Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[axordil]

Nope.

[Lalaith]

I'm willing to use whatever terms seem more productive, Dave.

The medical term is abortion, whether it's natural (i.e., miscarriage) or artificial (caused by a foreign object in the uterus, thickened uterine lining, or surgical procedure).

What would you prefer be used instead of pro-life or pro-choice? I could be specific and say that I'm anti-artificial abortion. (For that matter, natural abortions make me sad, too.)

[yovargas]

I think pro-choice makes sense since that ideology is about having the freedom to choose. Anti-abortion makes more sense for the other side since it's not about preserving life in all forms, only specifically for this kind of killing (eg. you can want illegal abortions and still support the death penalty as they are separate issues).

[axordil]

Pregnancy is a medical condition of the mother, and thus, begins when there's a physical change from the norm in the mother's body. That would be implantation. Until that point there are no physiological changes in the mother's body: thus no condition, thus no pregnancy.

[Lalaith]

Okay, that is your view, and it's an interesting one.

My view is that a new life is created at the moment of conception. To interfere with that in an artificial way that causes that life to end is wrong. That's my view.

[Primula Baggins]

And (though I do understand your viewpoint, Lali), a lot of people believe that a woman does have a right to control whether she gets pregnant. If I didn't believe that, my life would not be my life as it is right now. In fact I can't imagine where I would be. Given how easily I got pregnant and how easily I had babies, I would probably have twelve or fifteen kids by now, and I would certainly not be here wasting time on stuff that mattered only to me. My life would not be my life, not remotely. It would belong to my biology.

A lot of fertilized eggs never implant. Keeping that from happening doesn't seem extreme to me. It certainly doesn't seem like something I should not have the right to control—that fertilized egg's rights to, what, a 50% chance of life? don't trump mine to the ability to work, study, take care of my other children for the rest of my life.

That viable 26-week fetus, let's talk. In fact the Supreme Court would insist that we talk. There are lines. But I do not draw them where an egg getting fertilized controls my body (despite any hazards and despite my own needs) and my life (for 18 to 20 years afterwards) despite anything I and my husband might want.

I did have an unplanned kid. I love him dearly. But he was early, not unwanted; and I don't know if I would be even sane if I had thirteen of him.

[axordil]

Given that my wife and I have been using an IUD for ten years, I believe my feelings on the topic generally are abundantly clear. I have not the tiniest pang of guilt about it, either, nor do I expect I ever will, because I do not grant an iota of privilege to a clump of forty to fifty cells that happens to contain some of my genetic material. I probably blow more than that out of my nose on a daily basis, more if I have a cold.

That said, having a free-floating zygote in one's uterus is a pregnancy like having a virus present in one's throat is the flu. Whatever else one thinks of it, until it interacts with the body, the body cannot be said to be affected by it. New life or womb booger, until the mom's body is involved it ain't a pregnancy.

[Primula Baggins]

If potential life trumps everything, should I have slept with every male I saw after age 10 (when I hit menarche) so as to have every baby I could? No, of course not, and no rational person would say so. Abstinence always seems to be OK.

But—is it not also all right, after one starts having sex, to apply one's intelligence, and available human technology, to controlling when and how often one gives birth? Given that it's probably the most important factor not only to a woman's (or couple's) success in life, but also that of their children?

And is it not OK to use the best methods going, such as IUDs and the pill? Rather than methods that fail, such as the ones that failed me?

Failure to me was an inconvenience. To a young woman in school, or a mother whose family depends on her income, it's disaster.

[River]

This is where I get frustrated when people demand that public policy reflect their religious belief. Not only do we live in a pluralistic society where not every religion shares the same belief, but sometimes the beliefs just fly in the face of cold, hard, biological fact.

One of the many things I learned while working on getting pregnant is that you can't know fertilization even occurred until at least a week after fertilization. That's when the embryo implants and CGH is released. However, even at that point, it only shows in a blood test that people only get if they're undergoing fertility treatments. The rest of us have to wait for about two weeks, when CGH levels are high enough to show up in pee.

Another thing I learned is that, even if a woman and her partner time everything correctly and sperm is present when she ovulates, the chances of pregnancy occurring are 1/5. Not sure what's up with the other 4/5 times. Maybe the sperms just don't find the egg in time. Maybe the fertilized egg fails to implant. Or maybe it implants, but there's something fundamentally wrong with it and it just gets rejected (this is why infertility work-ups include chromosomal studies, BTW). Though that's technically a miscarriage, it can happen without a woman even knowing it. Even if she's trying to get pregnant and paying very close attention.

