NationStates Jolt Archive

Pro-life people are always asking me, "Aren't you glad your mother chose life?" I always answer, "Well, I'm glad to know she had the choice." After all, whether her pregnancy was planned or not (I happen to know that it was NOT), since there was no legal restriction on her right to an abortion... well, she must have decided that she WANTED me. And I am happy to be wanted.

So, I'd like to turn the question back around. For those of you born in times without restrictions on abortion, isn't it nice to know that Mom wanted you? That you were not a burden forced upon her by an uncaring world?

Why on Earth would anyone want the world to be full of unwanted children?

But that's a ridiculous conceit, abortion quite apart - all sorts of social factors mean that you can't possibly know with any kind of certainty how 'wanted' you were - if that's even possible, as something as complex as maternal love must change over time. I don't think this is a very relevant, interesting or good question, at least in its framing.

I ask this because, while one would logically think that pro-life people tend to love children, in my personal experience the people who really love children (including their own) tend, by and large, to be pro-choice.

The pro-lifers I know are, on the whole, rather uncaring toward children -- except those aborted fetuses.

Now, I know this is hardly statistically meaningful data. Nevertheless, it leads me to wonder if perhaps pro-lifers, who do not like children themselves, may worry that their own mothers might not have wanted them. Thus, a world in which abortions are legal (and accepted) seems, on some level, to be a world in which they would not exist. Thus the passion with which they fear abortion.

Just a thought.

But that's a ridiculous conceit, abortion quite apart - all sorts of social factors mean that you can't possibly know with any kind of certainty how 'wanted' you were - if that's even possible, as something as complex as maternal love must change over time. I don't think this is a very relevant, interesting or good question, at least in its framing.

Actually, the logic is very simple, following a rational-choice assumption.

If she had the choice, and she chose life, then she wanted the baby. (Of course, "choice" is also restricted by cultural acceptance of abortion, as well as the ability of a woman to choose without the consent of a man, etc.... but that is just to argue for an end to both legal and social restrictions on choice.)

EDIT: In other words, if you live in a culture accepting of abortion as a reasonable solution to an unwanted pregnancy, you can know -- to a very reasonable degree of certainty -- that Mom wanted you... since she would have no apparent reason to have you otherwise. If you live in a more repressive culture, as in the United States at present, or under legal restrictions on abortion... well, then there is no way to "get back inside her head," with all of those pressures being applied.

It really wasn't worth thinking.

To try to suggest that anti-choice people 'don't love children' is a crass, sick generalisation. This whole idea is utterly ridiculous: you're trying to undermine a pointless debate with an even more pointless 'you only disagree with me because your daddy never hugged you' snipe. Given that the abortion debate, to my mind wrongly, focusses excessively on the pre-natal baby, any opinion of 'love' is impossible to discern merely from one's stance on the issue. You know what? Not everyone who opposes it lies awake wondering if they're wanted. This isn't a debate.

My mom and dad had me and my sister because they wanted us not because they had to and it feels good to be wanted by your parents, instead of just some extra burden forced on them becuase they couldn't get an abortion. (BTW I'm pro-choice)

This isn't a debate.

Nope. It's a question.... which you, disappointingly, refused to answer. :(

Aren't you glad your mother had a choice?

It just seems to me that the answer that pro-life people always refuse to give is...

"No, I'm glad she lived in a society in which she felt compelled to have me... because otherwise, I'm not so sure she would have."

It just seems to me that the answer that pro-life people always refuse to give is...

"No, I'm glad she lived in a society in which she felt compelled to have me... because otherwise, I'm not so sure she would have."
thats a really depressing answer!

What do you mean? I don't assume my mother loves me just because she didn't abort me. I've never tried aborting you, but I can't honestly say I love you. I don't understand what you're saying (in which case I should probably shut up, but I'm bored). I don't believe that my mother's pregnancy or emotions are a reliable basis for legal policy.

So, I'd like to turn the question back around. For those of you born in times without restrictions on abortion, isn't it nice to know that Mom wanted you? That you were not a burden forced upon her by an uncaring world?

Sure it is. If that weren't the case, though, I wouldn't be any less glad to be alive.

What do you mean? I don't assume my mother loves me just because she didn't abort me. I've never tried aborting you, but I can't honestly say I love you. I don't understand what you're saying (in which case I should probably shut up, but I'm bored). I don't believe that my mother's pregnancy or emotions are a reliable basis for legal policy.

