Abortion - is it wrong?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Question---

At what point do men have rights on the abortion issue concerning the life or death of the fetus? I mean, hypothetically speaking if my woman doesn't want the child but I do and she wants to abort, is my word simply moot cause its her $%&*# and not mine? I mean, the child is half my DNA, yet she plops it out of her vaginal canal, so even though its half my DNA but because it plops out of her does that make my concerns moot?

You aren't carrying any of the risks to your health or your life of carrying a pregnancy to term.

In the same way that after your child is born, your wife can't force you to make you donate your kidney to your child, during pregnancy, you don't get to impose your will on the medical decisions that affect her life.

And in this context, DNA is irrelevant. Before the embryo/fetus is a person, it's not like you have copyright on it, and if and when it becomes a person, well... nobody can own another person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My miscarriages in my 20s prompted the change in my staunchly anti-abortion stance. I wrestled with guilt and feeling like a murderer; like there should have been something I could do to prevent miscarrying. My belief that prenatal life was sacred was somewhat mystical, and I was unaware of how extremely common miscarriage when the first one occurred.

Clearly I hadn't given much thought to my views at the time, but since then I've wondered how many people held similar beliefs, and what (staunch) pro-lifers secretly truly think about women who miscarry. I was surprised to learn other women felt a kind of vague shame about miscarrying, despite knowing it wasn't their fault. I don't know if there's a connection between the pro-life arguments and the shame of miscarrying, but there was for me.

This is part of why I point out the statistics on miscarriage outnumbering those on abortion. Why insist on the sacredness of prenatal life? As long as I'm asking, why do pro-life arguments frequently equivocate the pro-choice stance with favoring some kind of barbaric, late-term abortion? I don't know a single person who advocates late-term abortions, and I favor restricting them after 12 weeks to medically necessary.

I found in my own experience that on the issue of miscarriages, the supposedly "pro-life" position was rather contradictory.

My wife and I went to a fertility specialist for quite some time; the clinic was run by a Catholic hospital. While the doctor made it clear from the outset that she couldn't be involved in any IVF-type procedures, I was amazed at how non-plussed she was at the approach that we ended up following, laid out by her.

This is getting more personal than I usually get on the open forum, but here goes: our issue wasn't that we couldn't conceive; conception happened just fine, but we kept having miscarriages. We couldn't get a pregnancy to last more than 2 months. Our fertility doctor told us that we should keep trying and that eventually with the tests she was running and a trial-and-error approach to addressing the various possible causes, things would work out.

She knew our history. She knew full well that the odds of miscarriage in any pregnancy were high if not certain, but still, she counselled us to take a course of action that she knew full well would likely result in the death of an embryo or fetus.

I have no idea how this approach can be reconciled with a pro-life stance. Speaking for myself, if I was in any situation where I had to choose whether to do something entirely optional that had a good chance of killing a child, I could never bring myself to do it.

Also, and this may be another reflection of some of the issues you touched on about the stigma associated with miscarriage, I noticed that when we discussed these miscarriages with my wife's Catholic relatives, not one of them reacted to what we told them the way I'd expect someone to react to the news of an actual child's death.

 

[Alceste]

Argumentum ad populum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Sorry, espo, but the proportion of women in the population who have elected not to continue with an unplanned pregnancy is directly relevant to my point: the women you are calling "murderers" are all around you. They are in your own family. In your workplace. In your neighbourhood. In your church. You can call women in general "murderers" all you like, but don't expect a very warm reception.

 

[blackout]

I found in my own experience that on the issue of miscarriages, the supposedly "pro-life" position was rather contradictory.

My wife and I went to a fertility specialist for quite some time; the clinic was run by a Catholic hospital. While the doctor made it clear from the outset that she couldn't be involved in any IVF-type procedures, I was amazed at how non-plussed she was at the approach that we ended up following, laid out by her.

This is getting more personal than I usually get on the open forum, but here goes: our issue wasn't that we couldn't conceive; conception happened just fine, but we kept having miscarriages. We couldn't get a pregnancy to last more than 2 months. Our fertility doctor told us that we should keep trying and that eventually with the tests she was running and a trial-and-error approach to addressing the various possible causes, things would work out.

