Abortion

[Bellenda Carlisle]

I was leaning towards not as a form of contraception but I went for Yes,under certain circumstances, there's a bit of a crossover in those two answers for me. I think women have the right to choose if they want to terminate their baby- it's their decision at the end of the day but as others have said too many see it as a way of contraception. Me and my Mrs had a miscarriage not so long since so it's a bit of a tender subject if somebody aborts their baby just because they couldn't be arsed to stick a bag on it.

For me unless it's something like a rape victim, the baby has a chance of getting a seriously dangerous illness i.e Aids or it poses the risk of hurting the mother in someway then it's one of those things that you have to take some responsibility for. If you get a girl pregnant you have to live with the consequences. I've seen too many young lads say things like "I'll just make 'er get an abortion" which I think is pretty fucking weak really. My cousin is 20 and I found out yesterday he got his on-and-off girlfriend pregnant but they're doing the grown up thing and are going to take responsability, I'd have been pretty pissed if they'd have just gone and had it terminated.

 

Don't see how that's "the grown up thing" at all, taking responsibility isn't necessarily having the child, that's ridiculous.

 

Getting a girl pregnant and "living with the consequences is bullshit, what are the consequences? Having another unnecessary human exist that you have to look after, then it exists it's entire life and it reproduces too and is responsible for more people on the crowded planet? Why? As punishment for accidentally getting a girl pregnant? (which really isn't that hard to do)

 

I don't understand your logic at all.

[GalaxyV.2]

Its down to the person, I would never tell anyone what to do. I don't disagree or agree with it, but I suppose by thinking that I probably do agree with it! It shouldn't be used as a contraception though. I had a friend whose girlfriend had 3 in the space of two years. This was purely down to the constant fucking without any form of protection. Once, fine but by the third time it just seems a really careless attitude to life.

[Kenny McBride]

I won't quote everyone I disagree with here and dissect every post, but just a few questions:

 

What's the difference between a moral position and a religious one? Yes, my faith teaches that abortion is wrong and clearly that informs my attitudes. That doesn't mean that I haven't thought about this issue in great depth. I simply cannot accept the logic of abortion, particularly from feminists. Feminism is supposed to be giving a voice to the voiceless, power to the powerless. Who's more powerless than a baby that can legally be killed?

 

Do you know anyone who's pregnant, been pregnant in the past, or particularly had a miscarriage? Did you refer to their "clump of cells"? No, you referred to their baby. You felt sorry for the friend who miscarried and "lost the baby." If you didn't say "well, it was only a clump of cells, not a life, and certainly not even a viable pregnancy at this stage, so it doesn't really matter, does it?" If you choose to determine the value of a life by whether it's wanted or not, you are on a very, very dangerous path. The difference between "when's you baby due?" and "how far advanced is your pregnancy?" is a subtle one. You ask the first of someone who's pleased to be pregnant. You ask the other of someone whose womb you're about to evacuate.

 

Women's autonomy is important. I would never deny that. However, until you find a way to let a foetus gestate in a box, the fact is that it's women who get pregnant and we've got to deal with that. if someone can't afford a child, is abortion really the ONLY solution you can think of? You don't know any wealthy, sterile couples who might be able to take care of the kid? You don't think that if we stopped paying for IVF AND abortion on the NHS, we could pretty neatly match up the ones who can't cope with the ones who are desperate for the chance and save a truckload of money into the bargain, while avoiding a whole lot of unnecessary surgeries?

 

On the rather contentious "men's rights" question, there is a serious question to be asked. If a man wants the woman to have an abortion and she refuses, he is still required to provide child support. This is true even if he reasonably believed she was on the Pill or it was just because a condom split or whatever. He could even offer to pay for an abortion privately and she still has full control of the situation. But if he wants to keep a baby - in theory, they may even have discussed it and had every intention of her getting pregnant, but then maybe she's found out the child is disabled and decided she doesn't want to deal with it - then he has no right to stop her killing the child. That seems unfair to me. It's not the most important argument for me because I don't think abortion is moral under any circumstances, but I think it poses an important question about the whole notion of "taking responsibility." It should be a mutual thing on all levels.

