NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm confused by a position sometimes taken by those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate (in the places where there still is a debate on the issue, mind you). It is stated by some that they believe that abortion is a detestable act, one that in fact does take a human life, and one that they would never condone or engage in themselves, yet they still believe that it should be a legal option for women. I'm confused by this position -- if you equate the act with killing, how can you justify it being a legal option? If it really is your conviction that an innocent life is taken in the process of the procedure, then why would you wish for it to remain a legally sanctioned act? Planned Parenthood even takes a position that would hint at a bizarre shade of grey stance akin to the aforementioned one, stating that it, as an organization, sees it as a goal to limit the number of abortions that take place by providing birth control to women. If it a condonable procedure as they state it is, however, why the need to limit it?

I can understand those who don't see fetuses or embryos as deserving legal protection due to the fact that they don't see them as being alive or human life. But isn't this alternative stance just a way of satisfying pro-lifers who believe that abortion is an act of murder all while being able to keep a pro-choice position?

I'm confused by a position sometimes taken by those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate (in the places where there still is a debate on the issue, mind you). It is stated by some that they believe that abortion is a detestable act, one that in fact does take a human life, and one that they would never condone or engage in themselves, yet they still believe that it should be a legal option for women. I'm confused by this position -- if you equate the act with killing, how can you justify it being a legal option? If it really is your conviction that an innocent life is taken in the process of the procedure, then why would you wish for it to remain a legally sanctioned act? Planned Parenthood even takes a position that would hint at a bizarre shade of grey stance akin to the aforementioned one, stating that it, as an organization, sees it as a goal to limit the number of abortions that take place by providing birth control to women. If it a condonable procedure as they state it is, however, why the need to limit it?

I can understand those who don't see fetuses or embryos as deserving legal protection due to the fact that they don't see them as being alive or human life. But isn't this alternative stance just a way of satisfying pro-lifers who believe that abortion is an act of murder all while being able to keep a pro-choice position?
A fetus is physically dependent on its mother for survival. The mother can refuse to allow the fetus to use her body, just like a potential bone marrow donor can refuse to save a leukemia patient. It's legal; not moral, but legal.

There are two reasons;

First of all, I am as opposed to dictating my values to someone else as they are to me.

Second of all, because a woman has an absolute right to her body. That trumps all other considerations(though I oppose abortion if there is a chance the unborn baby could survive outside the womb). Including my personal morality.

I can't prove that a fetus is a human, so I can't morally make a law that says it's killing a human without proof. It's at this point my opinion that abortion is wrong because it is killing a child.

I'm confused by a position sometimes taken by those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate (in the places where there still is a debate on the issue, mind you). It is stated by some that they believe that abortion is a detestable act, one that in fact does take a human life, and one that they would never condone or engage in themselves, yet they still believe that it should be a legal option for women. I'm confused by this position -- if you equate the act with killing, how can you justify it being a legal option? If it really is your conviction that an innocent life is taken in the process of the procedure, then why would you wish for it to remain a legally sanctioned act? Planned Parenthood even takes a position that would hint at a bizarre shade of grey stance akin to the aforementioned one, stating that it, as an organization, sees it as a goal to limit the number of abortions that take place by providing birth control to women. If it a condonable procedure as they state it is, however, why the need to limit it?

I can understand those who don't see fetuses or embryos as deserving legal protection due to the fact that they don't see them as being alive or human life. But isn't this alternative stance just a way of satisfying pro-lifers who believe that abortion is an act of murder all while being able to keep a pro-choice position?I think it might be the same as having a conviction that using drugs or eating pork is bad and immoral, but not wanting those convictions to be law.

Perhaps the people who hold this position accept that morality is relative and have the courtesy to not try and forced their views on other through law.

I'm not one of those people; I am one of the few people that really believe abortions should be a lot more common. However, I believe the argument runs thus: "I believe x, but other people may not do so, therefore unless I can demonstrably prove my position to be correct, I have no right interfere in their lives or to demand legislation against their belief".

I don't see any inconsistencies in this.

I think it might be the same as having a conviction that using drugs or eating pork is bad and immoral, but not wanting those convictions to be law.
yes, that's kinda what I meant to say.

I equate that position to the self-defense argument. If the fetus is a threat to the mother, it can be terminated.

