Why the pro-life position is wrong

[Cyborg Girl]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/op ... ights.html

If this is about protecting women and children, and considering all life sacred... it fails utterly.

How does this play out? Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.

Yes, very pious and merciful, that.

[brite]

In the world, the US stands 136th in maternal deaths... before you get all excited... Iran has better maternal outcomes, as does South Korea, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Turkey.

Yes... they aren’t so much “pro-life” as they seem to be “pro-fetus”. Apparently, a fetus has more rights to a woman’s body than the woman herself does. I can’t find Constitution precedent for this... but I’m told that it’s there....

[geonuc]

.. before you get all excited... Iran has better maternal outcomes, as does South Korea, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Turkey. ..

I know you're trying to make a point with this list, but the point is considerably diluted by including South Korea, as if it is some cultural backwater.

[Swift]

If this is about protecting women and children, and considering all life sacred... it fails utterly.

Why would you think this has anything to do with protecting women? The people pushing these fetal rights laws are not doing so to protect women, or for that matter, children. They are not advocating these laws because they increase the odds of infant or maternal survival, or anything based on either medical or ethical considerations.

They are advocating these laws based on a very particular religious position. They would rather see a woman die then commit an act they consider a sin. And whether the woman shares these religious beliefs has nothing to do with it.

[brite]

.. before you get all excited... Iran has better maternal outcomes, as does South Korea, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Turkey. ..

I know you're trying to make a point with this list, but the point is considerably diluted by including South Korea, as if it is some cultural backwater.

Did I say that South Korea was a cultural backwater? I think that you are reading more into that than I meant. Bulgaria, Bosnia and Turkey aren’t cultural backwaters either.

The point being is that we are supposed to have one of the best health care systems in the world. Pricey, but one of the best. Right? So how come we have some of the worst maternal outcomes? Well... it’s simple....

We don’t support pregnant women, especially poor pregnant women - health care up until the ACA was priced out of reach, and to get onto Medicaid meant that you had to be destitute. Poor pregnant women are often forced to remain pregnant, because of laws that have all but forced abortion services out of their states - either making the clinics close or putting the doctors at risk. Lack of proper nutrition has become a factor as well as the lack of pre-natal care.

Since 2010 there have been over 900 pieces of legislation to control a woman’s reproductive choices at the state level. There is a personhood bill waiting in Congress.

Welcome to the “pro-life” agenda....

[code monkey]

There is a personhood bill waiting in Congress.

Welcome to the “pro-life” agenda....

and the new approach, since persohood issues have not passed in state-wide elections, is to target cities.

small government. small enough to get into one's uterus.

[squ1d]

They are advocating these laws based on a very particular religious position. They would rather see a woman die then commit an act they consider a sin. And whether the woman shares these religious beliefs has nothing to do with it.

Some points before I begin;

- I don't know what laws we're talking about but I probably wouldn't support them
- I'm an atheist most of the time and agnostic at others

However, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. Bottom line is that it is an unborn human fetus and killing it can weigh heavily on one's conscience. Why does that have to be a religious thing?

[squ1d]

Also with regard to OT, what is _THE_ pro life position? Is there any room here for more nuance?

[Rommie]

Pro-life basically means you advocate the legal protection of the fetus, usually in conjunction with making abortions illegal. At the end of the day I have had a lot of friends who held this position and it's basically impossible to argue with the position because these are people who believe life begins at conception and thus should be sacred, and most people do not start from that premise.

Mind, it doesn't in general have to be a religious crazy right wing person who holds this view- I have a very good friend in undergrad who has an MSc in comp sci, but she's Catholic and every year on the anniversary of Roe v Wade would go down to Washington DC to join the protest the pro life community holds. It was weird to me but she was definitely not odd politically in any other way on social issues (pro gay marriage, etc) and that's when I realized we were just approaching this issue from very different perspectives.

