions.)

You've presented a series of leading questions meant to lead someone to a specific view. You might just be a dick and want to have people believe things that you don't believe in just for fun, but I'm discounting that right now.

I'm saying that HeLa is genetically human, *just like a freshly fertilised egg*, and that it reproduces in undifferentiated cells, *just like a freshly fertilised egg* - so what's the difference? Why is an egg in a pregnant person fully human with all human rights, and HeLa, or a fertilised egg in an IVF test tube, *not*?

in an attempt to discredit ironphoenix's religious views by suggesting they are ridiculous.

I have no need to suggest that his religious views are ridiculous. In this case, at least, it doesn't matter *where* he gets the premises - my argument is that his premises don't match his conclusions.

In this context? "Non-arbitrary" pretty much sums it up.

Fair enough. I tend to add "internally and externally consistent" to my personal definition of legitimacy - which is why I brought up the question in the first place.

You've presented a series of leading questions meant to lead someone to a specific view.

I wouldn't say I have - not exactly. While "how is X different from Y?" carries the obvious implication that I *don't* see a difference, it doesn't lead to an inevitable conclusion. After all, you might have an answer to the question that I just don't see.

I'm pointing out things I think are inconsistent within the framework of the discussion and asking how they can be reconciled. And yes, my expectation is that if you can't reconcile an inconsistency, you re-examine the premises that led you to it, because *that's how rational thinking works*. But the fact that I ask the question doesn't mean there's no answer to it. It's just something that I think really should be examined.

One thing to keep in mind is that

ironphoenix was talking about Dr. Tiller and the abortions he performed, which were late term abortions. So all this talk about blastocysts and whatnot isn't strictly relevant, although he probably considers those to be murder as well.

To be fair, I did take a rather general stand, so the discussion is germane.

Still, this kind of reinforces the slippery-slope argument for defining humanity where I do: if a child on day n is not a person, what magically happens on day n+1 that makes it one? One has to pick some state change as defining, and leaving the womb is no more justifiable than any other, especially given questions like, as

theweaselking raised, IVF and HeLa cells.

My own personal belief is that "personhood" is something that we make up to make considering moral, legal, etc type questions easier, and does not actually exist. It's like saying "when is red no longer red but orange?" We might somehow all end up agreeing on an answer with a dogmatic enough education, but it's not going to really change anything besides making definitions more consistent.

*is curious*

What, if anything, then morally differentiates a person from a dog, or a germ, or a rock?

Dogs, germs and rocks aren't people.

I really don't see how you can have a "first cause" when it comes to morality. The best you can aim for is consistency, and even then I don't know if that's always desirable.

Your first sentence seems to me to beg the question; can you explain?

"First cause," meaning an answer to the question, "why?" to which "why" need not be asked again? I'm guessing most parents want one of those! Dogma posits one; mystical experience grants one, but it's nontransferable except indirectly (see "dogma"). In either case, but especially the latter, relating that to practical matters is a tricky matter of interpretation and discernment.

I think consistency is something to pursue with caution: inconsistencies signal things that need work, but often need not be resolved immediately.

I've come to the conclusion that there isn't a first cause to the question. I basically have to decide "what is a person" for myself, and there isn't some formula or set of logical reasoning based on facts or anything that can allow me to come to the conclusion.

What do you base it on, then?

I don't know of a way to get to a provably right answer either, mind you.

I go by what feels right.

I'm of the opinion that's what everyone else does, they just come up with elaborate justifications for taking that position. At least the ones that aren't going by "this is what this authority figure tells me is a person".

Fair enough... I already explained why I picked the point I did.

In a certain sense, where I want to get is the recognition that everything is sacred and inextricably connected. That's a whole other discussion again, though!

I'm pointing out things I think are inconsistent within the framework of the discussion and asking how they can be reconciled.

That's not what I'm getting, mostly. You're saying there are inconsistencies, but I don't hear you being specific about what they are and why you consider them inconsistent.

The trouble with this kind of argument is that you're taking no firm position of your own, contenting yourself instead with challenging mine. "Formlessness" is a good defense, but it makes little forward progress towards any goal.

I have, frankly, been trying to avoid taking a stronger position because that tends to lead nowhere good in arguments like this.

