Letters to the Editor
-
Sharon
Sharon,
I hear your argument and I think it is the best one to be made in favor of legal, elective abortion. Some thoughts in response:
- It is true that pregnancy requires a woman to undergo significant physical changes. I would argue, though, that parenthood, requires significant changes as well, which can be extremely pernicious to both the mother and the father. Does the State "force" people to raise their children? In a way, it does, and yet very few argue it should not.
- I don't answer for how other people that oppose elective abortion choose to structure their lives. I may agree with them on this issue and disagree on many others.
- You state "People are very willing to dictate morality to others as long as it's no skin off their nose.". That is self-evidently true, and is hardly confined to abortion. However, laws do constrain people's behavior, and as long as they do, everyone will argue about the right of the State to do so. Abortion harms another living creature and thus falls under the natural concern of the State.
Ultimately, I don't think that the burden on the woman to carry her baby outweighs the baby's interest in not being deliberately killed. I am well aware that posting such a thought will never win me accolades on Salon. I will take pleasure in a minor victory, though, in killing off the shibboleth "Pro-lifers that don't adopt are hypocrites!" that is so beloved in pro-choice circles.
-
Patrick Forman---response
To Patrick---
I know you are trying hard here and are greatly out numbered, so I'll cut you a little slack. :-)
> Do you support the infanticide of deformed or handicapped children?
No.
> Do you support the infanticide of children that are the product of rape or incest?
No.
But, there is no contradiction from my standpoint, since I do not see fetuses as people. But, judging from your comments, I think you do. By your own logic, you are also saying that the law has to make allowances to make it OK to kill a human at some points.
If the fetus and the mother are equal in the eyes of the law (ie- they are both people) then the only morally noncontradictory stance is that *all* abortions are illegal. The only way that you can say that it is morally allowable to have an abortion *ever* is to say that fetuses somehow have fewer rights than mothers. In this case, the fetus in not truly a human being yet, and therefore abortion is OK in some situations.
Then this leads me to my next question: are fetuses the same thing as people? Why or why not?
-
Andrew
Yes, I am certainly outnumbered, but I knew I would be - no worries :).
Alright, to walk down your questions, yes I absolutely view fetuses as people. I am correct, I think, in viewing the crux of your argument as an attack on the one seeming inconsistency that I allow, which is for medical exceptions.
First of all, I'll gladly take all the ground just surrendered, and concentrate purely on the medical exception for abortion.
In that case, yes, I do think abortion is acceptable. That's because my objection is to elective abortion. If it is medically necessary (i.e. for the mother's health) to abort the pregnancy, I don't see that as elective.
Not trying to be glib but that is how I see it.
-
To Sharon629
Quick thoughts.
The wallet is empty without the man's body laboring.
Anyway, I am not arguing for the father's right to not provide child support, but showing how the argument doesn't work You said the support is the child's but the life is the child's too. You said, that I should gripe to God, but induced abortion/bodily rights is a complete contraction to nature and nature's creator. Pre-born children belong in their mother's wombs. Check out Beckwith's response to the Famous Violinist Scenario. I would review it here, but alas... time...
-
How so?
"You said, that I should gripe to God, but induced abortion/bodily rights is a complete contraction to nature and nature's creator
In what way?
-
Is a midget a person?
I think it's quite odd when people say "a fetus is not a person."
Why? How?
A fetus certainly is composed of 100% human DNA. A fetus has hands, feet, eyes, brain, everything.
The fetus is a really small person, technically. So is a midget. If a midget is a person, albeit a small person, seems to me a fetus is a person.
Oh- I know. It's all about location, location, location.
A fetus, born prematurely, isn't referred to as a fetus. It's a child.
Because an unborn child (fetus) needs an umbilical cord to survive, you would deney that person's humanity.
I suppose you would deny an older person's humanity on life-support as well. What's your term for them?
Of course, this is silly. A fetus is a person that women can legally kill.
For now.
The new, revised Supreme Court is repugnant to me in some ways. In this one way, the one where sometime soon they will take away mom's right to kill- I'm okay with that.
Because unlike many of you, I consider both midgets and fetuses people.
-
Answering A Parent's question
You asked about whether killing is wrong.
Well ... in every other case but abortion, it is widely understood that killing is situational. In self-defense. In war. Protecting your family. When a comatose individual cannot be revived. When an individual is declared too dangerous to remain in the correctional system.
So bypassing the whole when life begins question:
I think most women - pro-life and pro-choice - do intuitively feel that abortion (assuming it is killing at all) *is* in self-defense. On a fundamental level, that sense is there. They may not believe it is right to act on it. But that's different.
I think that many Americans who live in the muddy middle on this question understand this. Even assuming life begins at conception, abortion isn't as simple and selfish as premeditated murder. Ones own life and body is at risk - something better understood in an earlier era when so many women died giving birth (which is perhaps why abortion became practiced in the first place).
Now some people take the position that killing is wrong under all circumstances. Some even go to the extremes, saying that even self-defense, even killing animals for food, even war is wrong. I think that it is possible for individuals of conscience to disagree on this issue.
Likewise I think it is possible for individuals of conscience to disagree on the morality of abortion. I suspect you agree with that statement.
The *legality* of abortion is another thing entirely. I am politically pro-choice because I know how enforcement of abortion laws works in practice in countries where it is illegal. Women are guilty until proven innocent. Women are denied medical treatment they need because they are suspected of committing a crime. I don't want the government in my gynocologists office. I don't want a miscarriage to turn into a criminal investigation. I don't want to turn every obstetrical mishap to turn into a salacious episode of Law and Order.
And I am profoundly appalled that those who (rightly or wrongly) seek to save lives have made common cause with those who would deny our children of medical information about conception, sexuality, contraception and the prevention of disease! What right have they to do that!