I believe it was Bill Clinton who said that "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." I agree with that. That said, at the end of the day I think it's very difficult for anyone on the outside to make decisions for someone else, and it should be left with them. I also think though if you really want to reduce abortion rates, rather then just use it as a tool to control women's sexuality as many in the USA do, you should also be very pro birth control and pro helping women with adoption and early child care... but you very rarely see that happen, hence I do not trust the motives of many people who are pro-life there.

[SciFiFisher]

Bottom line is that it is an unborn human fetus and killing it can weigh heavily on one's conscience. Why does that have to be a religious thing?

It doesn't. But, a large number of pro lifers are also religious. Therefore the two often become conflated.

[Swift]

I agree very strongly with Rommie, particularly that if you want to decrease the number of abortions then we should strongly encourage birth control. Unfortunately, many of the people I know who are pro-life are also against sex education, with the mindset that if you don't teach teenagers about birth control they won't have sex, a position supported by absolutely no data at all.

To squid's questions (as best as I can)

Some points before I begin;

- I don't know what laws we're talking about but I probably wouldn't support them
- I'm an atheist most of the time and agnostic at others

However, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. Bottom line is that it is an unborn human fetus and killing it can weigh heavily on one's conscience. Why does that have to be a religious thing?

There are no particular laws I had in mind, and of course these are only in the US. But generally, they are laws that restrict a woman's ability to have an abortion, either by narrowing the conditions or period of time she can have an abortion, by making the procress as difficult or expensive as possible, and by putting more and more restrictions and conditions on the clinics that perform them (to the point that many have to close). There is one US state (I think it is Alabama) that has one clinic left in the entire state. This makes it particularly difficult for poorer women who can't travel to the single clinic.

I also understand that many agnoistics and atheists are against abortion. In the US it seems that the majority of pro-life people are also religious, and hold those beliefs because of their religion, and many of the most active groups in the politics of are churches or have ties to religions, but I understand that is not a universal.

I have a question for you (you don't have to answer) - is your opposition such that you would be against terminating a pregnancy by an abortion for which you were the father, but what others do is their affair, or do you think it should be illegal for anyone to have an abortion, whether they share your view or not?

Also with regard to OT, what is _THE_ pro life position? Is there any room here for more nuance?

A very good question; I don't know the answer for sure.

Against, my answers are only for the US...

I think the position of the major pro-life political groups is that all abortions should be illegal, with a few or no exceptions. The most common exceptions are pregnancies begun by rape or incest, or where the mother's life is in danger. I have heard a few politicians oppose some or all of those exceptions. There are some groups that even believe that human life begins at fertilization, not implantation (which is the point that you are technically pregnant) and so would outlaw contraceptives that prevent implantation (as opposed to those that prevent fertilization).

The pro-choice groups have generally opposed any legal restrictions on abortions (as opposed to medical restrictions decided on between a woman and her doctor), but I think it is mostly a political tactic, rather than a deeply held belief. My impression (these are very much my opinions) is that the strategy of the pro-life groups is to constantly chip away at the right to an abortion, by constantly adding small, narrowly defined restrictions (eat the entire elephant in lots of tiny little bites), but with the ultimate goal of an all out ban. The pro-choice groups therefore have a strategy to oppose anything the pro-life groups propose.

Thus, the debate is completely dominated by the extreme positions on both sides, and has been for decades.

I don't know, but I think a lot of people would be comfortable with a permanent compromise in the middle, such as relatively unrestricted abortions in the first 3 months and then strictly restricted after that. I could live with such a compromise. I even think the pro-choice groups could actually live with that, if they knew that once they agreed to that, there would not be further moves to restrict it further. But they don't believe the pro-life groups would agree to that, and I don't believe it either.

By the way, my own feeling about this is based on biology. It is biologically incorrect to call the fertilized egg or blastocyst or any of the other early stages a "fetus". I think the pro-life groups have deliberately misused that term. I don't believe that a fertilized egg or blastocyst or an embryo is a human being. After about 3 months the embryo becomes a fetus (for example, the organs start to differentiate). I think that makes sense as the dividing line between non-human and human.

