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

[Faramond]

Sass, you are telling other people their own feelings about pregnancy are wrong based on your own feelings. Other people who have been pregnant have said that as soon as there is another life, it's not as simple as just your body anymore, and you tell them they are wrong. Fair enough, but this is exactly why I don't want to rely primarily on feelings when discussing this issue. Whose experience do we allow to dictate this issue? Whose is most important?

Cerin, the belief and the truth we perceive usually come from the feeling. You have it backwards.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I can only speak for myself and my situation, which admittably is somewhat unusual. If at a time in the past 20 years Beth had become pregnant (or for that matter if at some time in the future she became pregnant), my expectation would have been or would be that I would have tremendous input into what happened. And then I would expect that she would make the final decision as to what she would do. I would certainly expect her to take my feelings (yes, Faramond, feelings ) into consideration, but I would neither expect nor want to be able to dictate to her what that decision would be.

[Ethel]

For what it's worth, I'd be happy if everyone returned to this discussion. I know it's a hard subject to talk about, and emotions run high. But I think it's extremely worthwhile to talk across that gap.

Here are some questions I would like to ask those opposed to abortion... What kind of laws would you like to see against it? Who should be prosecuted - the woman, the person who performs the abortion, or both? If the man who impregnated the woman encourages her to get an abortion, do you think he should also be legally liable? What kinds of penalties do you think are appropriate? Should the same penalties apply to a woman who uses RU-486 or the morning after pill, and/or the person who provides it? What about IUD's, which prevent implantation but not conception - should those also be illegal? I'm just asking for opinions.

I would also be interested in similar opinions from the "pro choice" camp. What legal limitations, if any, do you think are appropriate with respect to abortion?

To Faramond... I think I see where you're going, but at the end of the day, your practical and theoretical questions regarding abortions will get different answers depending on who is answering them.

What happens when abortion is legal? There are more abortions, but they are safe. If you are opposed to abortion, this is a bad thing. If you're not, it's a good thing.

What happens when abortion is illegal? There are fewer abortions, but the ones that do occur are illegal and unsafe. If you are opposed to abortion this is a good thing. If you are not, it's bad.

I think pretty much all of the questions work out that way.

[Teremia]

When Sass said the fetus was parasitical, she really was being factual rather than emotional. It's not that it "feels" like the fetus is sucking its life-blood from you, it really is! And, for the most part, hurrah!

The doctor explained to me that no matter how badly I was feeling or doing or eating, the fetus was going to take what it needed from me. It will do that even if the "taking" depletes the mother. Obviously, evolution has figured out that that shouldn't often go so far as the mother dying -- because then the fetus dies, too. But it doesn't mind a rather diminished mother. I think that sounds like parasitism -- and again, that's basically a pretty good set-up, apparently.

I think it's also not a question of "feelings" if one claims that a woman without control over her reproductive choices is a woman whose control over ALL of her life choices is remarkably diminished. I would claim that that's a fact, and I'm typing that sentence in a remarkably calm and unemotional way, too.

[Cerin]

Cerin, the belief and the truth we perceive usually come from the feeling. You have it backwards.

Wow. I totally disagree. I would have assumed that feelings come from perceived truth for everyone. However, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it is the opposite for you.

eta:

Sass, you are telling other people their own feelings about pregnancy are wrong based on your own feelings. Other people who have been pregnant have said that as soon as there is another life, it's not as simple as just your body anymore, and you tell them they are wrong. Fair enough, but this is exactly why I don't want to rely primarily on feelings when discussing this issue.

Faramond, here again I would identify Sass as talking about a principle, a perceived truth, a belief, not her feelings (though there are feelings associated with that belief). Someone disagreeing with this principle of personal sovereignty may be motivated by feeling (you say feeling comes before belief for you), but then again maybe they are disagreeing on the basis of a different belief, say, the sanctity of human life at any stage. These are not feelings (though there may be feelings associated with them), they are ideas, perceived truths.

I am really quite astonished by your perspective (not meant critically), and you identifying these fundamental concepts as feelings.

I would also be interested in similar opinions from the "pro choice" camp. What legal limitations, if any, do you think are appropriate with respect to abortion?

I think no restrictions up to 12 weeks (or perhaps eight as was suggested earlier), and exceptions afterwards for life and health of the mother.

[Jnyusa]

Great questions, Ethel

I would agree with what Cerin said above, though I would opt for the lower number rather than the higher one for abortion to be 'routine.' There is probably some latitude in between 8 weeks and 12 weeks as well, which I would be willing to refine based on additional information.