I didn't say "love"... I just said it proves that, when she had you, she WANTED to do it. (Unless she felt compelled for cultural reasons.) What happens after that to make her love you or not is beside the point.

I'm not making an argument here about why abortion should or shouldn't be legal.

Rather, I am trying to understand the psychological factors that may be at work in determining someone's opinion. Granted, these factors are irrelevant to the argument itself. But they are, nonetheless, interesting... and you never know. It may help to understand your opposition.

'My opposition'? Oh dear.

Anyway, you're trying to psychoanalyse people you DON'T KNOW in order to try to prove that their opinions, in all probability carefully thought out and developed, are in fact down to some infantile delusion. What they think about their parents' choices is totally irrelevant. You keep 'just wondering' if it's all down to a fear that they're unwanted, but you're not doing anything more than that, which barely makes it a question. It's just vague witterings, and it's pretty hard to substantiate an answer to that.

Anyway, you're trying to psychoanalyse people you DON'T KNOW in order to try to prove that their opinions, in all probability carefully thought out and developed, are in fact down to some infantile delusion.

On the contrary, I am quite sure that they have carefully thought-out and developed reasons for their opinions... since they have frequently explained them to me.

However, while I am far from a Humean analyst of the mind, I do believe that our opinions -- and especially our passionate opinions -- relate to more than just "reason." This seems especially likely in the case of an issue like abortion, in which -- by all appearances -- rational discussion so frequently comes down to a stalemate.

Pro-choicers, psychologically speaking, are somewhat easier to decipher. First of all, you have women who feel like they are defending themselves -- or at least, other women with whom they can identify. For sexually active women, there is the fear of pregnancy and what it means. The psychology of the pro-choice man, on the other hand, seems to have something to do with a combination of identification with women (possibly related to love for an individual woman whom a man wants to protect)... and also the same fear of a girlfriend getting pregnant. Many men want to know that women are "free" to abort.

Of course, pro-choicers also have their thought-out rationale. They go hand-in-hand.

But pro-lifers are harder to figure out... why do they identify so strongly with the endangered fetus (while pro-choicers hardly identify with it at all)?

That is the question, in abstract form, to which I would like an answer.

EDIT: I am approaching this as a social scientist rather than as an advocate.

Hmmmm, while I am pro-choice, your logic is just a few leaps away from proving that adopted kids should spend their lives crying because they weren't really wanted by their parents....

Hmmmm, while I am pro-choice, your logic is just a few leaps away from proving that adopted kids should spend their lives crying because they weren't really wanted by their parents....

I'm not saying they should! I'm working backwards, not forwards. I'm trying to understand the people who do want to ban abortion, not telling people how they should feel, one way or the other.

Pro-life people are always asking me, "Aren't you glad your mother chose life?"

That is a ridiculous rhetorical question. It is impossible for someone to fathom the alternative.

That is a ridiculous rhetorical question.

Yes, it is... which is one of the reasons I find the asking so revealing of pro-life psychology.

Yes, it is... which is one of the reasons I find the asking so revealing of pro-life psychology.

Most of the individuals who are anti-abortion assign a spiritual aspect to people, they feel that the human body is just one part of a person's existence. Therefore, the idea that abortion is not actually killing someone, and is just terminating a bundle of cells doesn't register in their mind.

I ask this because, while one would logically think that pro-life people tend to love children, in my personal experience the people who really love children (including their own) tend, by and large, to be pro-choice.

The pro-lifers I know are, on the whole, rather uncaring toward children -- except those aborted fetuses.

Now, I know this is hardly statistically meaningful data. Nevertheless, it leads me to wonder if perhaps pro-lifers, who do not like children themselves, may worry that their own mothers might not have wanted them. Thus, a world in which abortions are legal (and accepted) seems, on some level, to be a world in which they would not exist. Thus the passion with which they fear abortion.

Just a thought.



Eh, if they want people to have the choice to kill children, you couldn't call them really loving, now could you? ;)

Eh, if they want people to have the choice to kill children, you couldn't call them really loving, now could you? ;)

Now this is the part where I say that the fetus is not a child, and then you, against all logic, disagree with me, with the resulting argument ending in a stalemate.

I hate abortion threads.