[Swift]

By the way, I've had a question for the pro-lifers for a long time (I don't know that anyone here can or wants to answer it).

As best as I understand, the pro-life position is that at the moment of fertilization (or maybe at the moment of implantation) this biological object becomes a human being, it is wrong to kill a human being, and terminating a pregnancy with an abortion is thus the murder of an innocent human beling (the killing of non-innocent human beings is often considered another matter).

Most pro-lifers I know would agree to certain exceptions to this rule, most usually when the mother's life is in danger by the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape.

Even if one holds the position I've outlined in paragraph 2, I can understand the exception for the mother's life: this is a simple matter of triage, and if the mother dies, the baby will most likely die anyway.

But I've never understood why they agree to the exceptions for rape or incest.

Is it that babies that are conceived by rape or incest are not humans? What are the characteristics of such a being that makes them not-human? If a woman who becomes pregnant by rape decides not to have an abortion, and gives birth, is such a child not human?

I suspect (but don't know) that a lot of people would say that it isn't that the product of such events isn't human, but they have compassion for a woman who has been raped or impregnated by incest (and I agree that such compassion is a good thing) and she shouldn't be forced to carry such an unwanted pregnancy to term.

But wait a minute - you just carved out a "compassion" exception to the no-abortion rule, a rule to prevent the killing of a human. What about other reasons for compassion? How about compassion for a woman who did not want to get pregnant, can't afford to support a child, and whose life would be ruined by giving birth? How about compassion for a woman who is addicted to drugs or alcohol, or would give birth to a child with a birth defect? How about compassion for a woman who just doesn't want the child and would be a bad parent?

It seems to me that as soon as you allow compassion to enter the decision, you have gotten on to a slippery slope where you are making legal decisions about people's lives based on whether you feel sorry for them or not. As soon as the characteristic of an "unwanted" pregnancy enters into it, now it should be based on an individual's wants and desires, since society should not be determining people's wants.

[brite]

That's where you get the changing of the definition of rape. There is no charge of actual rape in this country. There are varying degrees of sexual assault, depending on whether or not there was penetration, where the penetration occurred (mouth, vagina, or anus) and what was used (penis, fingers or other object)... For the most part... a woman should "lay back and enjoy it", if she gets pregnant "it's the Will of God", "her body has a way of shutting that thing down" or she should have a special rider to her insurance to get abortion coverage.

NO ONE wants to see abortion happen. But the choice should be left up to the woman involved, her doctor, whom ever SHE chooses involve in the decision, and her deity. This is the pro-choice stance on the matter. along with comprehensive and appropriate sex ed, contraception available to all and people keeping their noses out of women's medical needs. I don't see everyone trying to legislate men's medical health care needs....

[SciFi Chick]

NO ONE wants to see abortion happen. But the choice should be left up to the woman involved, her doctor, whom ever SHE chooses involve in the decision, and her deity. This is the pro-choice stance on the matter. along with comprehensive and appropriate sex ed, contraception available to all and people keeping their noses out of women's medical needs. I don't see everyone trying to legislate men's medical health care needs....

I think you'll find that some people totally support abortion on the grounds that the world is overpopulated. Hopefully, they are few and far between however.

[Sigma_Orionis]

This Guy comes to mind.

Also This Kurt Vonnegut story.

[Cyborg Girl]

Also This Kurt Vonnegut story.

Wowwwwww. I'm going to read that story before I formulate a full opinion, but if the Wikipedia synopsis is accurate... daaaamn.

(I will open another thread for this.)

