Niall001 wrote:If you want to put those questions to me now, I'll do my best to answer them - you know, so long as I'm not busy.

No, Niall, I have no wish to readdress those questions to either you or Mr.P. The duplication is unnecessary, I assume the thread still exists if either of you wish to go back to it. I just found it interesting enough to note that, within the abortion debate (and I use debate rather than discussion intentionally here), frank, practical questions are largely ignored in favor of red herring tirades and moral sermonizing from both sides. My suggestion wasn't meant as an accusation for your not having time to address the questions; it was meant as an invitation to use that thread and where it had gone, which still housed unanswered questions. But this thread makes that suggestion moot.

Actually, I scanned the last thread - the one that related to a ban on late-term abortions - and no outstanding questions jumped out. It had also ran off-topic. Besides, there were several threads on abortion before that one that we could have used, you might have been referring to one of them. If we used single threads for every discussion, we'd have about seven very large threads in the entire forum, given that its the same subjects that come up again and again!

Edit: Apologies to all for the meta!

Niall,

You said:

To answer your question briefly, I am religious, but that doesn't really tend to affect my opinion on legal matters. While I might think that even simulated child pornography is immoral, I have no desire to see it illegal.

Is your "prolife" position in regard to ethics only, or is it your position that abortion should be illegal? Do you vote to support the illegalization of abortion?

I read the article you linked by Peter Singer, and read some other stuff on his views of abortion. I have a lot of respect for him as a philosopher with regard to his views of animal ethics and rights. I couldn't find a concise version of his views on abortion to understand his position clearly, but I do agree with some of the points he makes.

I'm going to offer my perspective on abortion. It's a feminist perspective. I also think that it's the most logical position to take on the subject, but it's open to debate.

Throughout many cultures in history women have been dominated and oppressed by men. This is well documented in historical, literary, philosophical, and religious sources. Historically, women have been valued for one thing, and that's their uterus. Women have been viewed by men and dominant society as less intelligent, less rational, less capable, weaker, and unable to make decisions for themselves. For millennia dominant society has been controlled by men, specifically white, middle to upper class, heterosexual men. Women have had to fight an uphill battle for centuries to gain equal rights with men, to be able to work along side men in professional positions, and even to make decisions for themselves and society. Women in the United States have only been allowed to affect the decisions for society with their votes for less than a hundred years. Nevermind that this country has yet to see a female president, there are women still alive today who remember a time when they were not even allowed to vote for the man who would be make political decisions for them.

Religion has had a lot to do with "keeping women in their place." To keep a large group of people from challenging and fighting against established norms is difficult. It's much easier when you can massively mind fuck them so that they buy into the dominant culture mindset. Several of the major world religions have been instrumental in telling women that their God-assigned place is one of submission to men. I grew up in a conservative Christian home, and this mindset is still very much alive today. My father was the "head of the house." My mother was valued as a "good" woman in as much as she was "submissive" to my father.

While it's true that over the past century, at least in the "western world," women have made huge strides in gaining equal rights for themselves, society has not shed the dominant culture mind fuck. The dominant culture is still white, heterosexual, male. Men still hold the power. Just look at corporate America. And many women continue to submit to male domination. But why should men, or dominant male society, be making laws that affect a woman's health or life? Women do not make such laws for men? Why should women not be able to make decisions for their own health, bodies, and lives?

Now I understand that when it comes to abortion we're not talking about one individual alone. The woman is not the only factor to consider. However, she is a very important person to consider within the scope of the debate, and she is often forgotten within the "prolife" movement. The whole issue of a woman's right to choose goes far deeper than abortion alone, and the prochoice movement is not focused on abortion alone. To call it "pro-abortion" would be to completely misrepresent its entire focus. The prochoice movement is focused on a woman's reproductive freedom and rights.