I hate abortion threads.
You hate them? What about poor confused me? I can’t stand the rhetoric of most pro-choicers, yet I am pro-choice for the simple reason that making it illegal is impractical and would ultimately give the government access to parts of our lives which they have no business in. Yet, philosophically, I tend to agree with pro-lifers.

Now this is the part where I say that the fetus is not a child, and then you, against all logic, disagree with me, with the resulting argument ending in a stalemate.

I hate abortion threads.



Against all logic? By 8 weeks, the child's brain and heart have already formed and it is capable of feeling pain. Are you seriously advocating someone's "right" to kill a person who, by all means, qualifies as a person? It's not just a "agglutination of cells" by then. It has become human life.

Hmmmm, while I am pro-choice, your logic is just a few leaps away from proving that adopted kids should spend their lives crying because they weren't really wanted by their parents....

Not true! Of all the people in the world, adopted kids are the ones who can be most sure they were wanted by their parents!

Against all logic? By 8 weeks, the child's brain and heart have already formed and it is capable of feeling pain. Are you seriously advocating someone's "right" to kill a person who, by all means, qualifies as a person? It's not just a "agglutination of cells" by then. It has become human life.

But they aren't a person yet. They have absolutely no existence except as an extention of someone else's body. They do not have the capability of self-awareness, they are not forming a personality, they are just beginning to form the ability to live, and even that they cannot do on their own.

They are not a person, they are merely the potential to be a person. A functioning body does not constitute a functioning person, look at Terri Schiavo, she was no longer a person. However, even she had more of a case than that of a fetus, as she had, at one time, been a person, and there was the remote chance she could return to her personhood.

You hate them? What about poor confused me? I can’t stand the rhetoric of most pro-choicers, yet I am pro-choice for the simple reason that making it illegal is impractical and would ultimately give the government access to parts of our lives which they have no business in. Yet, philosophically, I tend to agree with pro-lifers.

I personally hate them because they accomplish nothing. Anti-abortion people will never accept the fetus as a bundle of cells based on the moral standpoint, and the pro-choicers will never accept societies intervention on a woman's control of her own body because of their morality.

But I do like the fact that you stepped past your own morality and formed your opinion based on what you feel is actually best for the individuals involved. We need more people like you doing the decisions on this issue.

look at Terri Schiavo, she was no longer a person. However, even she had more of a case than that of a fetus, as she had, at one time, been a person, and there was the remote chance she could return to her personhood.

Now if that isn't ass backwards I don't know what is. Lets try this, test once every Monday for 52 weeks (one year). Test Terry every Monday vs. Test the fetus every Monday... Now which one had a better chance at 'recovery' as you put it?

Now if that isn't ass backwards I don't know what is. Lets try this, test once every Monday for 52 weeks (one year). Test Terry every Monday vs. Test the fetus every Monday... Now which one had a better chance at 'recovery' as you put it?

The fetus doesn't have any personhood to recover. That was the point of that statement. By letting Schiavo die, you are letting someone who had existed as a person at one point lose all chance at continuing that life. By letting a fetus die you are doing absolutely nothing. They are not a person, they were never a person, and by letting the fetus die, they will never be a person.

The fetus doesn't have any personhood to recover. That was the point of that statement. By letting Schiavo die, you are letting someone who had existed as a person at one point lose all chance at continuing that life. By letting a fetus die you are doing absolutely nothing. They are not a person, they were never a person, and by letting the fetus die, they will never be a person.

They are merely at an age all humans live through. Like infanthood, child, preteen, adult, senior citizen and extreme elderly, etc., they are equal to any and all other humans. They are human life; to argue otherwise is simply to argue for age discrimination.

They are merely at an age all humans live through. Like infanthood, child, preteen, adult, senior citizen and extreme elderly, etc., they are equal to any and all other humans. They are human life; to argue otherwise is simply to argue for age discrimination.

Once again, I am not arguing that fetuses are not a part of human life. However, human life does not intrinsically allow rights, personhood does. A fetus cannot actually possess rights, as it is not possible for a fetus to act responsibly on any rights.

Pro-life people are always asking me, "Aren't you glad your mother chose life?" I always answer, "Well, I'm glad to know she had the choice." After all, whether her pregnancy was planned or not (I happen to know that it was NOT), since there was no legal restriction on her right to an abortion... well, she must have decided that she WANTED me. And I am happy to be wanted.