Jn

[Faramond]

Cerin

Feeling comes before belief for everyone. Those who think otherwise are fooling themselves. Beliefs are often molded or contorted to fit in with feelings. This is human nature.

We don't really get to decide what our feelings are, usually. We get to decide what to do about them, what actions to take.

We don't, for instance, start out by adopting the principle that murder is wrong, and then develop feelings of sorrow when someone was murdered because it goes against the principle adopted. The feeling against murder comes first, and out of that comes the principle against murder. This is what the whole concept of conscience is about, isn't it?

I know you'll disagree vehemently, and at this point I don't know anything else to say about it.

[Sassafras]

Sass, you are telling other people their own feelings about pregnancy are wrong based on your own feelings.
Other people who have been pregnant have said that as soon as there is another life, it's not as simple as just your body anymore, and you tell them they are wrong. Fair enough, but this is exactly why I don't want to rely primarily on feelings when discussing this issue. Whose experience do we allow to dictate this issue? Whose is most important?

No. I did not say other people's feelings are wrong. I have obviously not made my position clear. What I did say was that I strenuously disagree with the idea that once the cells implant in the uterus one must consider those dividing cells another life.

Simply because I disagree it does not necessarily follow that I believe anyone else who does not hold the exact same opinion is wrong.

There is a very large difference between holding an opinion (as I do) and assigning absolute right to that opinion (which I do not).

I am neither so stubborn, nor so arrogant as to believe that my beliefs equal objective truth.

Concerning your final question: whose experience do we allow to dictate the issue? ... my answer is it should lie with the concerned individual. Not practical? No. But in the same way I think individuals have the right to dictate their suicide or to abuse their bodies with drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), or eat unhealthy food, fail to exercise and indulge in any number of additional life-diminishing acts .... then I think abortion is the perogative of those most impacted ... and in a huge majority of cases that would be the female.

However, it is a fact (sorry Jn.) that the foetus is essentially parasitical. Symbiosis implies mutual benefit. The only benefit for the mother is emotional not physical.

[Jnyusa]

I am repeating what I've read, Sass. It's not necessarily correct. There are some doctors who believe the parasitical relationship is overdrawn and that there are mutual physical benefits to the mother. I brought this distinction not as a counter-argument but because I consider it an interesting point of view and one with which I am provisionally inclined to agree. Symbioses should not be overdrawn either, as there are obvious parallels to parasitism as well.

However one views the relationship, such disinctions don't throw any light on the abortion issue because it remains true that the mother can survive independent of the fetus whereas the fetus cannot survive independent of the mother.

Jn

[Faramond]

I should add that I think that there is a complicated relationship between feelings and beliefs ... they can influence each other and change and grow together over time. However when it comes to deep, basic beliefs, they must come from feelings and not the other way around. All my observations of myself and others have shown me this. By this I mean my experience and my observation of the experiences of others.

Concerning your final question: whose experience do we allow to dictate the issue? ... my answer is it should lie with the concerned individual. Not practical? No. But in the same way I think individuals have the right to dictate their suicide or to abuse their bodies with drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), or eat unhealthy food, fail to exercise and indulge in any number of additional life-diminishing acts .... then I think abortion is the perogative of those most impacted ... and in a huge majority of cases that would be the female.

But Sass, who is the concerned individual? If one follows the perspective of those who think the fetus is an "individual", then there are two concerned individuals here.

This is my problem with so many of the arguments on both sides of the abortion issue ... they end up being circular in some way. They presuppose what they want to prove.

The pro-life person would obviously say that if abortion is the prerogative of those who feel the most impact, then no one feels more impact than the fetus!

It seems to me that the typical arguments on both sides are basically just people's personal feelings on the issue, one way or the other. The debate goes nowhere as a result, with the other side basically being demonized, because their feelings are alien.

I want to get past this fruitless clash of "feelings", but maybe it's not possible.

Honestly? I don't think there is a satisfactory answer to the "abortion question."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But at least now at last I understand where you are coming from, Faramond. So this discussion has had at least one positive result (and actually I think it has had several).

[anthriel]

I think it has, too.

I have to say that this thread is the first time I've EVER typed a keystroke anywhere into a discussion on abortion... THAT is a testament to you all, I think, very much so.

I'm still not gonna discuss my position on the whole thing, though.