Because women have historically been valued by men for their reproductive abilities alone, and because men have largely controlled the laws that affect a woman's reproductive choice, the prochoice movement is seeking to take control of a woman's reproductive abilities out of the hands of men and give it to the individual herself. This is not just about abortion. This about the right for a woman to be able to have sex when and if she wants to. Men can. Why is there a double standard for women? It's about a woman's right to talk about sex and to be educated about sex. It's about a woman's right to use contraception, to have a child, or to not have a child.

Women are a hell of a lot more than a walking uterus, but to a large extent men do not recognize that. More and more women are deciding that they don't want to have kids. They want to pursue their own educations or careers instead of relegating their existence to raising children. Men have had that choice throughout history. Women have not.

In the United States, male religious and political leaders are still working hard to control a woman's reproductive choice. This post is already lengthy so I'm not going add a lot of quotes, but I may post some later. Suffice it to say, because of the dominant culture's view on female reproductive rights, women do not have the freedom that men have when it comes to sex. There is a huge double standard in our culture. Many of the "prolifers" are the ones who oppose sex education in the classroom and use of contraceptives for women! The underlying motives within the "prolife" movement are not a focus on the life of the unborn. The motive is the control of female reproductive rights. Therefore, I think "anti-choice" is a far more appropriate term for those who oppose abortion legally. On the other hand, I think "prochoice" is a perfectly appropriate term because that's exactly what the movement is seeking

I've just finished responding to your post Cheryl and thought I'd best insert a note at the start. That was a long (!)and thoughtful reply, so thanks. I've probably not addressed everything you mentioned fully. In fact I think if I tried to, it would only derail the thread. If you want to discuss some of the more peripheral subjects you've brought up (e.g. some of the stuff related to feminism) a sidebar (or 5!) might be a good idea. While I probably don't have the time (exams) for that at the moment (at least not while this thread is still live), I'm sure others would.

Also apologies to all if the formating is messed up, I tried to fix it, but I probably missed something.

Now back to our regularly scheduled crap:

First:

Is your "prolife" position in regard to ethics only, or is it your
position that abortion should be illegal? Do you vote to support the
illegalization of abortion?

I believe that abortion should usually be illegal and I vote in a manner that maintains that prohibition.

I read the article you linked by Peter Singer, and read some other stuff
on his views of abortion. I have a lot of respect for him as a
philosopher with regard to his views of animal ethics and rights. I
couldn't find a concise version of his views on abortion to understand
his position clearly, but I do agree with some of the points he makes.

Oddly I think that you and I respect Singer for different reasons! My admiration for the man stems from his fidelity to logic and his willingness to (almost) follow his line of reasoning to its natural ends in spite of the fact that the end is very unpopular.

Moving on, you wrote a lot on the background details of the feminist perspective and I agree with most of it. I'm just going to quote a few parts of it that I'd take issue with.

Throughout many cultures in history women have been dominated and
oppressed by men. This is well documented in historical, literary,
philosophical, and religious sources. Historically, women have been
valued for one thing, and that's their uterus.

I can understand why you might not want to go into all of the subtleties and nuances of the historical treatment of women in a post where it is of peripheral relevance, but I hope that you realize this is a generalization that borders on the gross.

While many male individuals and many groups dominated by people who are male have oppressed individuals and groups based on their sex, it cannot be said that men oppressed women, as many females actively participated in the suppression of their same-sex peers. Also, women have been valued for many other things apart from their uterus, least of all, their dowries. Still, broadly speaking, your point is taken.

For millennia dominant society has been controlled by men,
specifically white, middle to upper class, heterosexual men. Women have
had to fight an uphill battle for centuries to gain equal rights with
men, to be able to work along side men in professional positions, and
even to make decisions for themselves and society.

Again, if women were fighting, they were fighting almost as much against
women as against men. There were many females who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because of the advantages it offered them over their same-sex peers. Also when they were fighting, they were often fighting alongside men. And while women were no doubt oppressed, they were far from the only group and not all women were equally oppressed.