If I stop trying to make my point obliquely, I start here:

A) You say that abortion is killing a helpless human being with all that entails.
B) You go on to say that this should be legal, there should be no stigma, there should be no punishment, and you'd *like* it to stop but you feel that it *should* not currently be stopped.

These two things do not go together.

EITHER:
1) You DON'T actually think abortion is the killing of a helpless human being with all that entails, because you think killing helpless non-fetal human beings should be treated differently

or

2) You DO actually think abortion is the killing of a helpless human being with all that entails, and by extension you think killing a helpless human being - shooting a sleeping adult or smothering an infant, for example - is something that should be minimised and you should be sad about it but you shouldn't punish someone for doing it and you shouldn't make it illegal.

I happen to be pretty damn certain that 2 isn't true.

Meaning, you can't possibly simultaneously hold both position A AND position B. If you really held A, you could not possibly hold B without also feeling that OTHER killings of helpless human beings were acceptable, and you don't.

Eliminate "with all that entails" from statement A and you're getting a lot closer to internal consistency. As long as that clause is there, though?

Yeah, some (many?) people don't take well to direct, clear arguments. I prefer honesty and openness in this kind of debate.

In discussing B, I do not want it to be stopped by law or by stigmatization. I believe there are other ways to at the very least greatly reduce its incidence. I also qualified my original statement by "in law and in practice." For a religious person, this is a critical difference, where it likely isn't for an atheist/non-spiritualist one. A pretty widespread religious tenet is that morality carries consequences independent of human law or social censure.

In law, 1 is pragmatically hard to avoid without bringing down the consequences I described in my original post. I guess one thing that troubles me is that this too has a slippery slope on it, towards infants, children, mentally incompetent people... that's a road I wouldn't want to go down.

As for 2, I think we do it all the f'ing time, just collectively, by omission, and at a distance. How many people die because they work in places with terrible safety practices, no health care, and wages insufficient to provide for proper housing and nutrition? How many die because they're denied the medical care they need because they can't pay, or because the wait is too long and their condition becomes irrecoverable in the interim? How many people starve because it was economically practical to grow cash crops instead of food there, and then discover how expensive it was to have food shipped in?

Death is far from the greatest evil we can inflict on another, I believe. To not care (and express that caring in word and action) about another is the root of moral failure. One of the great challenges to modern Christianity, at least for me, is that we're now aware of so much of the world that there's just too much to care about for any human. Reconciling that contradiction is the work I'm more interested in.

Do you even know what HeLa is ...?

This is verging on uncivil; please avoid ad hominem argumentation, even by implication (in this case, that

zenten is too ignorant to carry on this argument).

I don't think the medium matters, so an IVF embryo is, at least in principle, as human as a uterus-borne embryo.

HeLa requires a finer distinction, and the question is still too new to me for me to have constructed a position I'll stand solidly behind. My gut feel is "not human," but that's not well-substantiated for me right now.

I don't consider myself "pro-" anything, except pro-common sense... I think those labels further polarise discussion and limit sharing of ideas.

I have been doing a lot of thinking on this because I've lately had to take Outaouais busses more often (due to being late for the 27/40), and passing by the Bank abortion clinic silent protesters, especially during their lent vigil with the slogan "praying for an end to abortion". I constantly wonder, what would I say to these people to figure out exactly what their position is, and if their arguments are internally-sound or if they're just dogmatic?

And in these internal dialogues (always treacherous since I'm only talking with my self-image of what I think they actually stand for), checking questions and answers, I rarely go anywhere, finding some of my own inaccuracies or at least realising some positions are based on dogmas of my own; but a few things did come out clear.

I believe in also wishing an end to abortion clinics, as in, a proliferation of places due to rising demand for such a painful and difficult procedure (and, sadly, due to an image of the procedure as birth control, with which I also disagree), through pro-active action starting mainly with knowledge, disseminated through the community of what it is and what it is not; of why it happens, and try to prevent that. If strength of purpose for that task is achieved through personal and communal prayer, that's fine. (I'm hoping the people there aren't using prayer of the "hoping God does something about it" sort, which does nothing. Actions speak much louder than words on a placard.) But I also realistically believe that abortions will still be needed, due to the sheer number of people around, and as such, should be done by medical professionals in safe, supportive environments, same as other medical procedures. Not illegal and back-alley "doctors" ending up doing more harm than good. Also, plenty of information beforehand, so the choice is made in clear conscience on both sides. (And the choice never goes away, is never forgotten. This also I know.)

