A couple of thoughts on abortion

[mousme]

This has cropped up a number of times on my flist of late, which isn't all that surprising, considering my friends.

I don't know if it'll surprise many people on here if I say that, fundamentally, I don't believe that abortion is right. Maybe it will surprise people. It won't surprise those who know me well. I am the product of someone's choice not to abort, so I feel rather strongly on the topic, to say the least.

That being said, until there are safe, viable alternatives to abortion, I will remain pro-choice.

When there is a clear and present danger to the mother's health, I am all in favour of terminating a pregnancy in a safe, medical procedure that is authorized by law. Until dangerous pregnancies are a thing of the past, I will remain pro-choice.

Until everyone who doesn't want a child is given access to birth control and other safe-sex products, I will remain pro-choice.

Until little girls are no longer raped, I will remain pro-choice.

Until such a time as women are no longer abused and raped by men they thought they could trust, I will remain pro-choice.

Until such a time as abortion remains the *only* resort for some unhappy, desperate women, I will remain pro-choice.

Until such a time as women are entirely in control of their own fertility, I will remain pro-choice.




I am not anti-life. I am pro-choice. There is a difference.


:::ETA:::

I am leaving comments open for now. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, and to discuss in a sane, rational, and respectful manner. Most of you don't need to be told to remain civilized, but this is a sensitive topic, so if you get upset, keep your hands away from your keyboard. Close friend or online acquaintance, if you insult or otherwise flame someone on this LJ, I will ban your ass faster than you can say "Bob's your mother's brother." Capito?

Comments

[alcinoe.livejournal.com]

While I agree with most of what you said, adoption isn't always a safe sane option even if the person doesn't fit into your scenarios. I know of several children (now adults) who were adopted and ended up in a very bad situation. Because I don't believe human life starts at conception, I don't believe that abortion is the worst option. What I don't understand, and you of course are invited to enlighten me, is how an embryo can be considered a human life, yet be "okay" to terminate in any situation. Forgive me, but it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear.

I know that adoption isn't always a safe, sane option. By no means did I intend the above list of scenarios to be exhaustive, either. Adoption is a poor option these days for many children because, well, the screening process for adoptive parents is nowhere near as rigorous as it was when I was adopted as I understand it, nor are the requirements the same from one place to another.

I also don't believe that life begins at conception. However, to me an embryo is a *potential* life, and thus I would be reluctant to abort one, regardless of the stage in which it is, gestationally-speaking.

I suppose my views can be summed up as "I am pro-choice because we live in an imperfect world." :P

[alcinoe.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for clearing that up. Still, I wish I could find someone who thinks human life starts at conception, but it is okay to abort under x, y, and z conditions. I know that such people exist and I am REALLY curious about their positions and how they come to that stance.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

I waffle on the topic, to be honest, and it's why I'm not entirely comfortable with Catholic doctrine. :P

The reasoning behind "life begins at conception but it's okay to abort under x, y, and z conditions" would be, I think, that the existing life of the mother must take precedence over the life-yet-to-be of the embryo. Sure, the embryo is alive, but it can't exist independently of the mother, and thus the independent life must be put first.

I think. Anyone out there who actually holds to this position, please correct me if I've understood this wrong.

[luvenditti.livejournal.com]

ditto.

[miseri.livejournal.com]

You called?

When it comes to "endangering the mother's life", it basically comes to this: There are two human beings in critical danger, and only one of them can be saved. Saving the mother instead of the embryo is the "safe" choice because the mother is more likely to live a fulfilling life afterwards, whereas the embryo is very likely to die itself. Now, suppose instead that we were talking about a healthy adult woman and a sickly two-year-old child.... would you be so comfortable killing the child to save the woman? If the choice were not yours, but the woman's, what do you think she should do?

In the case of rape ... well, that's a tough one that I'm still working out for myself. I'm actually not 100% certain that abortion should be an option even there.

And as for situations where alternate methods of birth-control simply and inexplicably fail ... well ... shit happens. And I actually wonder if, in such a case, it should not be taken as an indication that the child was *meant* to be.

[alcinoe.livejournal.com]

From your response it seems that you believe that an embryo is a fully cognizant. That is a philisophical view point and really can't be proven. It is something that you apparently strongly believe in, but I do not. I feel strongly that I could tell you when both my children became cognizant (This is a spiritual belief, not one that science can prove) and it wasn't while they were embryos.

[alcinoe.livejournal.com]

Duh, I didn't read your post in the right order. I wasn't aware that you were simply answering my post on the subject, sorry about that. I would have just let it go as someone who fills in that gap. Still, I think that your view is way off on one end up the spectrum, just like the person who believes that abortion isn't a big deal and anyone, for any reason should have access to it, even if used for birth control.

[forthright.livejournal.com]

I'm more interested in whether there is anyone out there who actually thinks that human life starts at birth and that a woman's right to choose extends right up to that point. Because this is one of the bogeymen that the radical anti-choice people seem to raise very often, but I have never met any such person.

Everyone who I have ever met on the pro-choice side, including myself, believes there should be some restrictions on abortions. However, I do wonder whether, as a rhetorical tool or as a political position, some pro-choice advocates end up taking the 'unrestricted' point of view out of fear that any concession will lead to full re-criminalization (or at least, to the withdrawal of funding for abortion).

[alcinoe.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it starts at birth, but I believe that there is a faith that does believe that. I am "at the point of viability outside of the womb" camp, but preferably in the first two months.

[joane.livejournal.com]

Judaism allows abortion up until the point where the baby crowns *if and only if* the mother's life is in real and immediate danger.

That goes hand in hand with a sort of anti-martyrdom philosophy that extends to asking 'two of you are dying in a desert, and you have one sip of water left in your canteen - you, or the other guy?' and answering 'you, since you cannot prove that his life is more valuable than yours and *you* know that you'll go for more help if you survive.'

Apart from the danger thing, it's within the first 40 days (six weeks-ish).

The screening process is more relaxed?

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

To the point, say, where I could adopt a few kids to form the cadres for my Legions of Terror?

*cues megalomaniacal laughter*