So, I'd like to turn the question back around. For those of you born in times without restrictions on abortion, isn't it nice to know that Mom wanted you? That you were not a burden forced upon her by an uncaring world?

Why on Earth would anyone want the world to be full of unwanted children?

This logic is flawed because it pretends that there is only one option if you do not want to keep your child. There are other options such as adoption. If your mother didnt want you, she couldve given you to someone who does. Either way you couldve ended up growing up in a home where you were wanted and loved.

Any comments on my answer? I've been eagerly awaiting some expert psychoanalysis.

Once again, I am not arguing that fetuses are not a part of human life. However, human life does not intrinsically allow rights, personhood does. A fetus cannot actually possess rights, as it is not possible for a fetus to act responsibly on any rights.


You mean like a two month old can appreciate and act upon their personhood? Or maybe like a bed-ridden senior citizen suffering from senility and delusions is a capable person? Perhaps we should measure a mentally challenged adolescent for personhood appreciation? Since when is being mentally competent a measure of personhood?

Even so, taking an annual measurement of competency for five or ten years before coming to a conclusion might be wise…


However, human life does not intrinsically allow rights, Are you sure you want to say that?

My mommy was a test tube! :)

Against all logic? By 8 weeks, the child's brain and heart have already formed and it is capable of feeling pain. Are you seriously advocating someone's "right" to kill a person who, by all means, qualifies as a person? It's not just a "agglutination of cells" by then. It has become human life.

We need more people like you on NS... and IRL. :)


Once again, I am not arguing that fetuses are not a part of human life. However, human life does not intrinsically allow rights, personhood does. A fetus cannot actually possess rights, as it is not possible for a fetus to act responsibly on any rights.

Killing the defenseless just because people don't want to spend any time on them? Sounds real cruel to me.

just some food for thought.

If you live then oviously someone wants/ed and loved/s you.

That you were not a burden forced upon her by an uncaring world?

Aside from women impregnated during rape, no child was forced upon the mother. Each chose to have sex knowing the consequences. Your question is asinine.

My mommy was a test tube! :)
Really?

just some food for thought.

If you live then oviously someone wants/ed and loved/s you.
Not necessarily for love, it could have been boredom.

Aside from women impregnated during rape, no child was forced upon the mother. Each chose to have sex knowing the consequences. Your question is asinine.

...and there always is adoption. Adoption practicaly guarantees that the child will be part of a loving household.

Aside from women impregnated during rape, no child was forced upon the mother. Each chose to have sex knowing the consequences. Your question is asinine.

"forced" being the emotive word used by the pro-choicers to represent an unwanted situation, using as in "chance and bad luck forced her to be pregnant". It is an incorrect usage of the word designed to make us feel bad for the woman.
Having said that, an accident does not mean the woman "wants" or - depending on your definition - is "responsible" for the occurance. If I drive down the street, and accidentally hit a child, I am not a murderer. It was an accident. The probability was VERY high that my car trip would be safe and accident-free. You cannot say that I "accept the responsibility of murder" every time I get into a car. You cannot say I get into the car "knowing the consequences". I know it's a *chance* and I take *precautions* to stop it happening. As most people do to avoid pregnancy.

While we're talking about emotive words, the word "child" instead of fetus is just as emotive. Both sides of the argument are guilty of this game.

I wish we could just discuss the *same* topic, for once. We're both discussing just our side, and not finding any common ground.

You mean like a two month old can appreciate and act upon their personhood? Or maybe like a bed-ridden senior citizen suffering from senility and delusions is a capable person? Perhaps we should measure a mentally challenged adolescent for personhood appreciation? Since when is being mentally competent a measure of personhood?

Even so, taking an annual measurement of competency for five or ten years before coming to a conclusion might be wise…

How many rights do you think that an insane or senile person retains in our society? Do you advocate the insane and retarded to have full equal rights as the competent of society?

And that doesn't even come close to a reasonable comparison, anyways. You are comparing those that are mentally incompetent to handle normal responsibilities to a fetus whose brain is not well formed enough to function outside of the mother's womb.


Are you sure you want to say that?

Human life is no different than a dog life, it is our growth as a human and our reasonable ability to interact to and contribute with society that has given us our rights. We exist because we are human, we have rights because we are people.

Killing the defenseless just because people don't want to spend any time on them? Sounds real cruel to me.