Religion has had a lot to do with "keeping women in their place." To
keep a large group of people from challenging and fighting against
established norms is difficult. It's much easier when you can massively
mind fuck them so that they buy into the dominant culture mindset.
Several of the major world religions have been instrumental in telling
women that their God-assigned place is one of submission to men. I grew
up in a conservative Christian home, and this mindset is still very much
alive today. My father was the "head of the house." My mother was valued
as a "good" woman in as much as she was "submissive" to my father.

Well I grew up in a moderately religious household. To say the least, my experience was very different from yours and far from uncommon. It was a similar experience to what my grandparents had from what I can tell. I've tended to think that the role of religion in such situations is to justify the existing status quo. I'm always reminded of an American cartoon I once read. It had a picture of one woman telling another that "John makes all the important decisions, Vietnam, Nixon, taxes... I decide on the little things like when to pay bills and the kids' education". I find that the distribution of power in all its forms rather than gender, race etc is the best factor to examine in any social or historical situation.

Men still hold the power. Just look at corporate America. And
many women continue to submit to male domination. But why should men, or dominant male society, be making laws that affect a woman's health or
life? Women do not make such laws for men? Why should women not be able to make decisions for their own health, bodies, and lives?

If I have power then it's not it is cracked up to be! Just kidding. I get what you're saying, but once again think it is not that simple. Women do make laws about what men can do with their bodies and health. Just look at drug laws made by elected politicians. Heck look at any law relating to medical care. Secondly, the most strident "pro-lifers" I've encountered have been female while many "pro-choice" advocates are males. I don't see the benefit of framing the question in male V female terms.

Now I understand that when it comes to abortion we're not talking about one individual alone. The woman is not the only factor to consider. However, she is a very important person to consider within the scope of the debate, and she is often forgotten within the "prolife" movement. The whole issue of a woman's right to choose goes far deeper than abortion alone, and the prochoice movement is not focused on abortion alone. To call it "pro-abortion" would be to completely misrepresent its entire focus. The prochoice movement is focused on a woman's reproductive freedom and rights.

Now we come to the meat of the matter. I would not contest the notion that you should consider a woman's reproductive rights, only that a reproductive right of one individual should always be superseded by the right to life of another.

Because women have historically been valued by men for their reproductive abilities alone, and because men have largely controlled the laws that affect a woman's reproductive choice, the prochoice movement is seeking to take control of a woman's reproductive abilities out of the hands of men and give it to the individual herself. This is not just about abortion.

I would contest the notion that men control the laws anymore than women do. One person, one vote. If women want to see women elected, then they should vote for them! Then again, I'd regard someone who took sex into consideration when deciding who to vote for as sexist.

This about the right for a woman to be able to have sex when and if she wants to. Men can. Why is there a double standard for women? It's about a woman's right to talk about sex and to be educated about sex. It's about a woman's right to use contraception, to have a child, or to not have a child.

Prohibiting abortions does not hinder a woman's ability to have sex anymore than it does a man's. I can testify to this fact. Prohibiting abortions has no impact on sex education or contraception. Prohibiting abortion does not force women to raise children as adoption is always an option.

Women are a hell of a lot more than a walking uterus, but to a large extent men do not recognize that. More and more women are deciding that they don't want to have kids. They want to pursue their own educations or careers instead of relegating their existence to raising children. Men have had that choice throughout history. Women have not.

A lot of what you're saying borders on sexist. If I were ever to generalize about women the way you are generalizing about men, I would be hung, drawn and quartered! Now I'm assuming you're exaggerating to make a point. I had to laugh though when you said that men had a choice about furthering their education or career throughout history. That is just plain wrong!