As to the kidney donation scenario, I find it to be fairly different than the childbirth one... I have had two children, and I still have all my body parts left over. If I gave up a kidney, there would be one less body part on board, and one that I indeed may need, later.

The body parts may look a bit different in these post-baby years, but at least I've still got them.

[Faramond]

Well, the "death choice" in the kidney scenario involves passively not doing something, letting someone die when you could have done something to save them, while the "death choice" in the abortion scenario involves actively doing something to kill and remove the fetus. It's active vs. passive, which is a big difference to most people.

I think one of the difficulties in the abortion issue is that there really are no good analogies for it.

[Sassafras]

Faramond ... But Sass, who is the concerned individual? If one follows the perspective of those who think the fetus is an "individual", then there are two concerned individuals here.

Yes, I see your point and it does create quite a dilemma for those who believe that life begins at conception.

But then we can further muddy the waters by asking the next set of questions ...... while it may be morally repugnant to extinguish a life ... is it morally wrong? If the answer is yes it is morally wrong to take a life ... where is the line drawn?

The pro-life person would obviously say that if abortion is the prerogative of those who feel the most impact, then no one feels more impact than the fetus!

Well you know ... that is supposition since one cannot actually ask, and receive a response from, the foetus. Meanwhile, one can ask the woman who is pregnant or possibly even the man who fertilized the egg.

Honestly? I don't think there is a satisfactory answer to the "abortion question."

Neither do I.

[Cerin]

Faramond, I just think it's unfortunate that holding the belief (or would it be a feeling?) that your feelings come before your beliefs must include the belief (or feeling?) that I am fooling myself if I find something different in my own experience.

[vison]

If the question was left entirely to the woman who is pregnant, there would be no problem.

It is only when others seek to interfere or actually interfere that problems arise.

That may sound callous, or simplistic, but that's the way it is.

Abortion is not a legal matter, but a personal medical matter. The law should have nothing to say about it. What is the use of drawing a line and saying, "Eight weeks and no later"? Because then you have to say, "Eight weeks and no later, except......" And as Ethel and others have pointed out, how is the Law to be enforced? What penalties accrue? To whom?

Women have always sought abortions. Until some happy millennium comes, they will continue to do so. All the powers of all the states have not stopped it and never will.

If you think abortion is wrong, then don't have one. Counsel your wife, your daughter, your mother, your sister, or your neighbour against it. Then mind your own business.

Roe vs Wade might indeed be bad law. I don't know about that. But I do know that to reverse it is going to be worse.

Get the matter out of the Law entirely.

[Impenitent]

...If you think abortion is wrong, then don't have one. Counsel your wife, your daughter, your mother, your sister, or your neighbour against it. Then mind your own business...

I am of your view. And those who oppose abortion on ethical or moral grounds unconnected with religious dogma or belief may also see it that way - or they may not. However, as I understand it, some of those who oppose abortion on the basis of religious dogma consider interference to the point of intervention and abolition TO BE their business. The alternative, to counsel, to advise, then leave it alone, is anathema to their faith.

I am not (NOT!) saying that every person of faith will invariably force their will on the issue of abortion; I'm simply saying that for SOME people, it would be sinful to do anything other than resist with all their strength and will.

And I understand their position.

[Hachimitsu]

Ummm. I started reading this thread and about benefits to the mother from pregnancy, uh in several studies of women with uh, difficulties in the bedroom, uh, after a child is born it is uh more likely there are uh.. less uh difficulties in that department. (Something about all those new blood vessels from pregnancy.)

I haven't comepletely read this thread through but I have decided to take an interest in it since we have a new Prime Minister who is against abortion but claims he will not do anything about the current legality/illegality of the situation. But I have concerns about a backbencher doing something. Not to mention I am not impressed with our new Prime Ministers idea to abuse the not withstanding clause. (Another issue but if it works it could open the backdoor to other unconstitutuional laws).

I'll put my stance that generally I am pro life, but the very idea that a small group of people ( politicians which are mostly men) could make a decision concerning half the population concerning one of the most major and private issues in a womans life really really concerns me. Especially when as a man there is absolutely no way a man could comepletely understand the condition or the fear of pregnancy. It's impossible for them to experience it. It will never happen to them. They will never fully feel the effects of that law or decision. Another group of people will feel the consequences. Whenever that happens thare are dangerous gounds for one group to be controlled by another.

The thing that gets me is if a law that gets passed making abortion illegal, it can easily go the other way where there is a law that can force people to have abortions too *coughchinacough*. That I will never tolerate. Either way it is an effort to control a group of people.