And, something I quickly learned while being pregnant: it's scary and it's weird and it's dangerous. To the point where I'm not sure how anyone can ethically get off on making the process anything other than completely voluntary. It's one thing to have your life and health on the line because you want it that way. It's another when a person, a group of people, or the law coerces you into it.

[Túrin Turambar]

I'm sure people do reason that way, but for what it's worth, I really, really think it is...unhelpful to use the same word for the process of preventing a single-celled zygote from implanting in the womb and a surgical procedure that involves cutting up third trimester fetus.

(I also think the terms "pro life" and "pro choice" are unhelpful, and accomplish nothing except either shutting discussion down or escalating it into a fight. The whole topic is full of unhelpful language, which is why it's pretty much impossible to talk about it)

Still, the terms are commonly-accepted and more or less reflect the respective positions. People who prioritise the choice of the mother support legalised abortion, people who prioritise the life of the fetus oppose it. The reason why the debate seems so impossible to me is that, at some point, you need to set a fairly arbitrary line at when something is and is not a human being with all of the rights of a human being. It’s a question of judgement rather than fact, so it can’t really be proven one way or the other, yet the repercussions are massive.

I think pro-choice makes sense since that ideology is about having the freedom to choose. Anti-abortion makes more sense for the other side since it's not about preserving life in all forms, only specifically for this kind of killing (eg. you can want illegal abortions and still support the death penalty as they are separate issues).

Well, pro-choice isn’t about having the freedom to choose absolutely anything either. You can be pro-choice and support someone’s right to choose to shoot someone.

[yovargas]

The reason why the debate seems so impossible to me is that, at some point, you need to set a fairly arbitrary line at when something is and is not a human being with all of the rights of a human being.

I realized this a long time ago but have found it frustratingly difficult to make people see that this is what the debate really is about - the whens and whys of setting that line. Pretty much everything in the debate comes to that since most people don't set the line at 0 days (though obviously some people do as evidenced by Lali) and most people don't set the line at nine months. Considering this, it's clear the debate isn't mostly about the right to choose or the fetus' right to life.

Well, pro-choice isn’t about having the freedom to choose absolutely anything either. You can be pro-choice and support someone’s right to choose to shoot someone.

Hm. Yes, I supposed that's a fair point.


(ax, it seems your sig is stretching my page...would you mind shrinking?)

[Dave_LF]

The reason I don't like the terms, established and well-understood or not, is that when one states one's position as "pro-life", he's snidely nudge-nudge-wink-wink implying that people who disagree with him like murder. "Pro-choice" similarly implies that the other side wants to treat women as slaves who have to do what they're told (which is not entirely off the mark in a minority of cases, but still, if you want to have a discussion instead of a fight, it's better to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt until he proves he doesn't deserve it).

It's really, really hard to talk about an issue when you can't even state the name of your position without insulting someone.

[Túrin Turambar]

Aren't all such labels for political positions something of an hooray word, though? 'Conservative' implies that the opposition like destruction, 'liberal' and 'libertarian' imply that they dislike freedom, 'socialist' implies that they oppose society, etc. It is like people claiming to support gun control vs gun rights. Lack of rights and lack of control are generally bad things.

[JewelSong]

If you believe that an individual life begins the moment the sperm hits the egg, then you need a birth control method that either prevents the sperm from getting there, or prevents the eggs from being released in the first place.

Barrier methods, such as condoms or a diaphragm work well when used properly and consistently. The trouble is tht many people are not always consistent about their use. And yes, condoms can break. But from a philosophical standpoint, they prevent any kind of fertilization.

Pregnancy happens when the zygote implants into the uterus. The IUD is thought to prevent this implantation, although from what I understand, how an IUD works is not completely understood. And they also fail...there are stories of babies being born clutching the IUD in their chubby little hands!

The pill prevents ovulation. No egg, nothing to fertilize. Some contingents of the "pro-life" side like to promote the idea that conception still happens on the pill, but the uterine wall has been made inhospitable so the fertilized egg cannot implant. However, this is a dubious claim at best.

There is no way to know an egg has been fertilized unless and until it implants and is secure. You are not considered "pregnant" until that occurs. It would be crazy, IMHO to start regulating "life from the moment of conception" since there would be no way to monitor when conception occurs.