There is a huge double standard in our culture. Many of the "prolifers" are the ones who oppose sex education in the classroom and use of contraceptives for women! The underlying motives within the "prolife" movement are not a focus on the life of the unborn. The motive is the control of female reproductive rights. Therefore, I think "anti-choice" is a far more appropriate term for those who oppose abortion legally. On the other hand, I think "prochoice" is a perfectly appropriate term because that's exactly what the movement is seeking - reproductive choice. I don't know of a single "prochoicer" who is advocating abortion. Abortion is only one alternative that women should have access to when making their own reproductive choices.

What you say may or may not be accurate (personally I think it's mostly accurate) but it is the argument and not the motives or the biases that we must examine. There is no logical link between sex education or contraception and abortion, anymore than there is between low taxes and anti-multilateralism.

To contend that "prochoicers" are "anti-life" is ridiculous, IMO.

I agree.

Many people who are prochoice are profoundly interested in human life, both the woman's and the potential child's.

I don't doubt it.

In fact, many women who choose to have abortions do so out of concern for their existing children.

I have no doubt but that many people have the best of intentions when they decide to have abortions. But these same arguments can be made in the case of the newborn. For instance, if parents discovered that their newborn child had autism, and they could not afford to give it what they regarded as adequate care, rather than deny their existing children the best opportunity in life, they could opt to painlessly terminate the neonate's life. Should this be an option in your opinion?

In the state of Kentucky, where I live, the laws are written so that if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, women will not be allowed to have an abortion for any reason. They will not even be able to save their own lives should an abortion be necessary to do so. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, she's fucked. How is that "prolife?"

It isn't. But I'm not arguing for that. I don't agree with it and there's no reason why prohibition of abortion should involve that scenario.

I agree that in order to settle the issue legally, or at least come to some sort of agreement, there has to be a consensus on when the life of the unborn becomes a greater right than the choice of the woman.

You seem to propose that we should:

1. Divide humanity into two classes

2. Allocate one of these classes a less right to life than the other

Is that correct?

I think that would be highly problematic. The reasons why I believe this should become obvious soon I hope.

According to medical sources I've read, doctors believe that many zygotes fail to implant into the uterus naturally. Of those that do implant, many pregnancies spontaneous abort. Estimates I've read suggest that 50-75% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort within the first trimester. It doesn't seem that God or nature cares much about humans in the early stages of development.

If I understand you, it seems to me that you're suggesting that because these human organisms do not reach a specific point in their development, then they are somehow less important. You seem to assume that there is a goal to human development. There is not. The nearest thing development has to a goal is getting to a stage where humans can reproduce. The fact that a human dies young, or the fact that a human is known to be at a high risk of failing to reach adulthood does not make their life of lesser value. Why should this be the case with prenatal life when it is not the case with neonatal or even pubescent life?

While we don't know exactly when afetus becomes "sentient," we do know that it's not within the first couple months, and almost certainly not before the second trimester because of the rudimentary development of the embryonic nervous system.

There is no proper definition for sentience, but I can promise you, a newborn child, let alone a foetus does not possess the capabilities of any creature that we regard as even being borderline sentient. They have no concept of self and their behaviours are reflexes. If you propose to use sentience as the criteria by which we judge when Life begins, then to be consistent you would have to allow for infanticide in the case of neonates.

Using the point of conception is problematic in itself, but this especially becomes apparent when you consider the slippery slope that follows. If the right to life of a non-developed, non-sentient embryo simply because it's human outweighs the woman's right to make choices for her own life, health, and future, where does this leave women? Are we going to imprison women if they obtain and abortion or attempt an abortion? Are we going to charge her with murder like we do when any other "innocent" human life is intentionally taken?

This is an entirely separate issue. Whether or not a developing organism is human or not is one issue, how to deal with the taking of a human life is another. For one thing, it is difficult to see how anybody can intentionally take a human life when they don't think they're killing anybody. Personally, I don't really believe in prison. But like I said, it's an entirely different issue. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it has to be criminalised, and people should not be punished for ignorance.

Who's going to take care of all of the other children of these mothers while they're sitting on death row?

