Sexual Expression
I would like to thank Grant for providing me with the material for this post.
Let’s say it is true, that abortion is not the greatest idea in the world, and that a majority of Americans want to reduce abortion to the greatest extent possible. After all, looking at the stats provided by the CDC (go to the embedded link for this info), several things are painfully obvious:
- An overwhelming majority of abortions – almost 80% - occur out of wedlock.
- Among those 19 years and under, abortion is decreasing significantly; however, almost 50% of all women having abortions are over 25. In other words, they are likely not women who didn’t know better. They weren’t drunk at a college dorm, getting high behind the high school, or anything like that; they were already integrated into the responsible, adult world.
- An underwhelming percentage occurred after 21 weeks of gestation.
- The change in percentage of abortions by race says that, yes, abortion among black women is increasing, but white women are by no means absolved from the problem.
These numbers can’t be false, they come from the government. Can they?
These numbers are generally accepted, and they point out a huge number of societal, economic, and political issues.
THIS IS HUGE! It’s obvious that, whether we have a consensus opinion or not, it’s worth spending time and money to make sure the problem doesn’t get any worse. We know the facts – they really aren’t even up for discussion. We know the impact – look at the broken homes, stigma to society, and loss of life. We know the resolution, but we’re not doing enough about it.
Sexual expression is the start and end of the biggest cause of abortion: conception.
Conception is the new Global Warning. Consensus says conception is wrong. Consensus says we MUST act, even if the stats and forecasts are askew. Consensus says our world will fall apart if we don’t fix it. The media say it disproportionately affects the poor. Critics aren’t really arguing about it that much. Even Hillary Clinton wants to minimize the rate of abortion, which can only be done by minimizing conception.
Conception is the new Global Warming…but only if you’re willing to pass out condoms. There is no need for behavior modification, even though it would reduce medical costs and alleviate societal issues, let alone stop freaking out every adult female who is three days late.
So, why do we want to put all the taxpayers’ money behind every potential cure for global warming, when we won’t know for years whether the potential cures will work, but won’t pursue every avenue with conception, when we know what the results will be?
March 6th, 2007 15:41
A quick note: India is probably the highest in world population. China has been able to control its population, atleast by enforcement. The issue is never unidimensional, and its difficult to separate cultural, religious, medical and practical thinking. Meanwhile the baby rate is booming. Even as I write this note!
March 6th, 2007 16:42
I think your thinking here is really together. And your putting it down in writing is truly…brave.
WGB
March 6th, 2007 17:28
I suspect that Global Warming is a MUCH bigger problem for the future of humans and the existence of civilised life, than ‘conception’.
Both Global Warming and conception have major impacts at the personal level, but at the global level it is Global Warming that will impact all of us, whereas conception mostly affects the poorest countries through their high birth rates.
These high birth rates in the poorest countries are likely to fall dramatically in the next 20 years as the world moves closer to meeting the targets of the Millennium Development Goals. There is a LOT of evidence that when women get basic literacy education, the birthrate drops. The Millennium Development Goals emphasise universal primary school education for boys and girls.
So, I think it is disproportionate to say ‘Conception is the new Global Warming’. Conception is nowhere near as dangerous. Also, there is nothing new about the problems of over-population — China accurately saw the danger 30 years ago and acted on it.
Here is something that surprised me — the current birthrates of three countries — Italy (Catholic), China (with strong population control policies) and Australia (my place).
The lowest is Italy with something like 8.7 per 1,000 people - well below replacement.
The highest is China with something like 13.3 per 1,000 - still growing.
Australia is in the middle with something like 12.1 per 1,000 - also below replacement.
And the US? 14.1 per 1,000.
India is 22 per 1,000.
Japan is 9.4 per 1,000.
Uganda is 47 per 1,000! (Female literacy rate is 60%)
The current population of China is 1,313,973,713 and India is 1,095,351,995. On current growth rates the Indian population is projected to catch up with China in about 20 years.
Source: CIA Factbook
So, my vote is for putting the taxpayers money behind EVERY measure to reduce global warming - especially in the US which accounts for 24% of global GDP and is therefore the single biggest cause of the major problem facing humanity.
Oh, if you want to do something about the problem of ‘conception’, taxpayers should also fund education for girls in the poorest countries on the planet. Until we have 100% female literacy we will have dangerously high birthrates.
If you think I’m side-stepping the topic of abortion, you’re right. I’m lucky to live in a country where it is not a subject that causes the divisive violence you have in the US.
March 7th, 2007 00:04
Lakshmi,
Does that mean you believe population control is worthwhile, and that it is okay to restrict liberty to attain some global population quota?
Walter,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your compliment. I looked at your site and forwarded it to my wife. She was a copy writer before voluntarily retiring from the recognized work place to become a “nonworking” mom.
Gillian,
My apologies, but you totally missed my point. And in missing it, you are altogether proving it.
March 7th, 2007 03:01
Rick, it’s lovely to be RIGHT, isn’t it? No need to apologise, I was making a point of my own. Did you get it?