 

Rape and incest are actually such exceptionally rare causes of pregnancy that they're pretty much a red herring. I agree that those women are in a horrific situation and it must be incredibly difficult to cope. I just don't believe that killing the child is a good solution. Wouldn't it be healthier to offer those women all the counselling and support they need to actually deal with their situation rather than assuming that the only reasonable option is to kill the child? Much the same applies to children with disabilities. Is a cleft palate really an appropriate reason to kill a child who's due to be born in 10 weeks? Deafness? Blindness? Down's Syndrome? Where do you draw the line on what lives are worth living? What if the baby is premature and severely disabled? Can we practice euthanasia on it then? What difference is there between in the womb and outside once the child is "viable"?

 

GK Chesterton said "moral questions are always terribly complex for someone with no principles." I think that applies to this question above almost any other. No-one ever has very clear answers to these questions, and they vacillate and equivocate and tell us that "no-one really wants an abortion, but sometimes it's the only option." Is it really? You can't think of any other solutions to these problems? What's more bizarre is that they're often the same people who'll tell you that world peace and ending poverty are simple things to achieve if only we had the political will, but they can't think of a better solution to a woman getting pregnant without making a clear, conscious and totally happy decision to do so than to kill the child?

 

I feel great compassion and sympathy for a woman who feels she has no other choice but to kill her child. I still believe it's wrong. It's much like feeling great sympathy for someone who kills an abusive partner. Murder is still wrong, but the circumstances make that person significantly less morally culpable. I don't propose to punish women who get abortions (although I would punish abortionists). I propose getting them the help they need so that abortion ceases because it's unnecessary and unwanted rather than simply because it's unlawful.

 

I'm asking serious questions and I'd like serious answers, if you have them. If you're not prepared to discuss the issue rationally, please leave the thread now.

[Chest Rockwell]

Do you know anyone who's pregnant, been pregnant in the past, or particularly had a miscarriage? Did you refer to their "clump of cells"? No, you referred to their baby. You felt sorry for the friend who miscarried and "lost the baby." If you didn't say "well, it was only a clump of cells, not a life, and certainly not even a viable pregnancy at this stage, so it doesn't really matter, does it?" If you choose to determine the value of a life by whether it's wanted or not, you are on a very, very dangerous path. The difference between "when's you baby due?" and "how far advanced is your pregnancy?" is a subtle one. You ask the first of someone who's pleased to be pregnant. You ask the other of someone whose womb you're about to evacuate.

 

 

I wouldn't say those things because it's a pretty insensitive situation in which to pick an argument like that, but I wouldn't personally think of it as a baby.

[Loki]

Good post, Kenny.

 

 

I'll let Houchen deal with the issue of feminism, as he's our resident feminist. I think you make some interesting points on the mismatch between "mens" right and "womens" rights, and your thoughts on IVF/adoption are commendable, although you're asking women to go through the horror of child birth with the added knowledge that the baby won't be theirs afterwards. That's traumatic enough for women who choose to be surrogates, let alone those who don't.

 

On the issue of morality, I think the balance at the moment is a good one. You believe there is no moral argument for abortion, and you (were you a woman) have the right to make decisions based on that acknowledged religious-influenced belief. However, those who do not share that belief are also free to make decisions based on their morality. There is a flexible system that covers more than one viewpoint, the outer limits of which are defined legally after long discussion in parliament. This is good, this is how society should work.

 

To deal directly with the points raised then: you repeatedly used this phrase "kill a child". That is a hugely contentious way to describe abortion that ignores the absolute centre of the debate as it stands in this country - at what point does "life" start. Describing a small collection of cells as a "baby" is contentious enough, but child?