She knew our history. She knew full well that the odds of miscarriage in any pregnancy were high if not certain, but still, she counselled us to take a course of action that she knew full well would likely result in the death of an embryo or fetus.

I have no idea how this approach can be reconciled with a pro-life stance. Speaking for myself, if I was in any situation where I had to choose whether to do something entirely optional that had a good chance of killing a child, I could never bring myself to do it.

Also, and this may be another reflection of some of the issues you touched on about the stigma associated with miscarriage, I noticed that when we discussed these miscarriages with my wife's Catholic relatives, not one of them reacted to what we told them the way I'd expect someone to react to the news of an actual child's death.

Wow. This post wins the whole thread.

I'm glad you decided to share.
Your insights are spot on,
and I've never heard such a point made, so pointedly, before.

People really do not examine the depths of their double standards.
So much so that they don't even realize they have them.

Rhetoric/stigma breeds inconsistency of reaction.
And bipolar moral code.

 

[Alceste]

I found in my own experience that on the issue of miscarriages, the supposedly "pro-life" position was rather contradictory.

My wife and I went to a fertility specialist for quite some time; the clinic was run by a Catholic hospital. While the doctor made it clear from the outset that she couldn't be involved in any IVF-type procedures, I was amazed at how non-plussed she was at the approach that we ended up following, laid out by her.

This is getting more personal than I usually get on the open forum, but here goes: our issue wasn't that we couldn't conceive; conception happened just fine, but we kept having miscarriages. We couldn't get a pregnancy to last more than 2 months. Our fertility doctor told us that we should keep trying and that eventually with the tests she was running and a trial-and-error approach to addressing the various possible causes, things would work out.

She knew our history. She knew full well that the odds of miscarriage in any pregnancy were high if not certain, but still, she counselled us to take a course of action that she knew full well would likely result in the death of an embryo or fetus.

I have no idea how this approach can be reconciled with a pro-life stance. Speaking for myself, if I was in any situation where I had to choose whether to do something entirely optional that had a good chance of killing a child, I could never bring myself to do it.

Also, and this may be another reflection of some of the issues you touched on about the stigma associated with miscarriage, I noticed that when we discussed these miscarriages with my wife's Catholic relatives, not one of them reacted to what we told them the way I'd expect someone to react to the news of an actual child's death.

It does seem pretty arbitrary, isn't it.

I think what they find most objectionable, whether they know it or not, is that a woman who consciously chooses whether or not to go through with an unplanned pregnancy is clearly not submitting to the will of their God. It's not the "death" of the fetus they find outrageous, it's the idea that a women might make choices contrary to the will of God. Leaving parenthood to chance gives their God a window to exercise his will in the most significant part of our lives.

For those of us who don't believe in any God, or in submission, of course it seems totally ludicrous to leave parenthood to chance.

I don't doubt there's some vague, sentimental attachment to the idea of the eventual human child a zygote or embryo may one day become (assuming their God doesn't snuff it out first) - child-birth is a miraculous, wonderful thing and children are amazing. But it takes a lot more than sentimentality to construct an effective and compassionate public policy.

 

[blackout]

It does seem pretty arbitrary, isn't it.

I think what they find most objectionable, whether they know it or not, is that a woman who consciously chooses whether or not to go through with an unplanned pregnancy is clearly not submitting to the will of their God. It's not the "death" of the fetus they find outrageous, it's the idea that a women might make choices contrary to the will of God. Leaving parenthood to chance gives their God a window to exercise his will in the most significant part of our lives.

For those of us who don't believe in any God, or in submission, of course it seems totally ludicrous to leave parenthood to chance.

I don't doubt there's some vague, sentimental attachment to the idea of the eventual human child a zygote or embryo may one day become (assuming their God doesn't snuff it out first) - child-birth is a miraculous, wonderful thing and children are amazing. But it takes a lot more than sentimentality to construct an effective and compassionate public policy.