March 7th, 2007 08:48
I did a study on this at one point and I believe your facts are pretty darn close. I loved the point Gillian is making. There is so much controversy in this country about abortion. So, I will post my personal opinion. Whereas I do NOT believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control, I also do NOT believe that the choice should be in the hands of the Government or anyone other than the people involved.
Yes, I am Pro-Choice and the reason behind that is, I also did a study on these young women who have children IN and OUT of wedlock. Many times these kids are NOT wanted and they suffer abuse and many times violent deaths. As a rape survivor, I know how many women feel who become pregnant from a rape, incest, etc and choose NOT to carry their pregnancy to term.
My rape did not cause a pregnancy but if it had, I would have wanted to know that it was MY choice to have or have not, and not.that of the Government.
I also believe if our own Government would stop providing food stamps, welfare checks, etc for these unwed Mom’s and start cutting them off the system after so long, a LOT of these women would stop making a living giving birth. Sometimes our own Government enables these women to become victims of the system by NOT offering more help when they do try to get jobs or make a life for themselves. Many states stop any welfare assistance the moment they get a job and I believe if they helped them out more for the first year that some of these women might actually be able to get off welfare and make a better life for themselves and their children.
This has been a very interesting post and I will be back to read other comments. I respect the opinions of all and enjoy reading.
March 7th, 2007 12:06
Hey Gillian,
I believe I get your point. If I do, it plays into my cunning plan very nicely. Thanks for playing along.
This exercise is the anatomy of how a debate topic is twisted to the favor of the second party of a debate. In my post, I first referenced facts, then rephrased the facts into mostly irrefutable generalizations. Next, I purposefully made an emotional, hyperbolic statement, which was followed by a rational request for education and understanding.
Gillian played along perfectly, avoiding the facts and the request for education. Instead, he made his own emotional statement, and provided facts to support his statement.
Ultimately, the original topic was nullified and redirected.
Such is the case with political discourse in America. People latch onto the emotional statements instead of avoiding them, then they steer the topic to their own liking, instead of addressing the original context. It is all very frustrating. Gillian succeeded in taking an American issue and globalizing it, which changed the context of the discussion. Very interesting.
Hi Dariana,
Thank you for contributing. I am curious, how many births and abortions occur due to the truly awful horrors that you mention?
Outside of the gruesome scenarios you mention, I have a difficult time with the term “wanted pregnancy”. I would say that, for many women, the term “inconvenient pregnancy” would be more accurate. Regardless, we are permitting subjective language to rule the debate. It’s no better than using “the health of the mother”, then leaving that open to interpretation.
March 7th, 2007 17:44
Hello all,
Rick, I have to say I’m not sure of the point/exercise you engaged in here, but I certianly agree that the debate can be pushed around, so I’m going to try and bring it back to my original post. I’ll try for a clear question:
Is it now possible to build a coalition within the US to act as a moderate voice in the abortion debate? This moderate voice could center on some form of the following points:
Note these are only here for example. If you hate some of the points, do you think some coalition is still possible?
1. Although we will likely never agree on when life “starts” or on when a developing fetus deserves the rights of a full person, it is reasonable to significantly limit abortion due to its undeniable impact on the unborn.
2. a recognition that abortion is best viewed a method of last resort in dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
3. Abortion should be legal under the constraints set out in points 1 and 2
4. Other avenues of dealing with unwanted pregnancy and sex outside of marriage should be vigorously pursued. These include
a) Promotion of proven methods of birth control
b) Promotion of celibacy
This would further effectively reduce both the incidence of abortion and potentially inappropriate and harmful sexual activity in general.
-Grant
March 7th, 2007 19:12
Hi Rick,
I entered the discussion via your “emotional, hyperbolic statement” that conception is the new global warming — which I found strangely bizarre. It undermined my confidence in your rationality.
Yes, I took up the ‘global warming’ theme that you had introduced. Sorry if you think that global warming (and abortion) are American issues. They’re not.
Your logic became even more suspect when I looked at the referenced data which notes that the abortion rate is falling. Where is the HUGE problem? Is it not falling as fast as you want? You didn’t say that. You moved on to the very peculiar over-simplification that ‘conception is the biggest cause of abortion’.
I put the case that the main problem that results from conception is over-population, not abortion.
I really dislike the manipulativeness of “Gillian played along nicely”. I don’t choose to engage with you in discussion when you have other agendas to play out. I am not your plaything.
And Gillian is female. Because pregnancy happens in female bodies, the gender of the speaker in abortion debates has particular relevance.
Sorry, Rick, I find your logic flawed and your approach manipulative. Not a good basis for open discussion.
Grant — I like the idea of moderate voices in the debate. As in any debate, the two extremes often muffle the reasonable middle.
March 7th, 2007 19:22
Rick-
Up to now I’ve enjoyed your posts and comments; they are really helping to make BraveHumans more well-rounded.
I do agree with Gillian this time, however. I don’t think that on BraveHumans we need to be tricky to make a point. I think open and above-board is the way to go.
Of course, since this is BraveHumans, that’s open to discussion…
March 7th, 2007 21:41
Gillian -
My apologies for assuming you were male. That was not intended as an insult. I also did believe that you understood what I was doing with the post. I was wrong on that, too, so that’s two strikes against me.
