What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

[Sunstone]

Is the abortion debate really all about the morality or immorality of killing fetuses, or is it more about controlling women's reproductive choices? What do you think?

And if it is really about the morality or immorality of killing fetuses, then why do so many people who oppose abortion also oppose contraception? Especially, contraceptives that have nothing to do with abortion?

If someone opposes both abortion and non-aborting contraceptives, isn't their position more consistent with a desire to control women's reproductive choices than it is consistent with a desire to merely prevent the killing of fetuses?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like any issue, I think that people can come at it from a range of perspectives, but I think that it's predominantly about controlling women's reproductive choices.

And I agree about contraception. If it was really about saving fetuses, they'd do everything they could to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that exceptions for rape especially underscore that it's about controlling women... or controlling sex: when the woman had no choice but to have the sex that caused the conception, then abortion is allowed; when she freely chose to have sex, the fetus is a "consequence" that she's "responsible" for.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, you're specifically referring to Catholic teachings on sexuality. Every individual rule is part of an overall whole which all leads back to what the Church teaches is the purpose and appropriate use of sex.

But the anti-abortion teaching also ties into the Catholic Church's teaching of a consistent pro-life ethic. The Church teaches that only God has the right to decide to take a human life, so abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty are all taught against. The Church also frequently speaks out against war and works for peace and understanding. There are specific rules for how a war could ever be valid.

 

[HonestJoe]

The abortion "debate" is about politics. It's saying and doing whatever makes the politicians people oppose look bad and the ones they support look good. Most of those involved in the actual day-to-day practicalities, difficulties and conflicts surrounding abortion just get on with it as best they can. The only major problems occur when the former interferes with the latter.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Is the abortion debate really all about the morality or immorality of killing fetuses, or is it more about controlling women's reproductive choices? What do you think?

And if it is really about the morality or immorality of killing fetuses, then why do so many people who oppose abortion also oppose contraception? Especially, contraceptives that have nothing to do with abortion?

If someone opposes both abortion and non-aborting contraceptives, isn't their position more consistent with a desire to control women's reproductive choices than it is consistent with a desire to merely prevent the killing of fetuses?

I voted that it boils down to controlling women's reproductive choices. Pregnancy is seen as either a gift or a punishment, and the health or life risk to a woman carrying the pregnancy is glossed over or seen as inconsequential. Many of the same protestors of birth control (especially the pill) are also against elective abortion both surgical and chemically induced miscarriages.

It matters little - if any - of the health of the woman. And if her health is that inconsequential, then her choices matter even less. Until some see her choice as an opportunity to say "I told you so."

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think that exceptions for rape especially underscore that it's about controlling women... or controlling sex: when the woman had no choice but to have the sex that caused the conception, then abortion is allowed; when she freely chose to have sex, the fetus is a "consequence" that she's "responsible" for.

You described my issues with the exceptions argument better than I could (I resort to biting sarcasm).

Meaning, if penetration was forced, or if the conception was the result of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy offers imminent danger against the woman, then maybe....just maybe....she can be considered for her wish to live.

IOW, if she is seen as a victim, then things are okay. But a woman who isn't a victim? A woman who is free to make choices for her own body? Damn her to hell.

 

[Willamena]

You described my issues with the exceptions argument better than I could...

Ditto.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you're specifically referring to Catholic teachings on sexuality. Every individual rule is part of an overall whole which all leads back to what the Church teaches is the purpose and appropriate use of sex.

Right: it's about control.

But the anti-abortion teaching also ties into the Catholic Church's teaching of a consistent pro-life ethic. The Church teaches that only God has the right to decide to take a human life, so abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty are all taught against. The Church also frequently speaks out against war and works for peace and understanding. There are specific rules for how a war could ever be valid.

There's not much consistent or actually "pro-life" in the Catholic Church's positions on these issues.

You say "the Church teaches that only God has the right to decide to take a human life"... but it has criteria for when it's just fine to kill in war or execute a person (and the Church isn't against the death penalty; it's just restrictive about when it should be applied). I tjink the difference between these examples and ones where the Church doesn't vompromise at all is yhat the Church's power or political interests have never been furthered by an abortion or letting a dying person end their pain on their own terms. When the Church stands to gain from death, it allows it. Under conditions it controls, of course, but it allows it.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems to me that various individuals think it is "really about" different things. Generally, the individuals who focus on the rights of the fetus think it's "really about" abortion, and the individuals who focus on the rights of the woman think it's "really about" her reproductive choice.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Right: it's about control.

No. It's about the Church's overall view of the meaning and use of sexuality. Contraception and abortion are facets of that. The only control here is self-control.

There's not much consistent or actually "pro-life" in the Catholic Church's positions on these issues.

You say "the Church teaches that only God has the right to decide to take a human life"... but it has criteria for when it's just fine to kill in war or execute a person (and the Church isn't against the death penalty; it's just restrictive about when it should be applied). I tjink the difference between these examples and ones where the Church doesn't vompromise at all is yhat the Church's power or political interests have never been furthered by an abortion or letting a dying person end their pain on their own terms. When the Church stands to gain from death, it allows it. Under conditions it controls, of course, but it allows it.

The Church is basically anti-death penalty. The bishops lobby against it and try to get it overturned.