 

Scenario - a woman who is pregnant but does not yet realise it falls down a flight of stairs, and miscarriages. Should she be charged with manslaughter? By your definition, that life begins at conception, surely that would be the logical conclusion. Outside of the inflexible morality of religion, though, most people would agree that the question of when life is life, and a person begins to acrue legal rights, is one that needs to be more rigorously defined.

 

Most human rights legislation defines rights as something that acrue at birth; for example the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights opens:

 

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

 

Most people though would accept that at some point prenatal foetuses become human enough, for want of a better phrase, to justify protection of their universal right to life. In the UK at least, the point at which this happens is judged on medical evidence. That always used to be defined by what's called the "quickening" or the point at which the mother can feel the baby move, but nowadays it's specifically set at 28 weeks, via the Abortion Act of 1967.

 

Now, there is and always should be a lively debate over that date, as new medical evidence becomes available. But I guess my point, Kenny, is that your argument generally hinged on the idea that abortion is effectively foetal murder, and in fact that ignores the huge amount of thought, legislation and moral definition that has gone into the debate on abortion in this country. Once you remove the emotive connotation of abortion as murder out of the equation, the circumstances under which abortion is morally permissible becomes easier to discuss.

[Dean Saliba]

A recent incident in my life has drawn me into taking up a stance on this issue.

 

I slept with a friend, we didn't use protection and she became pregnant. It was mine as she and her rich boyfriend hadn't had sex in a while. I was just getting used to the idea of being a dad when at three months she had an abortion and waited a further month to tell me. Her reason? She didn't want to risk losing her rich boyfriend and his lovely cash (she has told me she loves his money more than him).

 

Since there is no "Yes, but not to hold on to a guy for his money" option I shall go with "Yes, but not as a form of contraception."

[Duke]

What's the difference between a moral position and a religious one?

You don't have to be religious to be moral. I know plenty of non Christians who have far better morals than a lot of Christians I know (and as a christian myself, I know a fair few). the suggestion (and I'm not saying it's one you're making) that being religious makes you morally superior to non "religious" demeans what we believe Jesus did for us.

 

 

 

This was a tough one for me. For me personally, from a faith perspective, I'm not keen on the idea. I voted "yes in certain circumstances" though as it would be ridiculous to ignore specific examples that have been highlighted wonderfully in this thread (Loki's one is particularly poignant) where it would be cruelly dogmatic to keep a child who's quality of life will never be good.

 

Further to that, if someone put me in charge of the country, I wouldn't be keen on saying "yeah, limit it severely" as trying to tell non christians that they have to act a certain way because the bible says so is stupid. Why would they? If a christian couple said to me "well we're getting one as it doesn't fit in our life plans right now" I would have words. But for atheists? Have at it, stick what you want up there.

 

Once you remove the emotive connotation of abortion as murder out of the equation, the circumstances under which abortion is morally permissible becomes easier to discuss.

Well, yeah, of course it does. The key difference is that you think that connotation can be removed, whereas I'm willing to bet Kenny doesn't.

[Kiffy]

Rape and incest are actually such exceptionally rare causes of pregnancy that they're pretty much a red herring. I agree that those women are in a horrific situation and it must be incredibly difficult to cope. I just don't believe that killing the child is a good solution. Wouldn't it be healthier to offer those women all the counselling and support they need to actually deal with their situation rather than assuming that the only reasonable option is to kill the child?

 

Had to pick up on this one part. I don't think anyone's suggesting the only reasonable option in this case is abortion, and I think to suggest it is somewhat unreasonable. The question isn't "Does it have to be aborted?" the question is "Does a woman in this, admittedly rare (but by no means unheard of) situation, have the right to have an abortion?"

And I think this is why the religious beliefs bleed through over and above reasonable morality. The idea that a woman should not have the option to abort something created as a result of rape or incest turns my stomach. The idea that if they wanted to abort it, they should instead have to go through the pregnancy with counselling and support (while being told we do agree it's a horrific situation) really does turn my stomach.