For you to infer that I must take a global position on everything, though, I think is wrong. Not every issue should be globalized, even if you believe so. To that, I keep my stance.
Also, I think your point on “extremes” makes an assumption that you should be wary of making. After all, how many other right-leaning contributors post to this site? If all your contributors are moderate to left-leaning, then ANYTHING right of center will tend to look extreme.
I do engage in satire and puzzles, per se. Great points can be made through satire if people are willing to work through it. If that won’t work here, though, I’ll leave it at home. I wanted to try something that works well on my personal blog, and it dropped like a lead balloon here.
Susan -
My point was that agendas are pushed, twisted, ignored; the parties involved in making their point are as much at fault as the responders because they engage in hyperbole. I think that point is now evident.
I am frustrated that every post must now consider a global perspective, otherwise it is wrong. THAT was not the intent of the site when Brian asked me to contribute. My country has enough problems in it without people outside of my country, who don’t LIVE my problems, trying to tell me they understand them and can solve them, or, worse yet, telling me that my perspective is myopic.
Grant -
Thanks for tossing out the additional questions. Here are my responses:
#1 - yes, I agree.
#2 - this is where I have the biggest problem. As I mentioned in my response to Dariana, the term “unwanted pregnancy” has way too much wiggle room. The policy becomes almost impossible to enforce, because you can always find another exception. Ultimately, everything becomes an exception, and you lose the baseline. At what point does personal responsibility enter the equation?
#3 - see #2.
#4 - agreed.
In closing-
So, if we are all in agreement, I will leave the satire and puzzles at home.
Rick
March 7th, 2007 22:23
Rick,
I find it interesting that on Grant’s list, you were vague on Grant’s point 2 & 3, concerning the legal status of abortion. I understand your point with everything being an exception, but I think this is worth exploring further.
So I’ll come right out and ask: Do you feel abortion should be legal, and if so under what circumstances?
March 7th, 2007 23:08
Hi Rick,
I do tend to bring a global perspective, but I don’t mind if you want to nut things out on a local level. I would probably watch from the sidelines. Broad statements about global warming tend to trigger global perspectives for me.
Now that we’ve got all of that out of the way, I would be interested to hear your views about abortion.
Given your reservations about Grant’s second point (abortion as last resort for unwanted pregnancy) - how would you express it? … “Abortion as last resort for …?” or would you be more aligned with “never under any circumstances?” Hmmm… same as Brian asked, really.
March 8th, 2007 10:03
Gillian-
I appreciate the global aspect brought to the discussion by folks. I went to university outside the US, and there were lots of international students; I know I benefited from that. I miss it.
A feeling of isolation was the primary reason we started BraveHumans. (This is my opinion; I may not be speaking for Julia, Brian, and Grant
now.) We felt that our discussions continually revolved around a liberal point of view. We were missing outside voices.
Starting with Brian’s essay “I Am Not Afraid,” we were looking at American issues; we thought there were lots of things that needed fixing. But many, many American struggles are shared (one way or another) with the international community. So I’d like to see everyone keep sharing ideas, and each individual can choose to what he or she wants to respond.
Susan
March 8th, 2007 10:54
I’m pretty sure I could nail Rick’s answer, but instead, I’ll just speak for myself, thankyouverymuch!
I am a “never under any circumstances” guy.
I can not see any situation where an unborn child should suffer capital punishment.
March 8th, 2007 12:51
Scott,
Are you also therefore a pacifist, since war inevitably leads to the capital punishment of innocent children through “collateral damage”? If you distinguish between the two, could you explain your reasoning?
March 8th, 2007 13:18
No, Brian, I am not a “pacifist.” I’m no hawk either.
The difference between war and abortion should be readily apparent.
War is a process that (hopefully) corrects a serious problem. The pitfalls of war serve to benefit great numbers of people. War often is death to stop death (and other bad things).
Abortion is a process that benefits the individual that wishes not to be personally responsible for the highly predictable result of their own behavior. As a result of their own behavior, they wish to kill the only innocent party in the scenario.
War is often to depose vicious tyrants;
Abortion is strikingly strikingly similar to vicious tyrants.
March 8th, 2007 15:26
Well, now that is interesting.
Your argument then seems to be that killing innocent children through war, while regrettable, is acceptable because war (sometimes) benefits the greater good of society.
But the same could be said of abortion. Abortion, while regrettable, does lead to a reduction in poverty, and to a dramatic reduction in violent crime.
It would seem, then, that the two are not as different as one might think. Your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that war can do more good than harm (which is arguable), and that pregnancy is always a result of a woman’s own actions (even in cases of rape or incest), which is simply not true.
I’ll be honest here. I AM a pacifist, I’m opposed to capital punishment, and I am also pro-life. My stance in all three of these cases is based on the tenet that the taking of another’s life is wrong. Period. However, I also recognize that humans are sometimes placed in difficult situations, so I have difficulty with an “in all circumstances” stance. On the abortion issue, I generally agree with Grant’s approach.