It shows clearly that the issue is not loss of life,
but disobedience to 'god'.

Thing is, thankfully, we do not live in a theocracy.
I am not the least bit worried about disobedience
to another person's god.

 

[Alceste]

It shows clearly that the issue is not loss of life,
but disobedience to 'god'.

Thing is, thankfully, we do not live in a theocracy.
I am not the least bit worried about disobedience
to another person's god.

Me neither. I have no regrets about my decision - as far as my own spiritual path is concerned, I could not have gotten to where I know I need to go in life or learned what I needed to learn saddled with a child and a partner who was wonderful, but who I wasn't in love with.

 

[Quiddity]

It does seem pretty arbitrary, isn't it.

I think what they find most objectionable, whether they know it or not, is that a woman who consciously chooses whether or not to go through with an unplanned pregnancy is clearly not submitting to the will of their God. It's not the "death" of the fetus they find outrageous, it's the idea that a women might make choices contrary to the will of God. Leaving parenthood to chance gives their God a window to exercise his will in the most significant part of our lives.

For those of us who don't believe in any God, or in submission, of course it seems totally ludicrous to leave parenthood to chance.

I don't doubt there's some vague, sentimental attachment to the idea of the eventual human child a zygote or embryo may one day become (assuming their God doesn't snuff it out first) - child-birth is a miraculous, wonderful thing and children are wonderful. But it takes a lot more than sentimentality to construct an effective and compassionate public policy.

Talk about projecting. This doesn't even resonate or compute in my mind. In the same way that I would not think about submission to God if I saw a man beating another man; I would just react. And yes, it is a good comparison to me, because I see people first, before I see the complexities of the arguments.

Most pro-choicers have personal standards, but the ones I've met are very reluctant to make restrictions based on their personal standards. However; they will get squeemish and possibly even reject abortions the closer it is to 9 months. My point is that this conversation isn't just about a glob of zygotes that only religious zealots attach meaning to. It also tells you that at some point, it doesn't matter whether you are religious or not, most people see something wrong with a women making a choice to end a 6-9 month old baby. No matter what the reason is.

For others, it doesn't matter when a human being becomes a human being. If we choose to defer to others the right to kill for.....say convenience...., why should the humanity or personhood of the zygote or fetus even matter?

 

[Sleeppy]

Why initiate something you weren't intent on finishing? People are selfish.

 

[PolyHedral]

Why initiate something you weren't intent on finishing? People are selfish.

So we need less of them!

 

[Alceste]

Talk about projecting. This doesn't even resonate or compute in my mind. In the same way that I would not think about submission to God if I saw a man beating another man; I would just react. And yes, it is a good comparison to me, because I see people first, before I see the complexities of the arguments.

Most pro-choicers have personal standards, but the ones I've met are very reluctant to make restrictions based on their personal standards. However; they will get squeemish and possibly even reject abortions the closer it is to 9 months. My point is that this conversation isn't just about a glob of zygotes that only religious zealots attach meaning to. It also tells you that at some point, it doesn't matter whether you are religious or not, most people see something wrong with a women making a choice to end a 6-9 month old baby. No matter what the reason is.

For others, it doesn't matter when a human being becomes a human being. If we choose to defer to others the right to kill for.....say convenience...., why should the humanity or personhood of the zygote or fetus even matter?

I'm not talking about people who would, personally, never have an abortion, or people who would like to reduce the period when elective abortions are available (I would support reducing that to 12 weeks personally), or people who are undecided or uncomfortable with it but don't seek to outlaw abortion. I'm talking about the people, many of them in this thread, who think that from the INSTANT an egg gets fertilized, any effort to intervene is evil and should be criminalized.

Those people, I think, seem to me to be more concerned with the mother's submission to the will of God than the "life" of the "child".

 

[Songbird]

Why initiate something you weren't intent on finishing? People are selfish.

What's being initiated? Do you view sex as for procreation only?