We kill unwanted defenceless animals all the time in society without most people batting an eye. The only thing that separates a fetus from an animal is the idea of what the fetus could be, and that is immaterial to this argument.

"forced" being the emotive word used by the pro-choicers to represent an unwanted situation, using as in "chance and bad luck forced her to be pregnant". It is an incorrect usage of the word designed to make us feel bad for the woman.
Agreed.
Having said that, an accident does not mean the woman "wants" or - depending on your definition - is "responsible" for the occurance. If I drive down the street, and accidentally hit a child, I am not a murderer. It was an accident. The probability was VERY high that my car trip would be safe and accident-free. You cannot say that I "accept the responsibility of murder" every time I get into a car. You cannot say I get into the car "knowing the consequences". I know it's a *chance* and I take *precautions* to stop it happening. As most people do to avoid pregnancy.
Murder is the premeditated, unlawful killing of another human being. Since, in this example, the death was not planned it's not murder. This is another example of incorrect usage of a word.
You are responsible for the death of the child. You were behind the wheel.
I like this example actually. When you drive a car you accept the risk an accident could occur. Just like when you have sex you accept the risk of a pregnancy. You can take precautions to prevent that accident, but it is still a possibility. Even a totally blameless driveer would face some consequence in hitting a child. If you followed all the rules, followed the speed limit, used your blinkers, etc.., and still killed a child should you just be allowed to peel the body off your hood and move on because you didn't mean it and you took every precaution against it?

I wish we could just discuss the *same* topic, for once. We're both discussing just our side, and not finding any common ground.
Agreed. We can agree on abortions in instances where the mother's life is in danger I believe. Rape is another where I believe we have common ground. So what's left is all those other unborn, unwanted fetuses. What's your stance on late-term abortions? How far along those 9 months until an abortion becomes morally unacceptable to you?

Agreed.

Murder is the premeditated, unlawful killing of another human being. Since, in this example, the death was not planned it's not murder. This is another example of incorrect usage of a word.
You are responsible for the death of the child. You were behind the wheel.
I have to agree with what you just said 100%
It's certainly not murder, by the definition, and it's an incorrect usage of the word. It's mansalughter.
I'm responsible in the sense that I was the one driving there, the child is responsible in the sense that they ran out into the road or whatever (assuming nobody did anything negligent, and it was just a bad-luck accident).
I'm not *morally* responsible for it, in the sense that I did nothing *wrong*

I think that's another problem with the word "responsible". It has three or more meanings.
I can be responsible for getting the report in on time (because I'm the boss, who should make sure it's done. Even if I never wrote or saw the report, it's my moral responsibility)
I can be responsible for getting the report in on time (because I'm the person actually writing it, as a favour. I'm not being paid, and have no moral responsibility, I'm just the person who did the action)
and, I can be responsible for the report being late (because I turned on the fan, without knowing that the report would blow off the desk and into the garbage can)

All those meanings of the word "responsible" are different.
I'd be responsible for hitting the child with the car in the third sense, as in the person who did the action that caused the event. I wouldn't be responsible in the first sense, as in the person who morally should have made sure it didn't happen (assuming I was driving safely).


I like this example actually. When you drive a car you accept the risk an accident could occur. Just like when you have sex you accept the risk of a pregnancy. You can take precautions to prevent that accident, but it is still a possibility. Even a totally blameless driveer would face some consequence in hitting a child. If you followed all the rules, followed the speed limit, used your blinkers, etc.., and still killed a child should you just be allowed to peel the body off your hood and move on because you didn't mean it and you took every precaution against it?

Not literally, you shouldn't be able to. Obviously we don't want dead children left in the gutters. Figuratively, though, you should. After calling the police, going to counselling, all that stuff, you should face as few consequences as possible. Obviously you will need to live with the knowledge that the child died, and there is nothing that can be done about that.
You should not go to jail, or have your licence revoked, or anything of that sort, if you took every precaution against it.
Either you were the victim of bad-luck with the child running out into the road, or you were the victim of a bad social system that encourages us to drive cars despite the dangers. You should not need to face further consequences beyond what has already happened.


Agreed. We can agree on abortions in instances where the mother's life is in danger I believe. Rape is another where I believe we have common ground. So what's left is all those other unborn, unwanted fetuses. What's your stance on late-term abortions? How far along those 9 months until an abortion becomes morally unacceptable to you?