March 8th, 2007 16:47
A few things.
First, I knew it was going to happen, and in earlier revisions of my comment I included it, but it slipped out of the final post: For the sake of this discussion, I assumed a “just war.” Stopping the holocaust, for example.
As for the assertions about the “good” that comes from abortion, you can’t prove a negative. The study linked to shows a *correlation* but you can’t show causation unless you have strict controls. In other words, you would need two identical communities of the same number of people in the same social stratas, one where abortion is legal, one where it’s not. The study would have to run for years. The linked study has none of that. It could be attributed to coincidence, flight to suburbia, or any number of factors.
As for rape and incest, these are exceptions, not the rule.
March 8th, 2007 19:49
Hey all,
Let me hit the bullet points first, then explain.
- Yes, I am against abortion in all cases. I believe life starts at conception.
- I also see a difference between abortion and “just war”.
- I am not a pacifist relative to war or capital punishment, as I believe it undermines the ability of our safety forces and judiciary to effective fulfill its responsibilities.
On abortion: ideally, I would like to eliminate it. The only “foolproof” way to do that is by law, which I oppose; we see how wonderful that method worked for prohibition. The other way to do that is by education.
Continuing on abortion: I think the definition of terms is still wrong. “Last resort” and “Unwanted pregnancy” are weak and unenforceable. Same with “health of the mother”; is that being on the verge of death, having a mental breakdown, getting tummy aches, or freaking out over being pregnant? I would use the terms “voluntary pregnancy” (not caused by rape, incest, etc.) and “involuntary pregnancy” (caused by rape, incest, etc.) for starters. And, sorry, getting drunk and having sex with your boyfriend does not absolve you of your situation - truthfully, it shouldn’t absolve him, either. If the sex was consensual, no matter how blitzed you were, it was still voluntary. For those that believe there is a line of demarcation at rape, incest, etc., you then have it. So, while I am against abortion, there is more clarity and responsibility by using these terms; root cause is better defined. Why is attaching a stigma to those things that should be culturally unacceptable a bad thing?
On war: I agree with Scott’s “just war” comments. The problem lies in the method of engagement. Traditional military tactics, for the most part, focused on military vs. military. Terrorist and guerrilla tactics use civilians as shields, decoys, etc. Nothing like giving the enemy aid and comfort by allowing them to shield themselves behind the innocents.
On capital punishment: it is the job of governments to enforce the laws, according to the punishments proscribed within the law. I am for government legally upholding the law, but neither being above the law nor abusing the law.
March 8th, 2007 20:47
Scott,
I assumed you intended only to include “just” wars in your example. But this presumes that a war could EVER be just, which is debatable. When pacifism is mentioned, WWII is inevitably invoked (just as rape/life of the mother is invoked when a pro-life stance is mentioned). People like to assume WWII was “just” because of the holocaust. One can debate this, but even if we assume this to be the case, it is the exception in a long list of unjust wars. History shows that wars are almost never undertaken for noble causes, they rarely settle issues, they rarely make large societal change, etc. What they do is kill innocent people and shift spheres of influence among empires.
As a pacifist, I refuse to take up arms in the service of my country. This does not mean I unwilling to serve in the cause of my country, only that I am unwilling to kill for it. I am also willing to concede in rare circumstances war MAY be the lesser evil (my difficulty with “no exceptions”, as I said.) But this would be the exception, not the rule.
On the societal implications of abortion, there is a very good discussion between one of the authors and a skeptic here. Clearly one study doesn’t prove anything, so more research on this would be warranted. I would agree that using the study to justify legalized abortion is unfounded.
I would also agree that rape and incest are more the exception than the rule, but they do exist (along with life-threatening cases). But since you are an “under no circumstances” guy, I can only assume that even in the (rare) cases of rape, incest and life-threatening illness should be illegal. Under no circumstances means just that.
If this is your position, what teeth would you give such a law? If ALL abortions were to be illegal as you suggest, what punishment would you place on women who have illegal abortions? What punishment for those who assist in abortions?
March 8th, 2007 21:01
Hello all,
Scott, thanks for stating your position clearly. You say that you are an “under no circumstances” guy. You also, however, indicate that you see rape and incest as possible exceptions. My point in making the original abortion post was to hopefully start a discussion across viewpoints, so based on what you’ve stated as your position, I’m going to keep pushing a bit. I’m also going to try to address some of Rick’s concerns as well.
OK. Here goes.
I don’t think abortion will ever be outlawed again in the U.S. My reasoning is the following:
As a nation, we will not be able to come to consensus about the point at which human life starts or the relative rights of the mother vs. the unborn child. There are simply too many different points of view and no clear objective standard that even the majority of us will accept.
Although it is possible that the Supreme Court and/or some states may outlaw abortion, other states will not. For example, if the Feds outlaw abortion I think it’s virtually certain that several states will respond by passing legislation legalizing the process within their borders. I see this as a real possibility, and it worries me a great deal. It will further divide the country and create additional problems such as determining the legality of crossing state lines for an abortion.