And yes, it must also mean stop propagating the myths and fables always circulating in teen circles; you can't have an "adult" come in and tell them they're wrong, they'll distrust the source; and if a teen already knows it's erroneous and tries to correct them, then they go "well you're the only one who thinks so, so you can't be right". This is a strong force of misinformation on how sex happens, how even pregnancy can or can't occur. I've found a 30 year old, otherwise intelligent woman thinking that "pulling out" was effective contraception, in the last month! These old myths have been around for over a century, rarely changing in some cases, the older teens telling the younger ones and then disappearing from the environment (school, usually) so new, corrective information from the same source can't happen later on. Sex education in school is barely making a dent, it seems. On this, I'm stumped.

The vigilantism of and by absolutist or zealots is also wrong. It usually is flagrantly hypocritical to boot, but yelling loudly is viewed by some as an effective persuasion method, and thus are mobs formed...

I'm having trouble following what you're saying. Can you clarify what you mean you would want *in practice* as opposed to theory?

I often have trouble following what I'm trying to say too... and I don't have nearly enough full knowledge, both medical, factual and emotional (being close to someone who's had an abortion or even lost a child, for example) to be able to think of full practical matters. For spreading information, for example, I believe an extended family/friends conclave should be able to do it, as long as it's good and real information. I think this is the old "village" purpose, where everyone could raise everyone else's children as necessary; there isn't as huge a line drawn between houses. Of course, that trust comes from knowing each other, and new arrivals change dynamics. Parents should not trust only one source (school system) to come up with all the knowledge, even if schools are a good way to spread knowledge efficiently.

Trusting others to educate one's children seems to me to require either negligence or a belief that the would-be teachers are competent and also hold views similar to one's own.

The function of prayer is a whole other question, and one I don't want to confuse this discussion with.

I agree that information is a good thing, and the more of us there are being realistic and honest with it, the less people will be susceptible to the argument that, as you say, well you're the only one who thinks so, so you can't be right".

That false argument, in italics, is kissing cousin with "X number of people can't be wrong!" Well, gee, how many were wrong (and some still are) thinking that the planet is flat, for example? Though that's a different type of argument, the words of that argument have been bandied in all areas, mostly as hype and coercion, and no one thinks twice about it anymore. All new facts have to be "discovered" by a small group (sometimes independently) and introduced to a larger group, which destroys both false arguments.

It all boils down for me to being able to think that the possibility of being wrong exists, and that truth can withstand criticism; if the critical analysis is flawed, truth will stand; if it isn't, then maybe that wasn't the truth. But to do so without feeling like a "loser" in an argument, or in a social context? Rare trait. Is that trait physionomical or cultural? Yeah, huge other debate, but they're all linked. (Similarly with the function of prayer, which I was using as an example of debate fodder and not as my actual debate argument.)

*nod* The more deep-rooted one's confidence is, the more willing they seem to be to accept the possibility of being wrong, especially in areas where they know they don't know that much.

I find myself disagreeing only slightly -- perhaps crucially, perhaps not -- with your statement, because I don't think a fertilized ovum in the early stages (say, the first trimester) qualifies as "a human being".

Do you believe there's some definite, observable marker for "turning the corner", or is this a somewhat loosely defined thing?

I'm certainly open to argument on where the line is, and why; in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I tend to draw it as early as I think is reasonable (i.e., fertilization).

Many years ago I read a book by Michael Crichton titled "A Case of Need" where the main character was a doctor, and friends with a man who performed abortions (he started because the first woman who came to him needed one because her fetus was unviable). It was written many years ago, 1968, when abortion was even less popular. I like it because his argument was that "No matter how you feel about the issue personally - publically it will happen so you might as well try to minimize the problems associated with it". So no matter what people think personally, I very much believe in that philosophy that we might as well support those who decide to have one as much as possible.

Interesting-sounding story.

Were I a doctor, I doubt I could justify performing most abortions to myself--but then, I chose not to be a doctor.

I generally agree with the idea that there's little to be gained by harming women who are having or have had abortions.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Current issue

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject