[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjaVNtwdakA[/youtube]To defeat the culture of death takes more than determination, takes more than courage… it takes faith.
~ The Philippines: Preserving a Culture of Life documentary trailer, via Human Life International, August 17
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Amen to that. On a related topic, what in the world is going on with the poll? People seriously think Mitt Romney is the stronger pro-life candidate?!?! That’s absurd!!
God bless the Phillipine people. And Jen, the trolling libs go from site to site trying to disrupt.
Ok, I’m playing devil’s advocate here and am just trying to stir up some conversation:
From the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
“CONTEXT: In the Philippines, abortion is legally restricted. Nevertheless, many women obtain abortions—often in unsafe conditions—to avoid unplanned births. In 1994, the estimated abortion rate was 25 per 1,000 women per year; no further research on abortion incidence has been conducted in the Philippines.
METHODS: Data from 1,658 hospitals were used to estimate abortion incidence in 2000 and to assess trends between 1994 and 2000, nationally and by region. An indirect estimation methodology was used to calculate the total number of women hospitalized for complications of induced abortion in 2000 (averaged data for 1999–2001), the total number of women having abortions and the rate of induced abortion.
RESULTS: In 2000, an estimated 78,900 women were hospitalized for postabortion care, 473,400 women had abortions and the abortion rate was 27 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 per year. The national abortion rate changed little between 1994 and 2000; however, large increases occurred in metropolitan Manila (from 41 to 52) and Visayas (from 11 to 17). The proportions of unplanned births and unintended pregnancies increased substantially in Manila, and the use of traditional contraceptive methods increased in Manila and Visayas.”
Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3114005.html
Abortion is illegal and limited contraception is available with women becoming unintendedly pregnant and having illegal abortions. What are your perspectives on how this issue should be addressed?
Jen: what in the world is going on with the poll?
Maybe Mitt Romney has an enormous campaign staff.
Abortion is illegal and limited contraception is available with women becoming unintendedly pregnant and having illegal abortions. What are your perspectives on how this issue should be addressed?
Good question, Rachael. I note the abortion rate is close to or a little higher than the rate in the US. Looks to me like better access to contraception and usage of it would help.
I don’t know what the abortion rate in the Philippines would be if they legalized pre-born child murder but I do know that it increased in the United States. And I know that my friend, Rebecca Kiessling, would have been dead had abortion been legal in Michigan at the time of her birth to a rape victim (who is now glad that she did not go through with the abortion).
The law acts as a deterrent to bad behavior. Abortion is bad behavior and should be deterred. Because “family planning” service providers do not deter abortion, the law should step in and hopefully someday soon it will (especially after women realize what a bad deal abortion is for them).
As to making contraception more readily available, there is a Spanish study that shows the abortion rate increased after they made contraception more readily available. Furthermore, contraception is readily available in the United States, yet half the pregnancies are “unintended” and half of those end in abortion. You contraceptive advocates do not take into account the problem of “birth control sabotage” or “Intimate Partner Violence”, both fruits of a decline in respect for women and children.
Seriously, if you want to increase the number of ‘intended’ pregnancies and reduce the number of ‘unintended” ones, promote Natural Family Planning. It’s healthy, it’s “green” and relationships are enhanced, with happier families.
Destruction of life has it’s “proper” place in secret under desperate circumstances. These are precisely the conditions under which we expect desperate people to do morally vile deeds. We would consider it a world gone mad if daylight murder of adults were common on our streets and even celebrated as an important option — yet with abortion we cluck our tongues at the prospect of going back to the coathangers in back alleys.
It’s not inconsistent to regard women in crisis pregnancies at risk of making life-destroying decisions as folks needing compassion and help, and simultaneously believe that destruction of life should indeed be so culturally despised that it would only happen in loathesome ways — because no one in their right mind would tolerate its open practice under “safe” conditions.
What has disturbed me in this forum is to hear someone as intelligent and fair as Doug confuse so profoundly being pro-choice with advising someone not to take their unborn’s life. I can’t imagine why anyone, unless they hated life or were really confused about all this, would abstain from advising a woman to carry her child to term. Advocates of “choice” generally claim to value life BUT, alas, respecting a woman’s “right to choose” is more important. Yet they (Doug’s kind of “they” — I’m sure there are other pro-choice folk unconfused on this score) won’t advise a woman to choose life — as if advice and persuasion somehow violated the prime pro-choice directive: that the choice to abort “safely” should be legal. Obviously they don’t believe “rare” or they’d be willing to advise against abortion in favor of birth.
It’s difficult to hear any moral argument from folks so confused about, frankly, a pre-moral issue. We need to be at least rational before we can hope to be rationally moral.
Rasqual: What has disturbed me in this forum is to hear someone as intelligent and fair as Doug confuse so profoundly being pro-choice with advising someone not to take their unborn’s life.
Rasqual, you lost me, there. I don’t confuse those two. “Advising someone not to take their unborn’s life” could come from a pro-choice person, provided they were still for the overall legality of abortion. I’m presuming they would think that continuing the pregnancy, in the case of the individual woman they are talking to, would be the best for her. Or, it could come from somebody who was not pro-choice.
____
I can’t imagine why anyone, unless they hated life or were really confused about all this, would abstain from advising a woman to carry her child to term.
If somebody really “hates life” and wants pregnancies to not be continued, then that’s not being pro-choice either.
____
Advocates of “choice” generally claim to value life BUT, alas, respecting a woman’s “right to choose” is more important. Yet they (Doug’s kind of “they” — I’m sure there are other pro-choice folk unconfused on this score) won’t advise a woman to choose life — as if advice and persuasion somehow violated the prime pro-choice directive: that the choice to abort “safely” should be legal. Obviously they don’t believe “rare” or they’d be willing to advise against abortion in favor of birth.
That’s not true. I can certainly see advising a woman or girl not to have an abortion, if I thought that was the best thing for her.
Doug: No, you’re still showing the confusion with this remark: “If somebody really ‘hates life’ and wants pregnancies to not be continued, then that’s not being pro-choice either.”
What someone thinks someone else ought to do, or whether they advise or persuade them, in no way makes them not pro-choice. Substitute the words, Doug: “If somebody really ‘loves life’ and wants pregnancies to be continued, then that’s not being pro-choice either.”
Your only condition was “provided they were still for the overall legality of abortion.” If ”somebody really ‘hates life’ and wants pregnancies to not be continued,” so long as they’re in favor of a legal choice, how can you say “that’s not being pro-choice either?”
Still confused.
“I can certainly see advising a woman or girl not to have an abortion, if I thought that was the best thing for her.”
So you’re not pro-life as well as pro-choice, then, eh? That is, you don’t see the inherent value in the unborn? Advising life for the sake of the unborn child isn’t a sufficient reason to advise carrying to term?
Tell me, do you ever do anything for your children that’s not in your OWN best interests? If not, you’d be a ridiculous excuse for a parent. Would you think you had wise friends if the only parenting counsel they might give you — perhaps years ahead in the parenting department — was advice that considered only your own advantage, and not that of your children as well — or even first? Probably not, because parenting is generally where adults encounter the most significant way in which we must often sacrifice self-interest on behalf of others for whom we bear responsibility. But you know all this, and I know you know all this, and you know I know we both know this.
And yet, just here, you talk as if it’s out of bounds for a woman to be counseled to carry her child to term for the sake of the child (which may involve her setting aside some self-interest)– even though doing so violates no pro-choice credo whatsoever.
In other words, Doug, you’re being gratuitously anti-life.
Why?
Having abortion illegal may not stop that many abortions but it has historically left this practice in the shadows so that those who don’t want to think about it may more easily put it out of their minds. In “Splendor in the Grass,” Deanie’s mother says of the neighborhood “bad girl” that, “She had to have one of those awful operations!” She says it in a whisper. The mother is in the process of driving her daughter crazy but the daughter at least doesn’t get pregnant.
“Having abortion illegal may not stop that many abortions but it has historically left this practice in the shadows so that those who don’t want to think about it may more easily put it out of their minds.”
Although that can be said of any vile deed.
But the way you phrased the latter part, there, seems odd. “So that” is a tellic clause, implying a purpose for leaving the practice in the shadows, instrumentally achieved by outlawing it. I don’t think people purposively contrive laws so they can be in existential denial about things. That may be an effect of laws, but I can’t imagine it’s a goal. We don’t flee to laws to put things out of our minds, but laws sometimes marginalize practices to the point where, certainly, our minds rarely have reason to dwell on them.
rasqual says:
August 26, 2011 at 12:52 pm
“Having abortion illegal may not stop that many abortions but it has historically left this practice in the shadows so that those who don’t want to think about it may more easily put it out of their minds.”
Although that can be said of any vile deed.
But the way you phrased the latter part, there, seems odd. “So that” is a tellic clause, implying a purpose for leaving the practice in the shadows, instrumentally achieved by outlawing it. I don’t think people purposively contrive laws so they can be in existential denial about things. That may be an effect of laws, but I can’t imagine it’s a goal.
(Denise) It can be a welcome effect. When abortion was illegal, those who didn’t want to think about it probably didn’t think about it. The practice was much easier to ignore. As I pointed out, in the movie “Splendor in the Grass,” Deanie’s mother doesn’t even use the word “abortion” but speaks — in a whisper — about “one of those awful operations.”
Legalization yanked the process into the light and means that reliable records are kept about it. It’s no longer spoken of in whispers and can’t easily be ignored. You can no longer even PRETEND that it doesn’t happen or is something extraordinarily rare.
What someone thinks someone else ought to do, or whether they advise or persuade them, in no way makes them not pro-choice. Substitute the words, Doug: “If somebody really ‘loves life’ and wants pregnancies to be continued, then that’s not being pro-choice either.”
Rasqual, it depends if they want women to have the legal option, either way, or not. In the case of somebody wanting pregnancies to be continued to the extent that they are against abortion being a legal choice, then indeed they’re not pro-choice.
___
Your only condition was “provided they were still for the overall legality of abortion.” If ”somebody really ‘hates life’ and wants pregnancies to not be continued,” so long as they’re in favor of a legal choice, how can you say “that’s not being pro-choice either?”
Still confused.
I said “could come from a pro-choice person…” That is not saying there can be no other case, such as somebody saying that who was not pro-choice. If somebody would actually “hate life” so much that they thought pregnancies should not be continued, and that it should not be legal to continue pregnancies, that would not be pro-choice. To recap: somebody who is pro-choice could well advise a given woman not to have an abortion, or another to have one. If somebody is not for the choice, either way, being legal, then they are not pro-choice. Hitler, for example, was not pro-choice. He was for compulsory abortions for some, and abortions being prohibited for others.
_____
“I can certainly see advising a woman or girl not to have an abortion, if I thought that was the best thing for her.”
So you’re not pro-life as well as pro-choice, then, eh? That is, you don’t see the inherent value in the unborn? Advising life for the sake of the unborn child isn’t a sufficient reason to advise carrying to term?
That obviously depends on the feelings of the speaker. I don’t see inherent value in the unborn – there is no “inherent value” at all, period, anywhere, since it’s always in the opinion of some mind. Valuation is something that occurs within a sentient mind, it’s not external to the mind. As far as “pro-life” meaning being against abortion being legal, no I’m not pro-life, there.
____
Tell me, do you ever do anything for your children that’s not in your OWN best interests? If not, you’d be a ridiculous excuse for a parent.
No kids here, but a whole slew of nieces & nephews. “In our own best interest” – exactly how do we define that? Whose opinion do we go with? If I eat a cheeseburger, somebody could well say that it’s not in my best interest. Yet, short of being physically compelled to do so, I did it because I wanted to. That’s where the motivation comes from – among our available choices, we pick that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste. Is it really in a parent’s “best interest” to clean up nasty diapers? From differing standpoints you can say yes or no. In the end, most parents (especially women – heh) do it not because it’s always been their fondest dream, but because they want the diaper changed, versus the alternatives. Mother Theresa, for example, got up each day and did what she wanted to do.
We could say that “parents do things that are in the interest of their children, not in their own interest” but there too – they’re doing what they want, and they’re avoiding situations that they don’t want.
_____
Would you think you had wise friends if the only parenting counsel they might give you — perhaps years ahead in the parenting department — was advice that considered only your own advantage, and not that of your children as well — or even first? Probably not, because parenting is generally where adults encounter the most significant way in which we must often sacrifice self-interest on behalf of others for whom we bear responsibility. But you know all this, and I know you know all this, and you know I know we both know this.
My point is that the parents’ “interest” is not only for themselves at that point. The parents see their advantage being also in the welfare of the kids, they want no other situation to be the case than the kids are taken care of well enough. When we’re born, we’re just “little balls of self-interest,” but within a few years almost all of us get societally conditioned, and any “hard-wiring” as far as sociability, etc., starts coming out. If not, then the individual is one of the very, very few who really are asocial.
From one way of looking at it, it could be said to “not be in the parents’ interest” to do this or that, but I see the bottom line being that the parents still want it the most, or they fear having the kids taken from them, or getting their butts thrown in jail if they don’t do it – that it really *is* in their interest, and they would say the same thing.
____
And yet, just here, you talk as if it’s out of bounds for a woman to be counseled to carry her child to term for the sake of the child (which may involve her setting aside some self-interest)– even though doing so violates no pro-choice credo whatsoever.
Rasqual, I’ve never said or implied “it’s out of bounds.” If somebody is against elective abortion being legal, then they are not pro-choice. That might or might not be true for the person counseling a given woman to not have an abortion. If person A says to person B, “I don’t think you should have an abortion,” then we don’t yet have enough information to know if they’re pro-choice or not.
____
In other words, Doug, you’re being gratuitously anti-life. Why?
I’m not. I’ve said before that I’d be fine if nobody wanted to have an abortion. If I wanted no pregnancies continued, then that would be “gratuitously anti-life.”
Doug, what I’d like to know is whether you think it’s inconsistent with a pro-choice ethic if someone always advises all pregnant women to carry their unborn child to term, and often succeeds in that persuasion.
What the advising person thinks about what the law ought to be is irrelevant to my question.
Are their actions inconsistent with a pro-choice ethic?
My further interest, though, is this: if it’s not inconsistent, then what can we say of pro-choice people who remain indifferent to whether a woman aborts or not? That is, they do not advise her to carry to term?
Is it not fair to say that they are anti-life, because they see no value in unborn life sufficient to advise in its respect what they are free to advise? As you said, value is in the mind. Right?
Basically, if pro-choicers are free to counsel women in ways that respect unborn life but they don’t do so, then I’d assert that they’re obviously anti-life — in ways not dependent on arguing that being pro-choice is inherently being anti-life (which, however, I’d agree with). They’re anti-life for abstaining from giving life-affirming advice they’re free to give but don’t.
And it’s simply not true that it’s “anti-woman” or even a failure to support her, to urge a woman to do something she doesn’t want to do — any more than it’s “anti-man” to urge a man to do something he doesn’t want to do. It’s simply pro-life to do so in the case I’m making; it’s averring that it’s in a woman’s best interest to choose life because that life is valuable. If something is valuable in ways a person about to destroy it does not recognize, it’s no respectful deference to mutter que sera, sera; we instinctively do better if our child is about to step on a baby bird: “No! Stop! Back up slowly…” We have to THINK about it to care less about the unborn. Sad.
There are indeed two different senses of “pro-life” here. The obvious sense is in which life trumps a choice to abort; the latter is illicit because a fetus ought to be protected in law. That’s pro-life because fetal life is deemed as valuable as born life, and ought to be as protected as born life in law. And in that sense, it’s “anti-choice” in the same way that being against murder of born people is “anti-choice.” It’s antithetical to the proposition that the person choosing to kill (whether unborn or born) ought to “have the choice.”
But the second sense, which is what I’m posing in conversation with you, is the sense in which a person might wish the choice to remain legal but quite possibly in each and every case believes that all women should always “choose life.” And if that is a sincerely held belief, indifference to unborn life is unlikely to characterize conversations with women in crisis pregnancies. Nothing would prevent pro-choice women from staffing CPCs, and no rule of nature suggests in any way that women of such a mind could not be among the most effective at dissuading women from aborting.
I realize I’m describing a parallel universe — not the one we live in — but I’d suggest that the reason it’s not the universe we live in is because pro-choice people who don’t “get this” are either ignorant (not knowing something) stupid (incapable of learning something), delusional (“knowing” something that’s not the case), confused (rationally in thrall to some fallacy or ‘nother), foolish (lacking wisdom to discern and discriminate), dishonest (they know better but wish to control how others think about a thing), deceived (have been duped by others), or intellectually lazy (“meh. whatever.”).
Insanely, this points out that pro-choice folk area capable of being anti-life in two ways when, semantically, they only “need to be” in one way.
“I’d be fine if nobody wanted to have an abortion.” Yes, but would you be fine if everyone wanted one? If so, that’s called “indifference.” To my mind, indifference is capable of being worse than sheer murderous hatred. Someone trying to kill me at least holds me in some kind of regard. I matter. My life is dignified in at least some respect. But someone who’s just peachy with whatever may happen to me…wow.
Doug, what I’d like to know is whether you think it’s inconsistent with a pro-choice ethic if someone always advises all pregnant women to carry their unborn child to term, and often succeeds in that persuasion.
What the advising person thinks about what the law ought to be is irrelevant to my question. Are their actions inconsistent with a pro-choice ethic?
Rasqual, if we take the law out of it, that really changes things, obviously, as to what “pro-choice” then means. No, then I would not say it’s necessarily inconsistent with a pro-choice ethic. As long as they think it’s a good thing the woman can decide for herself.
___
My further interest, though, is this: if it’s not inconsistent, then what can we say of pro-choice people who remain indifferent to whether a woman aborts or not? That is, they do not advise her to carry to term?
Is it not fair to say that they are anti-life, because they see no value in unborn life sufficient to advise in its respect what they are free to advise? As you said, value is in the mind. Right?
Just being indifferent or neutral on what the woman chooses would not be “anti-life,” no. I would say that “anti-life” would apply if the advice is to have an abortion because the advisor hopes that will be the decision, rather than being firstly concerned with what is best for the woman.
____
Basically, if pro-choicers are free to counsel women in ways that respect unborn life but they don’t do so, then I’d assert that they’re obviously anti-life — in ways not dependent on arguing that being pro-choice is inherently being anti-life (which, however, I’d agree with). They’re anti-life for abstaining from giving life-affirming advice they’re free to give but don’t.
I don’t know about “anti-life,” there, Rasqual. I’d say “not necessarily pro-life” would be more on target, or just “pro-freedom” for the woman. Personally, knowing how different people can be, I would advise some women not to have abortions, and others to have them.
____
And it’s simply not true that it’s “anti-woman” or even a failure to support her, to urge a woman to do something she doesn’t want to do — any more than it’s “anti-man” to urge a man to do something he doesn’t want to do. It’s simply pro-life to do so in the case I’m making; it’s averring that it’s in a woman’s best interest to choose life because that life is valuable. If something is valuable in ways a person about to destroy it does not recognize, it’s no respectful deference to mutter que sera, sera; we instinctively do better if our child is about to step on a baby bird: “No! Stop! Back up slowly…” We have to THINK about it to care less about the unborn. Sad.
There is still the question of what is “recognizing,” and what is just opinion, but I do agree that yeah – it’s “pro-life” to urge the woman not to have an abortion because the speaker thinks that life is valuable.
____
There are indeed two different senses of “pro-life” here. The obvious sense is in which life trumps a choice to abort; the latter is illicit because a fetus ought to be protected in law. That’s pro-life because fetal life is deemed as valuable as born life, and ought to be as protected as born life in law. And in that sense, it’s “anti-choice” in the same way that being against murder of born people is “anti-choice.” It’s antithetical to the proposition that the person choosing to kill (whether unborn or born) ought to “have the choice.”
No argument there….
But the second sense, which is what I’m posing in conversation with you, is the sense in which a person might wish the choice to remain legal but quite possibly in each and every case believes that all women should always “choose life.” And if that is a sincerely held belief, indifference to unborn life is unlikely to characterize conversations with women in crisis pregnancies. Nothing would prevent pro-choice women from staffing CPCs, and no rule of nature suggests in any way that women of such a mind could not be among the most effective at dissuading women from aborting.
I don’t see anything there are being “ruled out,” no. As to whether they would be among the most effective at talking women out of having abortions – who knows?
____
I realize I’m describing a parallel universe — not the one we live in — but I’d suggest that the reason it’s not the universe we live in is because pro-choice people who don’t “get this” are either ignorant (not knowing something) stupid (incapable of learning something), delusional (“knowing” something that’s not the case), confused (rationally in thrall to some fallacy or ‘nother), foolish (lacking wisdom to discern and discriminate), dishonest (they know better but wish to control how others think about a thing), deceived (have been duped by others), or intellectually lazy (“meh. whatever.”).
I think you are taking your own opinion and deeming people that don’t share it as ignorant, stupid, etc.
___
Insanely, this points out that pro-choice folk are capable of being anti-life in two ways when, semantically, they only “need to be” in one way.
You lost me, there (I think). There is a difference between truly being “anti-life,” and not necessarily for a given life.
____
“I’d be fine if nobody wanted to have an abortion.” Yes, but would you be fine if everyone wanted one? If so, that’s called “indifference.” To my mind, indifference is capable of being worse than sheer murderous hatred. Someone trying to kill me at least holds me in some kind of regard. I matter. My life is dignified in at least some respect. But someone who’s just peachy with whatever may happen to me…wow.
If faced with no births at all, i.e. the human race dying out, I do think it would make a difference to me. I don’t think it’s “indifference,” but rather that as things are now, I place the freedom that women have as more important than having every single pregnancy continued. I do think pregnancies should be continued because the woman wants to – I see that as a much better situation than when she does not want to.
You’re thinking, emotional, mentally-aware, etc. You certainly have personality and your personhood is not at issue, here. This is not true for the unborn, and hence we have the debate that we do as far as abortion. I don’t think it’s better for people to be “anti-life” or “anti-unborn babies,” versus having them be neutral, preferring to let the pregnant woman make her own best choice.
Doug: “I think you are taking your own opinion and deeming people that don’t share it as ignorant, stupid, etc.”
On this particular issue I’ve been pressing — yes. Pro-choicers too often seem to think they can’t advise women to choose life, or they’re somehow eroding the pro-choice scheme of things. THAT is what I’m talking about in my litany. It’s gratuitously anti-life, for any of the reasons I cite.
“I place the freedom that women have as more important than having every single pregnancy continued… preferring to let the pregnant woman make her own best choice.”
And nothing about recommending she carry her child to term in any way violates either her freedom to make that choice existentially, nor prevents her legally from doing so.
So why not recommend life for the unborn 100% of the time, Doug?
It’s perfectly permissible for a pro-choice person to do so.
It seems to me that if you’re about to die and I abstain from recommending that your killer spare his hand, you could say I’m not “anti-life” but I’m certainly still a loathesome SOB.
Rasqual: Pro-choicers too often seem to think they can’t advise women to choose life, or they’re somehow eroding the pro-choice scheme of things. THAT is what I’m talking about in my litany. It’s gratuitously anti-life, for any of the reasons I cite.
Well, I don’t feel that way. There are some women who I think would regret having an abortion, on balance, and I’d tell them I think they’d be happiest in the long run not having an abortion.
____
“I place the freedom that women have as more important than having every single pregnancy continued… preferring to let the pregnant woman make her own best choice.”
And nothing about recommending she carry her child to term in any way violates either her freedom to make that choice existentially, nor prevents her legally from doing so.
So why not recommend life for the unborn 100% of the time, Doug?
It’s perfectly permissible for a pro-choice person to do so.
Because for some women that’s not the best thing. They’ll be happier, on balance, by having an abortion.
____
It seems to me that if you’re about to die and I abstain from recommending that your killer spare his hand, you could say I’m not “anti-life” but I’m certainly still a loathesome SOB.
So we’re back to the sentience, awareness, personality, personhood, etc., of the unborn, if any. Your example also does not have “me” inside the body of a person.
Because for some women that’s not the best thing. They’ll be happier, on balance, by having an abortion.
What signs, Doug, does a women give off that she’ll be happier aborting her child vs. allowing her child to live?
I am sure the mills will be more than happy to be trained in how to recognize these signs so that no woman will later have regrets about aborting her child (because we all know that the mills are all about what’s best for women).
Doug augurs the future and plumbs the happiness calculus:
“Because for some women that’s not the best thing. They’ll be happier, on balance, by having an abortion.”
Should parenting decisions be based on what makes the parent happiest? I thought we had dispensed with whether decisions should be strictly a matter of self-interest, or whether the interests of those we’re responsible for have a legitimate place in our decision-making, and that personal sacrifice is sometimes not only what’s best for those for whom we sacrifice, but actually for us as well.
Does the value of unborn life play no role in considering what a woman’s choice ought to be? Is it strictly self-interest? If so, that seems certainly “anti-life,” because it delegitimizes any just cause for deference to the unborn.
If it’s never in one’s own self-interest to sacrifice for others . . . wow. That’s so rationally indefensible I wouldn’t know where to begin. Entire books have been written trying to figure how philanthropy, empathy, and self-sacrifice could have arisen in our species.
Indifference to the unborn, like indifference to the poor, seems a luxury afforded those classes for whom survival is no longer the greatest threat.
It seems to me that if you’re about to die and I abstain from recommending that your killer spare his hand, you could say I’m not “anti-life” but I’m certainly still a loathesome SOB. ”So we’re back to the sentience, awareness, personality, personhood, etc., of the unborn, if any. Your example also does not have ‘me’ inside the body of a person.”
Not the point. It’s a point about me, not you. Is indifference or disinterest in anothers’ life a loathesome thing or not? As I said, Doug, we reflexively tell our kids “Stop! Back up slowly . . . ” if they’re about to step on a baby bird — a critter arguably lacking significant personality. And yet here you are deliberately contriving reasons to remain indifferent to unborn human life.
Why can’t you be as reflexively protective of unborn human life as you would be of a baby bird, if it doesn’t compromise your pro-choice beliefs in any way?
Why not always counsel a woman to carry to term, even if you think she’d be happiest to abort? WHEN would she be happiest? What if her child turned out to be an amazing joy to her when her life took its inevitable turn from the near future your myopia sees? Or what if someone you thought would be happier to carry to term had a kid who turned into a nightmare to her?
You don’t KNOW any of that. You can only know whether life has value and whether the progenitors of that life ought to take responsibility for it. And it seems to me that those who value life and take responsibility for it have a better chance at happiness than irresponsible folk who don’t value life.
So the only answer you have to my question (who not recommend life all the time?) so far depends on successfully auguring the future for people whose tomorrow you can’t know.
What happens when a woman is surrounded by folks with your ethic, but who predict her “happiness future” differently?
It’s just an untenable rationale for advice, Doug.
“Sure, if it makes you happy, buy a slave. Never mind the value that inheres in the person you buy. Who am I to advise differently — even though in a society where slavery is legal I’m free to advise you never to buy a slave (without violating my pro-choice view of slavery), even if it would make you happy.”
Because for some women that’s not the best thing. They’ll be happier, on balance, by having an abortion.
Praxedes: What signs, Doug, does a women give off that she’ll be happier aborting her child vs. allowing her child to live?
Her situation, her beliefs – does she consider it (ahem) a “child” at all, etc.
Rasqual: Should parenting decisions be based on what makes the parent happiest? I thought we had dispensed with whether decisions should be strictly a matter of self-interest, or whether the interests of those we’re responsible for have a legitimate place in our decision-making, and that personal sacrifice is sometimes not only what’s best for those for whom we sacrifice, but actually for us as well.
When it comes to being a parent in the first place, I think so – there being no more compelling argument at the present, IMO. Preferably, before pregnancy is a fact, if being a parent is not desired, then the pregnancy will be prevented. That does not always happen, though, and I see it as best that the pregnant woman be allowed to choose to continue the pregnancy or not, to a point in gestation.
____
Does the value of unborn life play no role in considering what a woman’s choice ought to be?
It’s up to the woman – it may well play a role.
Is it strictly self-interest? If so, that seems certainly “anti-life,” because it delegitimizes any just cause for deference to the unborn.
Who’s saying there is any necessary “higher” consideration than what the woman wants? It’s an argument. Same as for those who would want her to be forced to have an abortion. I’m saying there are no external opinions compelling enough to overrule what the woman herself wants.
____
If it’s never in one’s own self-interest to sacrifice for others . . . wow. That’s so rationally indefensible I wouldn’t know where to begin. Entire books have been written trying to figure how philanthropy, empathy, and self-sacrifice could have arisen in our species.
Indifference to the unborn, like indifference to the poor, seems a luxury afforded those classes for whom survival is no longer the greatest threat.
It may well be that the woman wants to make such sacrifices – again, it’s up to her.
___
“It seems to me that if you’re about to die and I abstain from recommending that your killer spare his hand, you could say I’m not “anti-life” but I’m certainly still a loathesome SOB”.
”So we’re back to the sentience, awareness, personality, personhood, etc., of the unborn, if any. Your example also does not have ‘me’ inside the body of a person.”
Not the point. It’s a point about me, not you.
Well yeah, it is the point. You’re acting as if there is no difference between sentient versus non-sentient, and in the womb versus outside. If there was no sentience, emotion, etc., on our part, there would be no “morality” debate in the first place. As for being inside the womb – it most certainly makes a huge difference. If that is not the case, the considerations of the abortion argument are mostly changed or rendered moot.
____
Why not always counsel a woman to carry to term, even if you think she’d be happiest to abort?
Because I am more concerned with her wishes than yours.
___
WHEN would she be happiest? What if her child turned out to be an amazing joy to her when her life took its inevitable turn from the near future your myopia sees? Or what if someone you thought would be happier to carry to term had a kid who turned into a nightmare to her?
I’ve said – it’s what makes her the happiest, on balance, in the long term.
___
You don’t KNOW any of that. You can only know whether life has value and whether the progenitors of that life ought to take responsibility for it. And it seems to me that those who value life and take responsibility for it have a better chance at happiness than irresponsible folk who don’t value life.
Sure, somebody else cannot totally be sure, either way. But in no way is saying, automatically, “Don’t have an abortion” necessarily the best thing for the pregnant woman. Perhaps she shares your “oughts” and perhaps not.
____
Is indifference or disinterest in anothers’ life a loathesome thing or not? As I said, Doug, we reflexively tell our kids “Stop! Back up slowly . . . ” if they’re about to step on a baby bird — a critter arguably lacking significant personality. And yet here you are deliberately contriving reasons to remain indifferent to unborn human life.
Why can’t you be as reflexively protective of unborn human life as you would be of a baby bird, if it doesn’t compromise your pro-choice beliefs in any way?