I want to avoid this possibility, and so I am looking for some compromise position on abortion. The foundation of such a compromise is agreeing that abortion is and will be legal in the United States. The other side of such a compromise is to significantly and even profoundly limit the circumstances under which abortions would be available, and (as I argued before) promote both the practice of celibacy and the availability of safe and effective birth control to limit the need for abortion as much as possible.
OK, now to try to respond to Rick’s concern about personal responsibility. This is JUST an idea to see if continued discussion is possible. I am SURE that the women in my life would fundamentally hate this idea and I think they would be justified. I hate it myself. I’m also not even going to attempt to discuss the problems in implementing an idea like this. But just for the sake of a discussion, how about this- if any woman gets two abortions that are not the result of rape or incest, she must consent to implantation of long-term birth control as part of the second abortion, or she must agree to carry the baby to term.
Again, I hate this mandated birth control proposal. It screams police state to me. That being said, could you, (or Rick if you’re reading this) see this as at least the start of a discussion about a compromise position? I fully understand that accepting the continued legal status of abortion is profoundly difficult, but could you engage in a meaningful process that assumes that status and also imposes the sorts of limits I’m setting out here? Although I’m obviously hoping for a “yes” of some kind, I would also value a negative response to this proposal. That would be meaningful and important. It would answer my original question about the possibility of compromise on this issue. If that’s where we are, that’s important to know.
-Grant
March 8th, 2007 21:11
Just as a side-note. My wife just pointed out that it seems to be the MEN which are arguing about this issue…
March 9th, 2007 12:07
Regarding punishments, it would be up to the states as to how they already treat murderers.
Yes, I classify abortion as murder, and so do a great many people. When an assailant kills an unborn child in the commission of a crime, he can be charged for murder. Scott Peterson, anyone? Neither inconvenience nor chance should change the value of that human being. If a criminal kills the baby, it’s murder. If a mother kills the baby, it’s still murder. It can’t be both ways.
Grant, when I say “incest and rape are exceptions, ” I don’t mean they are exceptions to my view on abortion. I mean they are exceptional circumstances. We can not govern by exceptional circumstances. We must govern on general conditions. Generally speaking, abortions are had by people who have consented to sex.
Regarding a clear, objective standard How’s this: At what point does the baby have its own set of chromosomes? DNA?
As for compromise, unfortunately, I believe whole heartedly in the right to life, specified in the founding documents of this nation. Therefore I can not agree to the infringement upon that right.
At conception the child’s genes are complete. It is a unique being. It has intrinsic value.
March 9th, 2007 12:50
Hi Scott,
Thanks very much for your answer. To show you the same respect you have shown me, I will state my own position as clearly as I can. I do not see a ball of undifferentiated cells that contain human DNA as person with rights. I do not foresee any circumstance under which I would support an outright ban on abortion.
What this tells me is that this is an issue that we as a country are likely stuck with. That depresses me a bit, but it is significant and worth knowing.
Thanks. See you on the next post.
-Grant
March 9th, 2007 14:40
Scott,
As a purely scientific argument, your DNA argument fails for several reasons. The clearest failure is that twinning occurs several days after conception. Identical twins have the same DNA and the same conception, yet we do not consider them to be one individual.
Your statement about governing on exceptional cases is also incorrect. Law is tested by exceptional cases. It is how the limit of any law is determined. Without examining the “exceptional cases” any law can be too broadly applied, or not applied at all.
March 9th, 2007 15:32
A woman tip-toes into the room….
In the balance, I am pro-choice. I don’t see early abortion as murder. So, the question becomes how to define ‘early’. As a foetus grows organically, there CANNOT be a clear line - cells one day and human the next. So, you can draw the line in several places with equal validity. That means there is no need to get stuck arguing about where to draw the line, just draw it and move on.
In Australia abortion is legal (and low-cost due to our health care system). An Australian govt health website says that our abortion rate is 23% of pregnancies, compared with 30% in the US. It says that our abortion rate now is lower than in the 1930s when it was about 33%.
Throughout history, abortion has been used in most societies as a birth-control method. It is generally regarded as less than ideal for a range of reasons - safety, cost, ethics. So, it is good to put energy into ways to make it safer or unnecessary.
I am interested in all the perspectives that are emerging… thank you everyone for sharing your views.
Grant’s approach of taking the starting point that abortion won’t be made illegal again, so where to from here… opened new perspectives for me.
Thanks again…
March 9th, 2007 19:36
Brian -
The Slate article and ensuing replies were interesting. The inclusion of irresponsible male behavior as part of the problem was important. After all, it does take two to tango. Regarding pacifism, I will use force to protect my family if they were placed in a physically threatening situation. I think self-defense is a justified use of force. (Intentionally not getting into detail here, that topic probably deserves its own post.)
Gillian and Grant -
Rather than saying abortion will never be illegal, I am more inclined to say that abortions will occur, whether legal or not. That thought saddens me, since I desire zero abortions, but it’s probably the reality. (Grant, your proposal surprised me. I would not be for it, either. That would also mean that the female could never change her mind, doesn’t it?)