I assume that means you live somewhere that has the death penalty. My advice - move, or try to change the law by any means possible. Maybe both.

And if a woman has no choice but to be an incubator for a developing human life, why would it stop with abortion? Here's the slippery slope, Niall. If a woman's reproductive choice is taken from her simply because she conceives, what's to stop (male-dominated: government, religion, corporation) society from limiting all kinds of other choices that might potentially infringe upon the delicate embryo's right to life? Cigarette smoking, use of drugs (even prescription ones), drinking, excessive work/activity can threaten the life of the embryo, who is already at very high risk for spontaneously aborting. Should we ban all pregnant women from these choices as well?

Nope. You carry on as you are at the moment with neontates and foetuses that are in the late stages of development. Oddly enough, there's no sign of a slippery slope yet. Even in my country, where the unborn child's right life is (kinda-sorta) recognised, women can work in stressful positions, drink and smoke throughout every stage of pregnancy. It's not an issue. It's piss-poor form to down a bottle of vodka eight months into pregnancy, but in order to charge somebody with something, you'd have to prove there was intent - which is impossible.

We're back to viewing women as nothing more than a walking uterus. Her value exists in her reproductive abilities alone. We're back in the dark ages of male domination and oppression.

Well I live in the dark ages of male domination and oppression. It's not as bad as you might imagine. Up until recently, two of the top three political positions in the land were held by walking uteruses (anybody know what the plural of uterus is?).

I don't want to live in that society. And I doubt you would either if you were a woman. But that's something that men don't have to think about. Fortunately some do, but many don't.

Oddly enough most women I know seem happy enough. My boss - who was also a walking uterus - moved here from a country where she was viewed as something other than a walking uterus in order to progress her career as there were better opportunities here. However, she scowled quite often. Perhaps this was due to oppression. :wink

Sorry, you made a long post, and I felt the need for a little lightheartedness.

The point at which a human life should obtain the legally protected
right to life is a difficult decision. I don't believe that there is some "objective" or "absolutely right" point. Clearly the zygote is no more sentient than a cancer cell growing in the colon, but the full-term
fetus obviously is.

I don't really see what is so obvious about the sentience of a newborn.

I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn,
but I think the most ethical point is that of sentience and viability. I
could be wrong, but I have yet to hear a better argument for any other
arbitrary point along the way, including conception.

Conception is an arbitrary point, but only in a very limited sense. You propose using sentience and/or viability. These are more arbitrary than conception because they are based on personal values rather than mere presence. Conception marks the creation of a new distinct body. Nobody argues that a zygote should be recognised as alive because of valued capabilities. They simply (that is to say this is a simplified version of the argument) argue that it is a living human body and that all humans have the same right to life regardless of what they can do or what other people think or feel about them; It is human, it has human rights.

Again, if women were fighting, they were fighting almost as much against
women as against men. There were many females who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because of the advantages it offered them over their same-sex peers. Also when they were fighting, they were often fighting alongside men. And while women were no doubt oppressed, they were far from the only group and not all women were equally oppressed.

I agree. The point, however, is that throughout history in many cultures (not all), and certainly in western culture, men have had the power. That's not to say that there are zero examples of influential women in history. There are. I'm also not saying that all men have oppressed women, but our primary social institutions and structures have long been controlled and dominated by men. Have women had to battle other women to gain independence, power, and control? Absolutely! As I stated in my original post, part of the reason men have been so successful in dominating women is because many women have internalized this socially constructed power imbalance. I also agree that other groups have been equally oppressed, particularly those who are not white, male, heterosexual, and middle to upper class. It's this dominant male culture that still maintains much of the power and control in our society, and there are still many females who internalize this mindset.