If their acceptace of legal abortion is broader, they could view the act as detestable but not think their morality necessarily applies to others.

I'm confused by a position sometimes taken by those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate (in the places where there still is a debate on the issue, mind you). It is stated by some that they believe that abortion is a detestable act, one that in fact does take a human life, and one that they would never condone or engage in themselves, yet they still believe that it should be a legal option for women. I'm confused by this position -- if you equate the act with killing, how can you justify it being a legal option? If it really is your conviction that an innocent life is taken in the process of the procedure, then why would you wish for it to remain a legally sanctioned act?

I agree, the stance you describe does sound silly. If I really believed that abortion was equivalent to murder, I would most certainly not go around saying that it is okay for a woman to choose to commit murder.


Planned Parenthood even takes a position that would hint at a bizarre shade of grey stance akin to the aforementioned one, stating that it, as an organization, sees it as a goal to limit the number of abortions that take place by providing birth control to women. If it a condonable procedure as they state it is, however, why the need to limit it?

It's not about the "need" to limit it. It's about the simple reality that--if you don't want to have a baby--it's better to avoid being pregnant in the first place.

It's like how I totally support a patient's right to have heart surgery, but I generally feel that it would be better to create a situation where they don't need the surgery in the first place. I don't think heart surgery is wicked or immoral, I simply think that most people do not enjoy the process of undergoing surgery, and they'd probably be better off if we found a way to prevent the problem that caused them to need surgery.


I can understand those who don't see fetuses or embryos as deserving legal protection due to the fact that they don't see them as being alive or human life. But isn't this alternative stance just a way of satisfying pro-lifers who believe that abortion is an act of murder all while being able to keep a pro-choice position?
The funny thing is, a lot of "pro-life" people claim they believe abortion is murder, yet they also claim it should be legal in cases of rape or incest. Positions like this one are just a tiny bit self-contradictory.

First of all, the two "moderate" positions you note are quite different. The first is that having an abortion is always morally wrong (except perhaps in very extreme circumstances), but it still shouldn't be legally prohibited. The second is that abortion is not always, or even usually, morally wrong, but that is only because it is the least bad of the alternatives; if the need for it could be eliminated, that would be a good thing.

The first position essentially argues that it is more wrong for the state to infringe upon the sovereignty of a woman over her body than it is to legally tolerate abortion. The right of a woman to control her body trumps the right of the fetus to life, and thus the state cannot restrict the former for the benefit of the latter.

The second position essentially argues that a fetus has some moral value, or at least that some moral wrong is being committed when a fetus is aborted, but that circumstances (poverty, unintended pregnancy, health of the mother, etc.) can make this choice morally acceptable, and it is wrong to prohibit it for that reason. However, if the circumstances (like lack of access to birth control) that lead to abortion can be reduced, that is still a good thing, because it means that less fetuses will be aborted.

For what it's worth, I subscribe to neither of the above positions; I have no moral problem whatsoever with abortion, at least in the early stages of the pregnancy.

But, even if it is her body and her choice, if you really, truly believe that an act of killing is taking place, why would you let that occur? Again, it seems to me that those who hold this stance really don't believe that a fetus/embryo is a life worthy of protection, or that this position is just a way of keeping a moral appearance while condoning the legalization of a procedure they have trouble justifying, but will protect anyway in order to stay connected to the idea of women's rights.

But, even if it is her body and her choice, if you really, truly believe that an act of killing is taking place, why would you let that occur? Again, it seems to me that those who hold this stance really don't believe that a fetus/embryo is a life worthy of protection, or that this position is just a way of keeping a moral appearance while condoning the legalization of a procedure they have trouble justifying, but will protect anyway in order to stay connected to the idea of women's rights.
there are a lot of things that I believe are wrong, but I feel it's immoral for me to try to force my morality on others.

I can't prove that I am right, so it doesn't make moral sense to me to force my opinion on others.

'Children by Choice' garners significant support from 'The Catholic Women's Association of Australia'

I agree, the stance you describe does sound silly. If I really believed that abortion was equivalent to murder, I would most certainly not go around saying that it is okay for a woman to choose to commit murder.

It's not about the "need" to limit it. It's about the simple reality that--if you don't want to have a baby--it's better to avoid being pregnant in the first place.