All -
I think we all stated that it’s appropriate to reduce the cause of abortion. That’s the part of the discussion that I believe is often bypassed by the media, which would rather pit religious view vs. nonreligious view, party vs. party. The viewing public only sees the incessant bickering and posturing, and misses the substance of the topic.
March 9th, 2007 19:38
Brian, the twins thing is not cogent for me. Sorry. You’re arguing another exception. Are the twins different from their mother? THAT was the point. Your argument is a straw man.
Regarding governing via exceptions, I disagree. It is against the law to kill. It is not against the law to kill in defense of life (or property in some states). The exception to the no killing generality is not a basis for throwing out the no killing law. If we goverened by the exception, we would say Killing is ok…
Government is (or should be) by general conditions, exceptions should be taken case-by-case.
March 9th, 2007 21:16
Scott,
I will try to be more cogent on the twinning example, but first a question: between the time of conception and the time of twinning, is the clump of cells one person or two? Upon what scientific evidence do you base your answer?
March 10th, 2007 09:07
Brian, that’s not the point. To continue to persue twinning is to continue with straw men, and to go astray of the the topic.
March 10th, 2007 11:37
Oh!!MY!!! I have been reading your blog and this particular entry. I must say I am flabbergasted!!!!
You seem to be intelligent men. But on the other hand, are a bunch of hypocrites. Except Gillian and Susan , maybe because they are women?
How can you discuss abortion that way??? What do you know about that subject??? Have you ever had any of those problems??? How can you judge and punish women who, most of the time are not offered a choice in life???
This “choice” that they are making at one point or the other in their life is probably never easy and never something that they WANT to do, have you thought about that???
Have you thought about of the life of an unwanted child, are YOU going to take care of him, help the mother, be there to help and support her? It is SO easy to criticize isn’t it?? Shame on you in your outrageous attitudes. Very sad society to come to that. No compassion, only judgement on something that you don’t even know.
Oh!!! You can take off my blogs from your list. I like openmindedness, love and understanding.
March 10th, 2007 17:11
Scott,
My question is far from irrelevant. It is not a strawman. It is a scientific question in response to a scientific claim. It is how science is done.
You claimed that “at conception” was a clear and objective line for the beginning of human life, basing your claim on DNA. Had you stated that your definition of human origin was determined by fiat, or as an act of faith, I would not have pursued the issue. Instead you asserted a scientific claim that a complete set of chromosomes is what determines human-ness. Hence I asked for clarification because your definition is not objectively well defined. The definition you have stated would mean that identical twins are a single person, which is clearly not the accepted standard.
I do wish you would answer the question. No one making the “at conception” argument has ever provided me with an answer regarding twinning. Instead they avoid the question. So, independent of the abortion issue, what’s your answer, Scott?
March 10th, 2007 18:43
Martine,
Welcome to BraveHumans. I’m glad you feel comfortable calling us to task on this issue. I think you make an excellent point that when we discuss aspects of law and politics, we are not just debating principles, we are debating issues which affect people. It is easy to forget the personal side of issues like abortion in the heat of argument.
I am glad you were willing to state your outrage, and I do hope that you will continue to add to the discussion, and when you find views offensive, counter them.
The goal of BraveHumans is to present a diversity of viewpoints and discuss those positions openly and honestly. That means BraveHumans will sometimes have posts which you find offensive, while other posts you may agree with will offend others. But our hope is that we can create a dialogue between people with opposing views.
So please, stick around.
March 10th, 2007 19:26
Thanks Brian. It is not that I feel comfortable to state my outrage, it is that I wouldn’t feel comfortable to let people talk about such a touchy subject as if it was just another day in the park and say nothing.
This particular problem should be left to the woman and the woman only. This is not anybody’s business but her own and every woman in trouble at this point needs help and not to be judged. I would say that most of the time the responsibility should be put on the men.
Why is the responsibility of the child always put on the mother?? It is so easy for the father to leave them at any point in time, whether after conception, as you so well point it out, or after the children are born, or even after 25 years of marriage… The women are often left alone to care for the children aren’t they??? So, please, the day the men will indeed share this responsibility and really understand what it is to love and care for your children, worry for them every day of their life, never knowing if they will have enough to eat, if they are warm enough, loved enough, happy, sad… Then and then only, there will be something to say about abortion but punish women for it, or kill the doctors who help them!!!! This is really going too far, much too far.
By the way, when will the men think about contraception??? Couldn’t we sterilze them??? When are they going to be responsible of that part??? Could they take responsibility for something instead or judging ???
March 10th, 2007 23:39
Martine,
You have a lot to respond to. I’ll throw in my two cents, and let others respond for themselves.
I agree that providing women with options and support as a better path. Not simply as a mechanism of reducing abortions, but also as a general benefit to society. That 12 million children in America live in poverty is morally reprehensible. As a society we fail these children.
Your argument that it is a woman’s choice I would also agree with, to a point. I would not agree, for example that it is still a woman’s choice a week before term.