I have always been miffed that it's parties or governments who are about less governmental interference in a persons personal life, are the ones who want to make one of the biggest decision in a persons persoanl life for them. They as a government want to dictate a disicion for an individual. Makes no sense to me. Not to mention they usually do not support infrastructure to support a poor or disadvantaged mother who does have a baby.

In my mind if I ever end up incapacitated and pregnant I only know of 2 relatives who I could trust to make decisions on it. I can't even say the father because what about rape, or what if the guy is a jerk and runs away? I think it depends on the guy and the relationship if he is to have decision making power or input. Tomorrow I'll read up on the rest of the thread.

[Alatar]

Ok, since you've asked, I'll give my opinion. Firstly I'd like to respond to this:

If you think abortion is wrong, then don't have one. Counsel your wife, your daughter, your mother, your sister, or your neighbour against it. Then mind your own business.

We could just as easily say:

If you think murder is wrong, then don't kill anyone. Counsel your wife, your daughter, your mother, your sister, or your neighbour against it. Then mind your own business.

Laws are for the protection of the weak. Nobody is weaker or more in need of protection than a foetus. Just because a child cannot live independantly at 3 months old does not mean we have the right to drown them if our marriage is suffering.

Now, firstly I'm going to clarify, because there have been some assumptions made about my personal beliefs that are, quite simply, wrong. I am neither pro-life or pro-abortion (ridiculous terms that those are). Ideally, of course, abortion should never be needed and I agree that better healthcare, education and freely available contracteptives would help a lot with that. I believe that the morning after pill is perfectly valid. Where the grey line starts is when sentience begins. I agree that we are not sure exactly when this is, but we certainly know to within a few weeks. Abortion after sentience has occurred is where the issue begins for me.

To answer Cerins point, if a woman feels that her child with Down Syndrome will damage her marriage she has two choices. To carry the child to term and give him/her up for adoption or to abort. One choice involves taking a life, the other doesn't. To me that becomes an issue of convenience. It is more convenient to abort than to carry the child to term. There are other considerations, granted, and I do not dismiss the dangers of childbirth completely, but we are talking about the choice between taking a life or childbirth (and the not insignificant mental trauma of adoption). To my mind, the life of a child wins out.

To answer Ethel:

What kind of laws would you like to see against it? Who should be prosecuted - the woman, the person who performs the abortion, or both? If the man who impregnated the woman encourages her to get an abortion, do you think he should also be legally liable? What kinds of penalties do you think are appropriate? Should the same penalties apply to a woman who uses RU-486 or the morning after pill, and/or the person who provides it? What about IUD's, which prevent implantation but not conception - should those also be illegal? I'm just asking for opinions.

Very tricky questions. By outlawing abortions, you drive it into the back alleys whether it is the doctor or the mother who is prosecuted. As I've said, the morning after pill and IUDs are not on my radar. In Ireland we have a very unusual situation. Abortion is still illegal here, but is available in England. As a result, it is available, but more tricky to arrange. When people tell me that abortion is not a matter of convenience I can only point to the statistics here. Because abortion cannot be easily arranged without a trip to England and a lot of paperwork it is a much less convenient alternative and as such, the figures are much lower for Ireland than England and dramatically lower than the US. (I'm talking per capita here obviously). Of course there are other factors, such as a 90% catholic population, which also have a bearing on this.

Since everyone is posing hypotheticals, let me throw out one of my own:

Mary is 15 years old and pregnant. She is healthy and Doctors are happy that she will carry full term with no complications.

Dick and Jane are 30 and childless. They have the means to support a child and have tried for years for one of their own.

Scenario A: Mary aborts the child. She has the trauma of an abortion to deal with and Dick and Jane remain childess.

Scenario B: Mary carries the child full term and gives the baby up for adoption. As a result she misses a year of school and graduates a year nbehind her class. Dick and Jane raise the baby to adulthood in a loving enviroment. Mary suffers doubts about the child she gave up and eventually searches for him/her (or not)

Scenario C: Mary carries full term and decides that she cannot give him/her up. Mary raises her child as a single mother.

Only one of these scenarios results in a death. The others result in possible trauma and possible happiness. To me, the chance of happiness trumps the loss of a life and the trauma involved.

Regarding my personal story. Twice I have been in the position where another woman made the decision about whether my child would live or die. It is a gut wrenching and powerless position to be in. Nobody should trivialise it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thank you for sharing that, Al.