It's like how I totally support a patient's right to have heart surgery, but I generally feel that it would be better to create a situation where they don't need the surgery in the first place. I don't think heart surgery is wicked or immoral, I simply think that most people do not enjoy the process of undergoing surgery, and they'd probably be better off if we found a way to prevent the problem that caused them to need surgery.

The funny thing is, a lot of "pro-life" people claim they believe abortion is murder, yet they also claim it should be legal in cases of rape or incest. Positions like this one are just a tiny bit self-contradictory.

This post should (but obviously will not) end this discussion.

But, even if it is her body and her choice, if you really, truly believe that an act of killing is taking place, why would you let that occur?

There are two ways out of this problem.

The first is to say that while the fetus has a right to life, its right to life is not equivalent to that of a fully-developed human being.

The second is to argue that failing to sustain a fetus is not morally equivalent to murdering a fully-developed human being not because it has a lesser right to life, but because it is dependent on the mother; prohibiting abortion is compelling the mother to engage in a particular activity (sustaining the fetus) rather than merely prohibiting a certain kind of aggressive activity (murdering another human being.)

Exactly; I think a large part of this lies in proof. The woman is verifiably a person, but the embryo/foetus is not. For those who believe abortion is murder to seriously campaign at the macro level to outlaw the practice, they ought to have clear proof that the embryo/foetus is a person. This is, at best, extremely difficult. Some 'pro-lifers' will campaign anyway; other people, who may otherwise be 'pro-life', will take the position that though the act is entirely deploreable, since they cannot prove they are right, they - and the government - should keep out of it when it comes to others.
Still others, who believe a fetus is a person and deserves protection, will recognize that the current mainstream "pro-life" movement in America is actually supporting policies that INCREASE the number of abortions which take place. Many such people will support the pro-choice movement not because they ideologically agree on all points, but because they believe the pro-choice lobby is pursuing avenues that are more effective at reducing the number of abortions that occur.

(I'm friends with somebody like this. It's actually really funny to watch the two of us debate this topic, since we're both "pro-choice," yet we disagree on every single fundamental aspect of the subject!)

But, even if it is her body and her choice, if you really, truly believe that an act of killing is taking place, why would you let that occur? Again, it seems to me that those who hold this stance really don't believe that a fetus/embryo is a life worthy of protection, or that this position is just a way of keeping a moral appearance while condoning the legalization of a procedure they have trouble justifying, but will protect anyway in order to stay connected to the idea of women's rights.
I think you are selling the people who hold these views short. It is not a matter of just maintaining some kind of women's rights cred and thus lying about what their real views are.

First, several others have already pointed out that many -- I'd guess most -- people who hold these views believe it is unethical to force their morals on other people, since they cannot prove their morals to be based on any fact. This ethical decision is hardly trivial and deserves recognition. It is a perfectly good answer to your question.

Second, many who hold these views are free of sentimental notions about pregnancy. They know it is a physically draining and sometimes dangerous process that often demands hard, harsh choices be made. Sometimes, those choices are between life and death. And they know that parenthood, likewise, demands hard, harsh choices -- about money, food, resources, the needs of the new child versus the needs of existing children in the family. It's my experience that many who hold these ideas are themselves experienced parents. People who think this way tend to be flat-out unwilling to put the power to make such ultimate and controlling decisions into the hands of anyone but the pregnant woman herself.

As for the issue of whether it is better to reduce the number of abortions by contraception -- the Planned Parenthood argument -- this is not really a moral argument. It is a public health argument.

Pregnancy carries with it health risks. It requires regular care, it requires access to emergency care, just in case. It has a lasting, often detrimental effect on the woman's health for the rest of her life, thus adding to her long term health risks -- for cancer, for osteoporosis, for diabetes, etc.

If aborting unwanted pregnancies can help avoid the individual suffering and social problems of children born into poverty, abuse, addiction, or abandonment, then contraception can avoid all that PLUS the individual suffering and social problems associated with women having too many pregnancies during their lives or having pregnancies too young. Not to mention the problems associated with overpopulation.

The funny thing is, a lot of "pro-life" people claim they believe abortion is murder, yet they also claim it should be legal in cases of rape or incest. Positions like this one are just a tiny bit self-contradictory.

It's not contradictory at all. It's an issue of consent. The argument goes that if a woman consents to a sexual act, she also consents to the potential consequences, including pregnancy and, with it, her duty to preserve the life of the fetus (and to care for and raise the baby, etc.). If it is not consensual, however, she has had pregnancy forced upon her, and to compel her to fulfill that duty is unfair.