The rest of that is just anti-Catholicism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that various individuals think it is "really about" different things. Generally, the individuals who focus on the rights of the fetus think it's "really about" abortion, and the individuals who focus on the rights of the woman think it's "really about" her reproductive choice.

But we can also look at consistency in their positions. Often, even when someone is paying lip-service to concern for the fetus, they're also opposed to things that would reduce the occasion for abortion, like measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (e.g. contraception or proper sex ed) or things that would take away motivation to abort an unwanted pregnancy (e.g. ensuring that new moms have good financial support).

I've never once heard an anti-choicer argue for Canadian-style pregnancy & parental leave (basically, a paid year off with a guarantee that you can return to your old job). How many abortions would be prevented if women knew they'd be able to devote a year to caring for their newborn without worrying how they will balance that with paying for a roof over their heads?

When the motivation is concern for the fetus, these sorts of measures are a no-brainer. When have you ever seen an anti-choice group campaign for anything like this?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But we can also look at consistency in their positions. Often, even when someone is paying lip-service to concern for the fetus, they're also opposed to things that would reduce the occasion for abortion, like measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (e.g. contraception or proper sex ed) or things that would take away motivation to abort an unwanted pregnancy (e.g. ensuring that new moms have good financial support).

I've never once heard an anti-choicer argue for Canadian-style pregnancy & parental leave (basically, a paid year off with a guarantee that you can return to your old job). How many abortions would be prevented if women knew they'd be able to devote a year to caring for their newborn without worrying how they will balance that with paying for a roof over their heads?

When the motivation is concern for the fetus, these sorts of measures are a no-brainer. When have you ever seen an anti-choice group campaign for anything like this?

Pro-life doesn't inherently equal "political conservative".

 

[Quintessence]

But we can also look at consistency in their positions. Often, even when someone is paying lip-service to concern for the fetus, they're also opposed to things that would reduce the occasion for abortion, like measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (e.g. contraception or proper sex ed) or things that would take away motivation to abort an unwanted pregnancy (e.g. ensuring that new moms have good financial support).

I've never once heard an anti-choicer argue for Canadian-style pregnancy & parental leave (basically, a paid year off with a guarantee that you can return to your old job). How many abortions would be prevented if women knew they'd be able to devote a year to caring for their newborn without worrying how they will balance that with paying for a roof over their heads?

When the motivation is concern for the fetus, these sorts of measures are a no-brainer. When have you ever seen an anti-choice group campaign for anything like this?

Fair points, but I'm not going to pretend to understand what goes on inside the head of pro-lifers, because I fundamentally don't get it because of exactly the sorts of things you just pointed out. In part, many humans are just short-sighted and don't consider the big picture when developing positions on things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pro-life doesn't inherently equal "political conservative".

Not inherently, no. That's why I find it telling that these two things go together so often.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not inherently, no. That's why I find it telling that these two things go together so often.

I agree that it is very strange. But I'm a far leftist.

 

[idav]

Abortion is controversial because nobody can agree whether a fetus deserves rights (of course the womens health is above that of the fetus, not an issue for me). I think the abortion debate is about the rights or potential rights of the fetus. It is no wonder that people get upset about abortions even when the woman is exercising her own right to terminate a pregnancy. People don't have to have kids and the problem is about unwanted pregnancies. If the pregnancy was wanted, their would be no question as to the rights of the fetus.

 

[idav]

Not inherently, no. That's why I find it telling that these two things go together so often.

It is when pro-life conflicts with pro-choice that it becomes an issue. I hardly hear anyone claiming to be anti-life. People make exceptions I suppose and fetuses are one of those exceptions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. It's about the Church's overall view of the meaning and use of sexuality. Contraception and abortion are facets of that. The only control here is self-control.

For Catholics, the Church says that you're not allowed to have sex unless the Church itself endorses your relationship in the form of a wedding ceremony. I'd say this goes quite a bit beyond self control.

The Church is basically anti-death penalty. The bishops lobby against it and try to get it overturned.

Capital punishment was legal in Vatican City until 1969. The Church actually employed an executioner in the Papal States until the mid-1800s... and from what I've read, they kept him rather busy.

The rest of that is just anti-Catholicism.

It's not "anti-Catholicism" to point out that Catholic doctrines about war fall well short of pacifism, and that this means that the Church is selective about when it abides by the principle you gave (i.e. that taking of life is reserved for God).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For Catholics, the Church says that you're not allowed to have sex unless the Church itself endorses your relationship in the form of a wedding ceremony. I'd say this goes quite a bit beyond self control.

No one forces you to believe in the Church's teachings on sex. You can accept them and abide by them or not. If you agree to live by them, then it does essentially come down to self-control and a striving to live chastely on your part.

Capital punishment was legal in Vatican City until 1969. The Church actually employed an executioner in the Papal States until the mid-1800s... and from what I've read, they kept him rather busy.

I'm talking about now.

It's not "anti-Catholicism" to point out that Catholic doctrines about war fall well short of pacifism, and that this means that the Church is selective about when it abides by the principle you gave (i.e. that taking of life is reserved for God).

No, the Church isn't completely pacifist. It doesn't oppose the notion of self-defense, and self-defense is the only time a war may be morally permissible, as a last resort. However, Catholic pacifism does exist. There is room for both interpretations in the Church.