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not talking about people who would, personally, never have an abortion, or people who would like to reduce the period when elective abortions are available (I would support reducing that to 12 weeks personally), or people who are undecided or uncomfortable with it but don't seek to outlaw abortion. I'm talking about the people, many of them in this thread, who think that from the INSTANT an egg gets fertilized, any effort to intervene is evil and should be criminalized.

Those people, I think, seem to me to be more concerned with the mother's submission to the will of God than the "life" of the "child".

It came across as a fairly broad brush. But thanks for clarifying that.

Just curious, would abortions for convenience even be an issue for you personally? I'm talking about 12 weeks and before.

 

[espo35]

Sorry, espo, but the proportion of women in the population who have elected not to continue with an unplanned pregnancy is directly relevant to my point: the women you are calling "murderers" are all around you. They are in your own family. In your workplace. In your neighbourhood. In your church. You can call women in general "murderers" all you like, but don't expect a very warm reception.

Sorry, Alceste, I did not coin the idea that argumentum ad populum was a logical fallacy..... but it is.

But if that's the best you have, I understand.

 

[Alceste]

It came across as a fairly broad brush. But thanks for clarifying that.

Just curious, would abortions for convenience even be an issue for you personally? I'm talking about 12 weeks and before.

Of course it is a personal issue for me. I am a woman.

I also mentioned my own circumstances further up the thread - I am one of the 30% of all women under the age of 45 who have chosen to terminate an unplanned pregnancy. One in three. It's a safe bet that the majority of women you know have had to make a tough choice at some point in their lives, and that a good proportion of those have chosen not to continue at least one pregnancy.

 

[Alceste]

Sorry, Alceste, I did not coin the idea that argumentum ad populum was a logical fallacy..... but it is.

But if that's the best you have, I understand.

Whatever. You've obviously got no idea what you're talking about.

Engage ignore.

 

[espo35]

Whatever. You've obviously got no idea what you're talking about.

Engage ignore.

How juvenile can you get?

Are you going to stomp your foot or hold your breath, next?

 

[Me Myself]

I found in my own experience that on the issue of miscarriages, the supposedly "pro-life" position was rather contradictory.

My wife and I went to a fertility specialist for quite some time; the clinic was run by a Catholic hospital. While the doctor made it clear from the outset that she couldn't be involved in any IVF-type procedures, I was amazed at how non-plussed she was at the approach that we ended up following, laid out by her.

This is getting more personal than I usually get on the open forum, but here goes: our issue wasn't that we couldn't conceive; conception happened just fine, but we kept having miscarriages. We couldn't get a pregnancy to last more than 2 months. Our fertility doctor told us that we should keep trying and that eventually with the tests she was running and a trial-and-error approach to addressing the various possible causes, things would work out.

She knew our history. She knew full well that the odds of miscarriage in any pregnancy were high if not certain, but still, she counselled us to take a course of action that she knew full well would likely result in the death of an embryo or fetus.

I have no idea how this approach can be reconciled with a pro-life stance. Speaking for myself, if I was in any situation where I had to choose whether to do something entirely optional that had a good chance of killing a child, I could never bring myself to do it.

Also, and this may be another reflection of some of the issues you touched on about the stigma associated with miscarriage, I noticed that when we discussed these miscarriages with my wife's Catholic relatives, not one of them reacted to what we told them the way I'd expect someone to react to the news of an actual child's death.

I see nothing wrong with in vitro.

I am in vitro myself

I see it as trying to put a life in this world by a different mean, I don´t see why should a religion be against it.

 

[Alceste]

This message is hidden because espo35 is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because Me Myself is on your ignore list.

Wow, this ignore feature is great.:beach:

 

[Quiddity]

Of course it is a personal issue for me. I am a woman.

I also mentioned my own circumstances further up the thread - I am one of the 30% of all women under the age of 45 who have chosen to terminate an unplanned pregnancy. One in three. It's a safe bet that the majority of women you know have had to make a tough choice at some point in their lives, and that a good proportion of those have chosen not to continue at least one pregnancy.

It really depends. For some women, it's not a tough choice at all.

Did you notice my question?