Not murdering someone does not generally compel a person to undertake a major task. Those who advocate the position you describe, however, see that abortion does involve this choice, and hold that it is wrong to deprive someone of sovereignty (by restricting her right to control her body and her life) for an act to which she did not consent.

People who advance this point of view, if they are consistent, would similarly argue that it is wrong for the state to compel radically altruistic behavior, along similar lines of logic.

It's not contradictory at all. It's an issue of consent. The argument goes that if a woman consents to a sexual act, she also consents to the potential consequences, including pregnancy and thus her duty to preserve the life of the fetus (and to care for and raise the baby, etc.). If it is not consensual, however, she has had pregnancy forced upon her, and to compel her to fulfill that duty is unfair.

Not murdering someone does not generally compel a person to undertake a major task. Those who advocate the position you describe, however, see that abortion does involve this choice, and hold that it is wrong to deprive someone of sovereignty (by restricting her right to control her body and her life) for an act to which she did not consent.

People who advance this point of view, if they are consistent, would similarly argue that it is wrong for the state to compel radically altruistic behavior, along similar lines of logic.

And vice-versa. I notice that most pro-life advocate have little or nothing to say about the voluntary nature of organ donation. If a dead person's organs can save lives, doesn't the state have a duty to enforce compulsory organ donation? Certainly the wishes and desires of a corpse aren't more important than those of a live woman.

But, even if it is her body and her choice, if you really, truly believe that an act of killing is taking place, why would you let that occur?

because we have a whole host of varieties of allowable killings that we recognize?

And vice-versa. I notice that most pro-life advocate have little or nothing to say about the voluntary nature of organ donation. If a dead person's organs can save lives, doesn't the state have a duty to enforce compulsory organ donation? Certainly the wishes and desires of a corpse aren't more important than those of a live woman.

Yes, the moral reasoning often given for not doing that sort of thing is analogous to that which I was presenting for a "moderate" position on abortion.

If a dead person's organs can save lives, doesn't the state have a duty to enforce compulsory organ donation? Certainly the wishes and desires of a corpse aren't more important than those of a live woman.

i could see maybe making an exception for those whose ancient egyptian religions require taking a few organs with them to weigh against a feather or whatever

Not murdering someone does not generally compel a person to undertake a major task. Those who advocate the position you describe, however, see that abortion does involve this choice, and hold that it is wrong to deprive someone of sovereignty (by restricting her right to control her body and her life) for an act to which she did not consent.

There is an obvious contradiction here, as the child being murdered did not consent to conception. Why is right to murder it, while not right to deprive the woman's sovereignty.

People who advance this point of view, if they are consistent, would similarly argue that it is wrong for the state to compel radically altruistic behavior, along similar lines of logic.

Actually they could compel radically altruistic behavior, as long as the person did not declare bankruptcy or have some other financial disaster.

I'm old enough to remember when abortion was illegal. It didn't stop abortions. The rich went to Europe and the poor went to butcher shops. It was deadly for both the mother and fetus. Having abortion legal at least makes it safe for the mother.

The way to limit abortion is not to make it illegal but to make available other options. Unfortunatly most who are against abortion spend their time trying to combine church and state than to take actions of compassion. What would happen if every woman knew both her and her child would have food clothing, shelter and medicine for the next 20 years? Might be an interesting experiment. One that the neo-pharisees will never try.

There is an obvious contradiction here, as the child being murdered did not consent to conception. Why is right to murder it, while not right to deprive the woman's sovereignty.

It isn't seen as "murder" exactly. It is a cessation of support that results in the death of the fetus, more passive than active. If the fetus happens to depend on the mother, well, tough for the fetus.

Think of the right-wing moral arguments against welfare, and you get the basic idea.

Actually they could compel radically altruistic behavior, as long as the person did not declare bankruptcy or have some other financial disaster.

By "radically altruistic behavior" I meant behavior that involves immense sacrifices on the part of the person being compelled - say, taking away most of the money of upper middle class Americans and using it to vaccinate children in poor countries, or forcing them to work long hours every week at soup kitchens and refugee camps.

So, while not necessarily involving a financial disaster, it would likely involve something reasonably close to it in terms of personal loss.