If you weren't saying that, then I apologise for misreading, but that seems to be your view.

 

 

On the other points, that there's a better solution than abortion and we should look at adoption for all the 100's of rich couples who could provide for the child if just given a chance. The numbers really don't match up, there's a massive problem trying to find parents for unwanted/orphaned children already. A complete end to abortion would make the problem far worse, and to suggest otherwise is just silly.

 

By all means disagree on principle, I'd disagree, but your beliefs are your own. But to pretend there's an adoption solution ready and waiting to the 1000's of unwanted extra children we'd have without abortion is just silly.

[Thunderplex]

On the other points, that there's a better solution than abortion and we should look at adoption for all the 100's of rich couples who could provide for the child if just given a chance. The numbers really don't match up, there's a massive problem trying to find parents for unwanted/orphaned children already. A complete end to abortion would make the problem far worse, and to suggest otherwise is just silly.

 

White babies would be flying off the shelves.

 

Unfortunatly its the non-white ones and older children who are usually left behind.

[Kenny McBride]

Duke - I meant what's the qualitative difference, as though two thousand years of rigorous moral theology hasn't led us to a point where the morality embedded in my religion has just as strong philosophical and logical underpinnings than any subjective atheistic moral code? I'm not saying that there aren't immoral religious people (I'm one a lot of the time, to be honest) or moral atheists. I just don't see the point in whoever said "I accept moral arguments but not religious ones." To me, one is a central part of the other and I don't see why my moral position is less valid because it is influenced by my faith.

 

The argument saying "what kind of life would this kid have?" is a very weak one. There's a great pro-life writer, John Foley, who makes the counterpoint more clearly than I ever could. He's making the point about disabled kids, but it could just as easily apply to kids in extreme poverty or kids with crackhead mothers or any other life handicap. He says: "We should not say 'child, you have no arms so we will end your life.' We should say 'child, you have no arms so we will be your arms.'" That defines my whole approach to the "life circumstances" issue. Sort the life problems. Don't punish the child for it. The mother is still going to be in poverty or on crack after the abortion. What are you doing to solve that now? How much do you really care about those problems that are worth ending an innocent child's life rather than let him live with it?

 

Loki - Rape doesn't sound like such a big deal if you call it surprise sex. Does that make it OK? I call abortion what I believe it to be. I think it helps to clarify what it is. If you believe I'm completely wrong, why does it matter? You just keep talking about terminating clumps of cells and avoid confronting the issue. I actually think the dehumanising language used by the pro-choice lobby is a very deliberate strategy, because most people are instinctively very uncomfortable with the whole concept. That's where all the equivocation comes from. I would at least respect the intellectual honesty and logical consistency of someone who says "any abortion, any time, any reason, no exceptions." Once you agree that limits are appropriate or necessary, I think you've admitted that at some point, in some way, it's killing a child. Once you've understood that much, I don't know how the mental gymnastics to accept it at all are possible.

 

Also, your scenario is nonsense. Woman trips and knocks over a chip pan, spilling boiling oil over her 2 year old son. Should she be charged with GBH or attempted murder? No. An accident is an accident and it's terribly sad. It's not a crime.

 

On the adoption point, I should stress that I'm morally opposed to IVF as well, since that involves multiple abortions with an added eugenic flavour. I'd prefer that people who want to be mothers but can't are paired up with people who are mothers but don't want to be to get a mutually satisfactory solution. I'd also do my best to encourage more adoption generally. If it takes a village to raise a child, I'd like to see ALL the villagers playing their part if they have the means.

[Loki]

Loki - Rape doesn't sound like such a big deal if you call it surprise sex. Does that make it OK? I call abortion what I believe it to be. I think it helps to clarify what it is. If you believe I'm completely wrong, why does it matter? You just keep talking about terminating clumps of cells and avoid confronting the issue.

 

Sorry, what issue am I avoiding? I dealt very specifically with whether it's taking a life or not, in some detail. What other issue are you referring to?