If the baby bird was inside the body of a sentient, aware, willful entity who wanted that not to be the case, you’d have a better comparison, but as things are it’s a much-different situation. I’m not “contriving” reasons to be “indifferent” to unborn life – I’m weighing the desire of people such as you who who would have elective abortion be illegal against the desire of the pregnant women themselves.
___
So the only answer you have to my question (who not recommend life all the time?) so far depends on successfully auguring the future for people whose tomorrow you can’t know.
No, not necessarily “successfully” – because there is no way we can really know. We are giving our feeling at the time. It’s not “right” for everybody to have kids at a certain time, nor will it be “wrong” that we can necessarily predict, beforehand.
___
What happens when a woman is surrounded by folks with your ethic, but who predict her “happiness future” differently?
Then they might advise differently.
____
It’s just an untenable rationale for advice, Doug.
No it’s not. A person asking for advice is hardly banking on the “certain” foreknowledge of the other person. They are asking, basically, “What do you think I should do?” rather than demanding a sure pronouncement of all the future holds.
The fact is that for many women, having an abortion is the best thing to do, at a given time, and that on balance they are glad of it, and that they’d do the same thing again in a similar situation. Same as for many women, the best thing to do is continue the pregnancy.
____
“Sure, if it makes you happy, buy a slave. Never mind the value that inheres in the person you buy. Who am I to advise differently — even though in a society where slavery is legal I’m free to advise you never to buy a slave (without violating my pro-choice view of slavery), even if it would make you happy.”
If you really are going to advise somebody to buy a slave, then “the value that inheres in the person you buy” is hardly going to be your first consideration. And again, this is comparing out of the womb with in, and sentient, willful, emotional, beings with personality with other beings for which those characteristics are not present.
Doug: “Her situation, her beliefs – does she consider it (ahem) a ‘child’ at all, etc.”
Oh c’mon, Doug, that’s a complete non sequitur and you know it. Whether someone considers a fetus a child has nothing to do with whether they would be happy with a toddler.
As for “her situation, her beliefs,” well then. Beliefs are changeable. So why not persuade her to change them, your counsel remaining consistent both with a pro-life and a pro-choice ethic?
It keeps coming back to that same pesky question you answer only with indifference. But actually not even that, you keep reverting to something else I thought we had dispensed with — the notion that “choice” is somehow inconsistent with advice and persuasion:
“I see it as best that the pregnant woman be allowed to choose to continue the pregnancy or not, to a point in gestation.”
Again (if I may beat a decomposing horse you seem to think is a virile and breathtakingly fleet steed ) — nothing about advice and counsel is inconsistent with a woman being “allowed” to choose. Another blow to this same horse: how do you know her current beliefs were not informed by others’ advice? So what on earth would warrant your belief that your own advice would somehow violate some pro-choice ethic?
Does the value of unborn life play no role in considering what a woman’s choice ought to be? “It’s up to the woman – it may well play a role.”
Yes, it’s up to the woman — that’s a pro-choice remark. But whether she’s advised to carry to term is dependent only on whether you, yourself, are (a) pro-life in my second sense — a sense not inconsistent with a pro-choice ethic , (b) indifferent to unborn life, or (c) anti-life.
Is it strictly self-interest? If so, that seems certainly “anti-life,” because it delegitimizes any just cause for deference to the unborn. “Who’s saying there is any necessary ‘higher’ consideration than what the woman wants? It’s an argument. Same as for those who would want her to be forced to have an abortion. I’m saying there are no external opinions compelling enough to overrule what the woman herself wants.”
How would you know? How could you know? That’s insane. That’s gratuitous. It’s non sequitur. There are no compelling reasons? You’re generalizing of all cases, apparently. Amazing. Simply amazing. You’re waxing all, like, “it’s an existential thing for the woman,” yet there’s nothing persu — good grief, Doug. How did she FORM her freaking opinion in the first place? Was nothing compelling? Nothing “external?” If you’re saying that of proposed advice or whatever, surely you’re aware that before she formed her present opinion, your insistence that there’s nothing “externally compelling” would have been in play as a condition at that time as well. So she only came to her view based on what — internal rolls of dice? No counsel from others? No ethic informed by anything — not even going back to Kindergarten?
I’d thought you a rational fellow in these parts, Doug, but I’m beginning to see that you’re only courteous, forbearing and measured. There’s a difference.
This conversation is too easy, because your replies keep begging/avoiding the question: “It may well be that the woman wants to make such sacrifices – again, it’s up to her.”
Right. And there’s nothing about advising her to carry her child to term that makes it in the least LESS “up to her.” You keep saying those words as if they mean anything other than that she’s existentially and legally free to make a final decision, regardless of whether, how much, or how persuasively others have counseled her either way.
Well yeah, it is the point. You’re acting as if there is no difference between sentient versus non-sentient, and in the womb versus outside. If there was no sentience, emotion, etc., on our part, there would be no “morality” debate in the first place. As for being inside the womb – it most certainly makes a huge difference. If that is not the case, the considerations of the abortion argument are mostly changed or rendered moot.
The point was an analogy concerning indifference. The analogy holds regardless. Whether you’re breathing and walking about is a red herring for that purpose. YOUR indifference to unborn life is what I’m impeaching. If you don’t like my indifference to your gedanken murder, how’s it feel?