[Rommie]

The International Documentary Film Festival is on right now in Amsterdam, and I saw a rather thought-provoking one on abortion called 12th and Delaware (HBO produced so probably easier to find than the average). It was basically about an abortion clinic in Florida where across the street a "pro life pregnancy center" set up shop. They followed the pro-life people for about half the movie, then the abortion clinic for the last part, and it was a good documentary for showing the viewpoints of people that I didn't really agree with (if that makes sense)- usually what I look for in watching documentaries.

That said, damn there was some disturbing stuff done, and that was in part because if you really truly believe babies are being murdered... well, a lot of stuff suddenly seems justifiable. A lot of lying and massaging of the facts- offering a free ultrasound for example, then telling a woman she's a few weeks along less than she actually is so she thinks she has more time than she does (because once you're over 12 weeks most abortion clinics will no longer do the abortion), lies about how painful and how bloody it will be, etc. And these are women who know they cannot have a child- one woman who already has several kids describes her abusive boyfriend and they tell her "well maybe this baby will be the one that changes his tune!" I mean, WTF. Then there are women like a 15 year old honor student who decides to keep her baby instead of going to have an abortion, because of some of the lies they told her...

As I said, all completely justifiable stuff if you literally think you are saving a baby from being murdered. But pretty friggin' awful if you don't.

I will say though, with regards to the abortion clinic people, the lady in charge had a good line that I think is relevant to our discussions here- she would counsel the women by asking if they were certain if they needed an abortion, because "no one wants an abortion, but are you certain you need one?" And if a woman had doubts she would refer them to other options. I mean, I know she has practice in the matter, but it was one of the best lines describing why people do it that I've ever read.

Anyway, just thought I'd share- if you find the film and are interested in the subject, I do recommend watching it.

[squ1d]

Sorry I missed this question many moons ago, Swift.

I have a question for you (you don't have to answer) - is your opposition such that you would be against terminating a pregnancy by an abortion for which you were the father, but what others do is their affair, or do you think it should be illegal for anyone to have an abortion, whether they share your view or not?

I was actually in this situation once. An ex and I who were in the throes of struggling to let go found ourselves in this position. She decided she wanted an abortion (unless I married her, but that's a different story ) and although I gently let her know my feelings on the subject and offered full and limitless support in the case she were to keep it, it was her decision so there's not much I could do about that so I had to support her either way. She ended up having a miscarriage before the appointed day, so in a way the choice was taken away by fate, but nonetheless, I still think about it and it makes me uncomfortable.

So since I basically have no sway in a situation where I'm involved, and would not attempt to impose my will, I'm sure you can imagine how then that would apply to situations where I didn't even know the other people

[Swift]

So since I basically have no sway in a situation where I'm involved, and would not attempt to impose my will, I'm sure you can imagine how then that would apply to situations where I didn't even know the other people

Thanks for the answer squid.

And, as I'm sure you're well aware, while your position (not imposing your will on people you don't even know) is to me the civil position, there are a lot of people in this world who want to do exactly that - impose their will about personal matters on people they don't even know.

[SciFi Chick]

Most pro-lifers I know would agree to certain exceptions to this rule, most usually when the mother's life is in danger by the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape.

I used to be a religious pro-lifer, which we've now established is different from the other pro-lifers. The only reason we ever agreed to abortion in the case of rape or incest was because we believed we'd be gaining ground by getting rid of all the other abortions, and then, over time, we could get rid of these abortions as well. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with compassion.

[Swift]

Most pro-lifers I know would agree to certain exceptions to this rule, most usually when the mother's life is in danger by the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape.

I used to be a religious pro-lifer, which we've now established is different from the other pro-lifers. The only reason we ever agreed to abortion in the case of rape or incest was because we believed we'd be gaining ground by getting rid of all the other abortions, and then, over time, we could get rid of these abortions as well. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with compassion.

Thanks for answering that SFC. I've wondered about it for a long time (well before I posted the question).

[grapes]

I was curious about the case mentioned in the OP. It was Angela Carder, 1987, nearly thirty years ago:

http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.or ... angela.htm

The phrase, "the perfect storm," comes to mind.