I'm glad we can agree on some things.
My stance on late-term abortions? How far along until it becomes morally unacceptable to me?
My *personal* view is that, at conception, there is not a person, just a clump of cells. At birth (or perhaps after, that doesn't matter to my viewpoint) there is a person. There isn't any exact point where it goes from being not-a-person to being a person. It's grey.
I believe that, morally, it's just as grey. I have no objection whatsoever to instant-abortions that happen at the point of conception. I have a huge objection to abortions that happen right before, or just after birth. I believe that the longer you wait the more immoral it is to have an abortion.

But...that's my personal view, and it's not really based on any sort of hard facts. What I'd really like for common ground is something we can both completely agree on which does not need to involve personal opinions or morals.

Does the child have a soul? I don't know. But while people on one side of the argument assume this to be true by default, and will not budge on that point, and while people on the other side assume it to be false by default, and will not budge on that point, then they really can never come to any sort of agreement. Unless we put aside the issue of a soul, and discuss theoretical situations (assume it does/doesn't have a soul. Does that change your argument?).

The potential-child's soul isn't the only issue. There are other areas, my personl beef being "it's going to develop into a child, so we must give it the rights of a child". I have trouble accepting that line of reasoning, and while I'm willing to discuss it, I can't accept any line of reasoning based on it. At least not until I've discussed that particular assumption and been satisfied that it's valid.

Also: Thank you for your post, it was well thought out, intelligent, and questioned my statements.

How many rights do you think that an insane or senile person retains in our society? Do you advocate the insane and retarded to have full equal rights as the competent of society?

And that doesn't even come close to a reasonable comparison, anyways. You are comparing those that are mentally incompetent to handle normal responsibilities to a fetus whose brain is not well formed enough to function outside of the mother's womb.




Human life is no different than a dog life, it is our growth as a human and our reasonable ability to interact to and contribute with society that has given us our rights. We exist because we are human, we have rights because we are people.


Why debate when you prove my point for me?

Why debate when you prove my point for me?

Neo, you can be a great debater at times, but I think in this instance you either missed Vitto's point, or you are intentionally being obtuse.

The point was that with diminished mental capacity comes diminished responsibility, and with diminished responsibility comes diminished rights.

We do not let someone who is unable to form a coherent sentence have a vote, and by doing this we deny them the right to vote. We also do not allow children to vote, we deny them the right to choose where they want to live, we deny them the right to marry, any number of other things.

Theoretically we make these choices taking their best interest into account, so they do not suffer from having less rights than the rest of us.

The point made, though, was that not everyone has the same amount of rights. An intelligent, educated adult has *more* rights and liberties than an impaired adult, and more than a child. Vitto's point (if I understood it correctly) was that there is not necessarily any magical universal right that everyone has at every stage of development.

Neo, you can be a great debater at times, but I think in this instance you either missed Vitto's point, or you are intentionally being obtuse.

The point was that with diminished mental capacity comes diminished responsibility, and with diminished responsibility comes diminished rights.

We do not let someone who is unable to form a coherent sentence have a vote, and by doing this we deny them the right to vote. We also do not allow children to vote, we deny them the right to choose where they want to live, we deny them the right to marry, any number of other things.

Theoretically we make these choices taking their best interest into account, so they do not suffer from having less rights than the rest of us.

The point made, though, was that not everyone has the same amount of rights. An intelligent, educated adult has *more* rights and liberties than an impaired adult, and more than a child. Vitto's point (if I understood it correctly) was that there is not necessarily any magical universal right that everyone has at every stage of development.



I dunno, I'll try not to Godwin the thread but his comment seemed rather Nazi-ish to me. What with the whole "the retarded and senile do not have equal human rights" and all...either that, or I'm so tired that I missed the point. I'll go with the former, since it makes me feel more justified ;)

I dunno, I'll try not to Godwin the thread but his comment seemed rather Nazi-ish to me. What with the whole "the retarded and senile do not have equal rights" and all...

I know *exactly* what you mean. It does sound horrible to say that the retarded and senile do not have equal rights.
It's horrible that it's necessary. But, it's true.

The parents of a retarded adult can keep control of their bank accounts, ask the police to return them home if they leave, control who they date, basically keep them a virtual prisoner. At least in Australia, I assume it's the same in America.
This doesn't happen because the parents are mean (and most choose not to excercise this right), but because in certain cases it's necessary. In most cases it's for the retarded or senile person's own good.