There is a parallel between the abortion issue and, for example, the rights of parents. As a society, we agree that parents generally have the right to raise children as they see fit. We may not agree with their parenting style, but we view parenting as a basic right. Yet we also recognize that there are certain limits where parents lose their parenting rights. In the case of abuse or neglect, for example. I see the abortion issue in much the same way. There is a basic woman’s right to control her reproduction, but there are limits to those rights. In both cases, where those limits lie is a political discussion.
I also think that any discussion of removing children from their parents, or limiting a woman’s right to an abortion should be done in parallel with discussions regarding the type of support structure in place to reduce abortions, or the placing of children in foster care.
This discussion began by Grant’s post proposing a compromise on the abortion issue. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on his idea.
You make an excellent point regarding the father’s responsibility regarding birth control. Men as well as women should take responsibility for their own contraception, or it should be a mutual decision if you are in a committed relationship. Regarding your comment of sterilizing men, I know of several men who have done just that. Many a husband has undergone a vasectomy after the children are born.
Just as a side note, Rick, Scott, Grant and myself are each fathers who actively share in the care and raising of our children. We do love and care for our children, and worry over them, and all the rest. We may disagree on the issue of abortion, but we have all agreed to being responsible fathers.
March 11th, 2007 03:20
Hi Martine,
You raise an issue that I have been thinking about these past few days - and that is that this is ‘women’s business’… “it’s not anybody’s business but her own”.
I have to say that I find myself mostly agreeing, though I feel a real tentativeness about it. In a way, I can stand back and watch the blokes argue all they like - as long as they don’t interfere with what I choose to do. It’s my body that pregnancy happens in, and in large part, it is my work and love for the next 20+ years that will raise that child. I’m lucky if I have a good partner (like Rick, Scott and Grant who will share the load), but I can’t rely on that. Fundamentally, I have to rely on myself.
What about father’s rights? That’s where I get uneasy. Certainly if a man and a woman have chosen together to ’start a baby’, I think that father’s rights apply. The woman should not turn around and say, “Oh, sorry, I don’t think I can do this.” But then, if she DOES suddenly realise that this is NOT a good idea, what kind of person/society would compel her to go through with it?
Pregnancy is so DAMN personal! It really is the strangest feeling to have another person turning somersaults INSIDE you. Truly, women have NOTHING they can call their own, not even their own bodies.
Father’s rights — If a man discovers that his girlfriend is accidentally pregnant, then father’s rights don’t apply in my book.
Given that legal abortion is safer than illegal abortion, I would always support the legality of abortion, within a framework that requires counselling and consideration. Those people and organisations who oppose abortion can be encouraged to offer advisory and support services to help women choose to continue the pregnancy. This way, their practical actions can reduce the abortion rate by making the alternative more possible for women who find themselves in a very difficult situation.
Brian - I totally agree that everything to do with abortion has to be regarded in an agreed timeframe - there has to be a point of no return for the rule of law in our societies. In other places (e.g. times of extreme starvation that are only too common in some of the poorest countries) then it is back-to-the-wall survival for the group and advanced abortion and infanticide may be necessary for the survival of all. This is a real-life decision for many people (sorry, international perspective coming in). These conditions are faced by thousands of people, today. Not in my country, or yours. But real people.
March 11th, 2007 07:32
Yes, Brian and Thanks Gillian, this is an immense and so delicate subject indeed.
When I speak about abortion it is clear in my mind that it never happens after the first or second month evidently, in my country, or should I say countries??? they don’t do it, except of course to save the mother or in extreme cases. But this is unheard off, or did I leave in a very protective environment? I would never have imagined that, anybody would, well, this is not an abortion once the child is fully developped is it???Who would do that?? Hum…
Anywho, my point is that a child should always be born in a place when he is wanted. I wouldn’t agree, for the same token on a woman who would trick her husband or fiance or the man of her life whatever it is today, into fatherhood. This is done currently and I don’t think that it is fair either. If a man is not ready to be a father and says it clearly, nobody should impose a child on him either. This is a responsibility that is better taken seriously. You don’t decide to have a children just because your friends have children or any other reason of the kind.
Children need love, security, care, and to know that they have people who are always there for them, who will guide them and protect them. People they can rely on. They need to feel safe.
I have worked for long years in psychiatry and of course, there you can see the other side of life and appreciate exactly what you have. Those poor women, really don’t know any better and this is pitiful, horrible, and unfortunately, men are taking advantage of them, this is even more horrible, and thanks for the Rights of the Person, nobody can force anybody to take any contraceptives if they don’t want to!!!! One of our psychiatrist was going to prison see the patients and even in prison, if the patient didn’t want to take his medication, you cannot force him to take them!!!! There is a problem, much bigger than abortion and creating this problem over and over again. We are not protected anymore and we are not protecting our own.
By giving too many Rights to everybody we forgot the rights of the Victims. So, I think that we shouldn’t create more victims with women who are only trying to Survive in a very difficult world for them most of the time.
Hum….. I think I went overboard there!!! Sorry about that…that’s me when I start talking… Have all a good Sunday.
Abortion near the end of the pregnancy… why??? why does it happen in your society??? does anybody know???
Now I will go read Grant’s post, must be very interesting also.
March 12th, 2007 19:34
Follow up on Global Warming.