As I stated in my last post, Kentucky law is written so that all abortion will be illegal if ever Roe vs. Wade is overturned. It was a female politician who led the campaigned to get that law in place! I also recognize that there are many men in our society (more and more) who support women and other social groups. So my comments should not in any way be taken as male bashing. I'm simply pointing out that historically white, heterosexual males have primarily had social, political, religious, and financial control over other members of society, and they have used that control to dominate and oppress. The oppression of our dominant culture doesn't stop with humans either, it includes other species and the environment. The fight for choice is not against men and it's not supported by all women. The fight is against this dominant culture, a culture that is still internalized by man women, and a culture that some men oppose as well.

I find that the distribution of power in all its forms rather than gender, race etc is the best factor to examine in any social or historical situation.

I agree, but since the issue of reproductive choice involves women regardless of race, culture, sexual identity, etc. it's my focus in this discussion.

Women do make laws about what men can do with their bodies and health.

Like what? What laws are women making about a man's health or body that takes away his choice? There are social laws in place that affect everyone's choice to some degree. Hell, abiding by traffic laws infringes on individual choice, and I'm sure we could delve into a discussion over various ethical approaches to society. But they don't infringe on the rights of gender over another. You mentioned drug and medical laws, both of which apply to everyone, not just to men. You do not have a female dominated society making laws that inhibit a man's freedom of choice while protecting a woman's freedom of choice.

Secondly, the most strident "pro-lifers" I've encountered have been female while many "pro-choice" advocates are males. I don't see the benefit of framing the question in male V female terms.

Many of those female "prolifers" have internalized the "values" promoted by the dominant male culture. My mother is strongly prolife. She also gave up educating herself or having a career so that she could stay home and raise babies. She had dinner on the tabled every night for dad when he walked in the door, and cowered and sobbed if he yelled at her because it was a few minutes late. There are still many women in our society who submit to male domination and control. Domestic violence and rape against women is still extremely common. And many women accept that their value is relation to men

I think you're making a LOT of assumptions here, as if you know what a neonate is experiencing. How could you possibly know that a newborn's behaviors are entirely reflexive. You make a lot of the same assumptions about a newborn as many people make about animals. You observe their behavior from your point of view and presume to know what thought process are occurring in their minds. We could debate the semantics of sentience until we reach an agreement on the meaning of the term, or at least an understanding of what we're talking about in terms of consciousness and awareness, but I would argue that a third trimester fetus may be aware of more than merely reflexive actions. And if fear and pain are present in the fetus, I find that to be justification for preservation of life.

Cheryl, I'm not claiming that I know what a neonate is feeling! I'm simply stating that empirical studies show that all of our higher functions emerge during later stages of development. We have uncovered ways of examining the abilities of newborn infants. For example, objective ear tests that utilise EEG readings can be used to diagnose deafness in neonates even though the newborn cannot respond. Indeed research indicate that at some select tasks, they are even better than adults. However, nothing in the empirical record indicates that they are self aware, that can differentiate between themselves and rest of the world and they do not have a sense of object permanency etc. They can react to negative stimuli in a certain way,but there is no evidence to indicate that they experience pain as an adult would. There's a lot of research out there, but nothing that I've encountered (and I've encounter quite a bit) indicates that a neonate is any more sentient than a chicken.

I just wanted to respond to that part before going to sleep.

On another note, perhaps we'd best re-think the format of this discussion as others have suggested that our long posts might be off-putting to new members. If you, or anyone else have any better ideas about how we could structure this, it'd be good to hear them. Otherwise, we'll have to stick to long posts, or create a new thread for certain aspects.

Niall, about the long posts, I wasn't put off nor suggesting others were. I was curious how everyone else deals with it, and got good responses I think

I have an idea about this that might make everyone's life easier, but I gotta run it by Chris first.

Naddia,

I wanted to address some of the feminist issues you raised in this thread and had intended to start a follow-up thread, but busyness precluded me from doing so at the time. Now, however, I have a bit more free time and was wondering if you are around and willing to discuss. If so, let me know and I'll start a new thread.