 

I actually think the dehumanising language used by the pro-choice lobby is a very deliberate strategy, because most people are instinctively very uncomfortable with the whole concept. That's where all the equivocation comes from. I would at least respect the intellectual honesty and logical consistency of someone who says "any abortion, any time, any reason, no exceptions." Once you agree that limits are appropriate or necessary, I think you've admitted that at some point, in some way, it's killing a child. Once you've understood that much, I don't know how the mental gymnastics to accept it at all are possible.

 

What you call equivocation, others call intelligent discussion. Agreeing that limits are necessary absolutely doesn't mean agreeing that it's killing a child, it means working out at what point it IS terminating a life, and therefore becomes morally wrong. Before that limit it's NOT killing anything living and therefore NOT morally wrong. The other arguments over abortion in this thread revolve around other issues (such as the impact on mother/father and so on) rather than the impact on the putative child.

 

We've been over this many times before, but I don't really believe in moral absolutes; I don't believe that morality was handed down on a stone tablet. Morality is a fluid concept that evolves alongside society. The issue of abortion is one of the ragged edges, where the limits of morality are constantly being redefined. In such a complex area, it's entirely consistent to see shades of grey, such as a foetus gradually becoming more human as it grows older. Hence I don't automatically think that people in a country that sets the abortion at, say, 20 weeks are murdering scum but those in a country where it's set at 23 weeks are medical heroes. As a society we have to make a judgement call. Abortion anywhere that late is on the ragged edge, I think we'd all agree.

 

Rape doesn't sound like such a big deal if you call it surprise sex.

 

To you, maybe To be honest, inflammatory things like that aren't going to help this discussion continue in a civil manner.

[Kiffy]

To be fair to Kenny, the point he's making is that calling rape surprise sex is on the same level as calling the murdering of a child abortion. He's not doing it to be inflammatory, he genuinely believes that. And, to play devils advocate a little, there's some evidence that in the latter stages of pregnancy during which abortions still allowed, he may have a point. There are abortions carried out at the stage that the baby could be kept alive outside the womb.

And nurses have to have lots of time off to get over the trauma of taking them out and then leaving them to die. It's a very tough subject when you get to that late in the pregnancy, as wherever you draw the line between a bunch of cells and a baby (Kenny calls it at the moment of inception, I think you and I would agree it's later) it can't help but be something of a grey area.

Which does make it rather morally tricky.

 

(Mind you, alot of the above may all be bollocks that I've read from a rampant pro lifer, in which case ignore it)

[neil]

My issue with the whole "killing a child" phrasing is that you're not. It's simply clever word play to tug on people's emotions. If you said "kill an adult" or "kill a life" it doesn't have the same power.

 

If a guy walks into a school and kills a child he is branded as the sickest member of society. If he kills an adult then it's more of a "tsk tsk" emotion. The image that people try to put in someone's mind when they talk about "killing a baby/child" is one of a poor innocent cute thing looking up with big watery eyes at the manic killer. The only abortion that even gets close to that is late term.

[Kiffy]

I would agree, but then that's where Kenny's faith changes his moral stance a little.

If you genuinely believe it's a life from the time it's conceived (or even before, which I believe is behind the catholic church's stance on bashing one out) then to Kenny and co, it will always be killing a child, regardless of the view taken by the medical profession, scientists, and the rest of the world as a whole.

Which ties into the whole morality vs faith that got brought up earlier, and is why people make the distinction Kenny.

[Stephanie]

I see those Pro Life people outside of the Women's Center here in Buffalo quite a bit. They shout, hiss at and are pretty abusive to the women and young girls that are going to the clinic. This is something that's hard enough to go through as it is without being condemned by the moral brigade. I felt like to going up and them and asking them if they're going to look after all of these children that they want people so desperately to have. See how far they run in the other direction, then.

 

 

As for the religious 'spin' that gets put onto it. I don't think I can discuss it without being disrespectful so I'm not going to.