Today I read this analysis of the likelihood of Global Warming and the implications for future litigation. The ground for debate on Global Warming is shifting every month. It seems important to keep up.
The full report is at http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelopment/2007/03/beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_clim.php
An extract…
March 12, 2007
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Climate Change and Criminal Liability
Posted by David Wheeler at 04:54 PM
In U.S. jurisprudence, the standard for conviction in a criminal proceeding is “beyond a reasonable doubt” — at least 90% certain, in the conventional understanding. The prevailing standard in civil proceedings is the “preponderance of evidence” — more likely true than not — which implies greater than 50% likelihood. Applying these standards to successive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) yields a chilling conclusion: since 1990, the likelihood of carbon emitters’ culpability for damage from climate change has escalated from the range of civil liability (above 50%) to the range of criminal liability (above 90%). What could this mean in practice?
……………….
It means that countries that suffer flooding from rising sea levels (some estimates predict 100million in Bangladesh) or starvation from increasing drought (some attribute the conflict in Dafur to drought) will be able to sue the countries that have caused the situation through emission of CO2. Rich countries will not be able to regard these emergencies as a call on charity, they will have to face a legal responsibility for the results of their actions, especially now that the evidence is in on Global Warming.
How do we face the challenge to see evidence clearly and freshly, instead of through the lens of our preferences whether they are left-leaning or right-leaning, central or more edgy?
March 12th, 2007 21:33
A very good point Gillian, it is time to do something instead of talking about doing something.
The danger is now and the future is here.
March 13th, 2007 13:37
I’ve been reading this thread with a great deal of interest.
You see I am one of your statistics. I had 2 abortions as a teenager and I have to say that there is something you are forgetting, the women behind the statistics. Many of you are probably thinking, just another pro-choice supporter. You’re wrong, I think abortion is murder and should be illegal.
One of the things that no one tells you is that the “procedure” stays with you. Just as having a child impacts the rest of your life so does the abortion of one. Unfortunately most women don’t understand the repercussions of this when they decide to do it. I’ve read the statistics that say that women who choose to have an abortion don’t suffer any long term effects. But I’ve yet to meet one in real life who hasn’t suffered on some level. There are programs set up for women like me because we do suffer.
The vast majority of women aren’t doing this because of rape, incest, or to protect their life. Depending on the study you look at, those reasons are recorded 2-5% of the time. It has become a convenience thing. I hear that a woman should have a right to choose. I agree and in most cases the woman exercised that right, they chose to have sex. It’s like playing Russian roulette, you don’t know when you are going to get that bullet but you chose to play the game.
I have to ask, what about the rights of the unborn? What are the qualifications that make that baby a human deserving of protection? Does life really have so little value?
I’m not asking anyone to answer the questions, just think about them. This isn’t a subject that has an easy answer. If you make abortion illegal it won’t stop all women from seeking them out, but it could save a number of children. I think the thing that will have the most impact is education. Not just education about birth control but also about the life long ramifications of both having a child and killing a child.
March 16th, 2007 00:09
To Kim-
thank you for the courage and the clarity of your post. It is for this that I trawl thru all the discussion. A powerful thought- full education about birth control, parenting, sex, and abortion, including all the information, including diverse voices from the people with experience. I think I’ve actually heard of someone (United Church of Christ? UUs?) trying something like this.
Again, thanks for the gift of your voice.
Best-
Nick
March 18th, 2007 00:05
Gillian,
You said: “Those people and organisations who oppose abortion can be encouraged to offer advisory and support services to help women choose to continue the pregnancy. This way, their practical actions can reduce the abortion rate by making the alternative more possible for women who find themselves in a very difficult situation.”
Agreed. The issue with many advocacy groups and media organizations in the U.S. is that this perspective is seen exclusively as a religious view, and is therefore discounted. (This gets back to Grant’s original post on the topic.) Or, worse yet, caring, capable organizations are founded by religious groups, and the government won’t touch them because it looks like a joining of church and state. The ACLU steps in, attorneys make money, the media have a story for a week and a half, and the issue doesn’t get addressed. Sigh.
Martine,
In America, partial birth abortion is a frustrating topic. We’re talking about babies being killed after the head is outside of the mother already. People fight strongly for this “right”, although, as the CDC numbers show, it seems to be an extremely small percentage of the abortions. Discussion of this practice, as heinous as it is, hijacks the abortion debate, and moves us away from addressing the problem.
Kim,
Thank you for being truly brave and addressing your experiences here.
Regards,
Rick
March 18th, 2007 20:44
Thanks Rick for the enlightenment!!!! (I could have lived the rest of my life without it though)…
I would not put this in the same category than abortion then. This is not abortion in any shape or form.
As I said, abortion, in my countries is something that can be done only the first three months of the pregnancy. Never after that, then it becomes a medical procedure of another sort in some particular cases but certainly not for a “change of mind?”. Too late for that. I had no idea that something like that could even exist or that some people would even think or doing such a think. This goes beyond my comprehension of humanity and I already don’t like much what I see anymore!!!!
Swell!!! Just when I thought I had seen it all!!!!or heard it all!!!!