So, what do the people who promote these laws really WANT? Surely they know that they cannot have a window into a woman's Fallopian tubes to determine when and if a sperm has hit the egg! How could such a law be enforced? It couldn't, of course.

I do believe that much of the controversy about abortion and birth control is not about the "potential life" at all. It certainly isn't about a woman's well-being or health.

No, it's about SEX. Specifically, sex for enjoyment. More specifically, WOMEN having sex for enjoyment and not procreation.

Somehow, that is BAD.

[Dave_LF]

Aren't all such labels for political positions something of an hooray word, though? 'Conservative' implies that the opposition like destruction, 'liberal' and 'libertarian' imply that they dislike freedom, 'socialist' implies that they oppose society, etc. It is like people claiming to support gun control vs gun rights. Lack of rights and lack of control are generally bad things.

Sure, but I think these two are particularly egregious (side note, but I think the words "conservative" and "liberal" have largely become divorced from their literal meanings, which softens the effect).

What makes them particularly bad is that they have no inherent meaning. If I say I support "gun rights," a Babelfish-equipped visitor from Mars will have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. If I say I'm "pro-life" or "pro-choice," his response will be "well who isn't?" There's nothing in either term to tell you what the actual issue is--neither is more than a gotcha soundbite. To continue the analogy, I think honest terminology would be something like "abortion rights" and "abortion control". That's what it's really all about, after all.

[yovargas]

I do believe that much of the controversy about abortion and birth control is not about the "potential life" at all. It certainly isn't about a woman's well-being or health.

No, it's about SEX. Specifically, sex for enjoyment. More specifically, WOMEN having sex for enjoyment and not procreation.

Somehow, that is BAD.

While this may or may not be true, I feel it's somewhat unfair to make this kind of statement in a thread where there's only one person with this position as it feels like you're questioning her motivation. (And for the record, I'm pretty sure Lali doesn't think enjoying sex is bad. )

[JewelSong]

To clarify: I am specially speaking about the very prominent politicians and groups who have been trying to get laws passed that make conception the legal start of life.

I do not think Lali is in favor of these kinds of laws. If she is, maybe she will speak to it.

In a thread devoted to discussing abortion and birth control, the discussion is naturally going to center on differing viewpoints and what is happening in the political scene. People's personal opinions are one thing. Political motivation is another.

I do NOT believe the political motivation for the recent attacks on birth control and abortion is out of concern for women's health or even any babies that might be born. I believe it is about controlling when, how and why women have sex.

This is not a personal attack on Lali or anyone else who holds particular views about conception.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thank you for that clarification, Jewel.

[Lalaith]

Yes, thanks because I do not think sex is bad, wrong, or anything of the sort. I think it's fairly obvious (especially if you've visited b77 and ToE) that I'm quite in favor of sex.

I'm generally not in favor of legislating these kinds of squishy issues that are more about personal convictions either. Abortion bothers me deeply because I see it as an erosion of the value of life in general. That is a spiritual issue more than it is an issue that can be legislated. So, while I support laws that limit abortions (particularly late-term), I don't think the real change in society will occur without prayer, education, and addressing related issues such as poverty.

I'm also not opposed to birth control. In my own personal convictions, I wouldn't use a method that didn't prevent fertilization. (Oral contraceptives are not 100% on this issue, like I said. Once I realized that, I stopped using them.) I'm not going to tell anyone else what to do, but I will share my opinions and the facts if asked.

Also, this:

The reason why the debate seems so impossible to me is that, at some point, you need to set a fairly arbitrary line at when something is and is not a human being with all of the rights of a human being.

I agree. To me, the most logically consistent place to set that line is the point at which two separate sets of DNA recombine to become a totally unique, new set of DNA. New DNA=new being. That, to me, doesn't seem arbitrary at all.

[yovargas]

Also, this:

The reason why the debate seems so impossible to me is that, at some point, you need to set a fairly arbitrary line at when something is and is not a human being with all of the rights of a human being.

I agree. To me, the most logically consistent place to set that line is the point at which two separate sets of DNA recombine to become a totally unique, new set of DNA. New DNA=new being. That, to me, doesn't seem arbitrary at all.

I think that's a very fair point.

It occurred to me that while I agreed with LM's statement above, I would like to revise that...almost all of us but the most hardcore pacifist vegans think that it's okay to kill a life under certain specific circumstances. While some of this debate is about that "arbitrary line", I think it is even more fundamentally about one's views on under which circumstances it is and is not okay to take a life. That is really the issue that we each need to examine if we're looking to take a stance on abortion.