Obviously, they still retain certain rights. You can't kill someone just because they are retarded or senile.

Aside from women impregnated during rape, no child was forced upon the mother. Each chose to have sex knowing the consequences.

The range of possible "consequences" is defined by the cultural/political circumstance. Where abortions are legal, the potential consequence of sex is a choice. Where abortions are illegal, the likely consequence (barring a dangerous illegal abortion) is a child.

So the "she knew the consequences" argument doesn't hold up... it begs the question.

Any comments on my answer? I've been eagerly awaiting some expert psychoanalysis.

Your answer (that you are still glad to be alive) is beside the point. We are all glad to be alive. Yet for some reason, pro-lifers seem to identify with an unborn fetus in ways that pro-choicers do not. The point here is to describe the psychological factors that may increase identification with the unborn, so as to seriously defend their "rights."

Most of us don't identify with animals, so we don't care very much about defending their lives. Pro-choicers don't identify with fetuses... but pro-lifers do.

Now, I know you have many arguments that "prove" that fetuses "are human," or "will be." Just as pro-choicers have arguments that "prove" the reverse.

But it seems likely, psychologically, that such strong opinions involve more than just "reason"... I believe there are other factors that affect fetus-identification.

I want to know what they are. I have offered one suggestion -- that pro-lifers have especially high anxiety (conscious or unconscious) about their own births (would I have been born in a freer world?).

I have already stated similar reasons for identification on the side of pro-choicers, so don't claim I am being one-sided.

This is not an argument against abortion. It is a scientific question about the factors that divide the population along these lines.

You hate them? What about poor confused me? I can’t stand the rhetoric of most pro-choicers, yet I am pro-choice for the simple reason that making it illegal is impractical and would ultimately give the government access to parts of our lives which they have no business in. Yet, philosophically, I tend to agree with pro-lifers.
So you are saying that you believe abortion to be murder, but you think it should be legal?

I dunno, I'll try not to Godwin the thread but his comment seemed rather Nazi-ish to me. What with the whole "the retarded and senile do not have equal human rights" and all...either that, or I'm so tired that I missed the point. I'll go with the former, since it makes me feel more justified

It is impossible for incapable people to have equal rights. Because of their diminished mental faculties, many of their rights are given up in favor of greater protections from societies.

Those that are incapable do not have the right to defend themselves in court so that they are protected from harming themselves legally. Contracts made with incapable people are always voidable to protect them from being taken advantage of.

I will make a stretch here (one that you probably will completely disagree with, and one that I am not even sure of), and say that it might be concluded that the fetus doesn't have an explicit right to be born to protect it from being in a very unpleasant situation. I'm just kind of thinking aloud, but it might make my ideas on rights versus protections when capability is considered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to Earths Orbit, you were exactly right, thank you.

Really the only reason i'm pro-choice is that outlawing abortion would only exacerbate the problem. But if these radical pro-life organizations( Right to Life etc.) want less abortions, they should stop wasting time trying to amend the constitution. Its just such a hot button issue and amendment are really friggin' hard to pass regardless.


Some alternatives to an amendment would be:

State governments putting more funding into child care, day care programs, and the like. What's ironic is that conservative states tend to spend the least amount of money on programs designed to lighten the loads of low-income parents.

Promoting adoption and abstinence. This method worked for the Clinton administration( abortions went down 22% during those years)


But to answer the question yes it feels awesome to be alive. I was born extremely premature and a lot of doctors told my mom to abort because my twin brother and I would probably either be deformed or extremely sickly.
This is probably why i'm so far right on the abortion isssue.

But to answer the question yes it feels awesome to be alive. I was born extremely premature and a lot of doctors told my mom to abort because my twin brother and I would probably either be deformed or extremely sickly.
This is probably why i'm so far right on the abortion isssue.

Thank you... this is the sort of answer I am looking for. I cannot use your answer to criticize your position on the issue... but it does help me to understand you better.

You have a very conscious reason for identifying with the fetus. But I doubt many pro-lifers can share a similar story... Thus, I continue to suspect that most of them (like most pro-choicers) have deeply unconscious factors affecting their opinion. I think everyone should consider some deep reflection into their own feelings... before leaping to the conclusion that their logic is so "obvious," people should wonder why it seems so obvious to them.