Someone has to have power of attorney for the poor voiceless little bastards, don’t you think?
Why not always counsel a woman to carry to term, even if you think she’d be happiest to abort? “Because I am more concerned with her wishes than yours.”
Not obviously. This is indifference masquerading as respect. “Whatever you want is just dandy by me!” But what if there’s another life involved? Surely you’re aware of the range of pro-choice rationales for abortion — many of which concede that a human life of value is destroyed (for good reasons, the argument goes on to pitch). Apparently you disagree with those rationales — which is interesting because that again parks you well south of the rationality I thought I was seeing in your various posts here.
Not sure where this conversation stands now, honestly. I regret not having read far more of your posts over a longer period so I’d know which pro-choice rationales you find most cogent.
Still, though, you keep spouting non-sequiturs: ” I’m weighing the desire of people such as you who who would have elective abortion be illegal against the desire of the pregnant women themselves.” – what I think should be illegal has nothing to do with persuasion and her free choice. Nothing. Decomposing horse, and you’re still astride the damn thing.
“It’s not ‘right’ for everybody to have kids at a certain time”
Justify that. That is, please provide your warrant for the assertion. I’ll simply counter that “the right time” for someone to “have kids” is generally at the end of gestation. That’s how nature works. It’s a given. That humans can choose otherwise doesn’t prove that it’s not a “right” time, because humans can make wrong choices. I think what you really mean involves less a sense of “right” versus “wrong” and more a sense of simply “what I happen to want.” Fine as far as that goes, but we should be clear about that, eh?
The fact is that for many women, having an abortion is the best thing to do, at a given time, and that on balance they are glad of it, and that they’d do the same thing again in a similar situation.
Abstract. How would you know, for any particular woman before you? You don’t. If the unborn life has value, it seems to me that the default advice should be “please carry the child to term, for its sake” — not “don’t worry about the little bugger, it’s only as valuable as you want it to be. Go for the gusto of what you think’ll make you the happiest sot in your town!”
“Knowing” that abortion is best for some abstract cohort of women doesn’t in any way inform you concerning a particular woman in front of you. All you know is she’s about to kill an unborn child (or not). If the child has value, it in no way violates a pro-choice ethic to advise her to carry the child to term. Yet you resist this.
Doug: “Her situation, her beliefs – does she consider it (ahem) a ‘child’ at all, etc.”
Rasqual: Oh c’mon, Doug, that’s a complete non sequitur and you know it. Whether someone considers a fetus a child has nothing to do with whether they would be happy with a toddler.
We were talking about signs a woman gives that she’ll be happier having an abortion versus not having one. Part of it is how they feel about the unborn and what they believe….
____
As for “her situation, her beliefs,” well then. Beliefs are changeable. So why not persuade her to change them, your counsel remaining consistent both with a pro-life and a pro-choice ethic?
Does the potential-persuader want to have her beliefs changed or not? If so, then fine, but that may not be the case.
___
It keeps coming back to that same pesky question you answer only with indifference. But actually not even that, you keep reverting to something else I thought we had dispensed with — the notion that “choice” is somehow inconsistent with advice and persuasion:
“I see it as best that the pregnant woman be allowed to choose to continue the pregnancy or not, to a point in gestation.”
Again (if I may beat a decomposing horse you seem to think is a virile and breathtakingly fleet steed ) — nothing about advice and counsel is inconsistent with a woman being “allowed” to choose. Another blow to this same horse: how do you know her current beliefs were not informed by others’ advice? So what on earth would warrant your belief that your own advice would somehow violate some pro-choice ethic?
Once again, I’ve already agreed that as long as we favor abortion being legal, then “pro-choice” certainly applies, and that our advice would then not violate pro-choice ethics. The question remains, however – what is our motivation in giving her advice? Are we first and foremost concerned with her happiness, or do we want our own valuation to hold sway, etc.?
____
Does the value of unborn life play no role in considering what a woman’s choice ought to be?
“It’s up to the woman – it may well play a role.”
Yes, it’s up to the woman — that’s a pro-choice remark. But whether she’s advised to carry to term is dependent only on whether you, yourself, are (a) pro-life in my second sense — a sense not inconsistent with a pro-choice ethic , (b) indifferent to unborn life, or (c) anti-life.
No argument there… Yet I’d say that “relative indifference” is what will apply, since it’s weighing one thing against another, without it being necessarily so that “no value at all” applies.
___
Is it strictly self-interest? If so, that seems certainly “anti-life,” because it delegitimizes any just cause for deference to the unborn.
“Who’s saying there is any necessary ‘higher’ consideration than what the woman wants? It’s an argument. Same as for those who would want her to be forced to have an abortion. I’m saying there are no external opinions compelling enough to overrule what the woman herself wants.”
How would you know? How could you know? That’s insane. That’s gratuitous. It’s non sequitur. There are no compelling reasons? You’re generalizing of all cases, apparently. Amazing. Simply amazing. You’re waxing all, like, “it’s an existential thing for the woman,” yet there’s nothing persu — good grief, Doug.
Rasqual, that’s my opinion – to a point in gestation I put what the woman wants, herself, first. You’re ranting and raving, but many people feel as I do. We don’t see anything that necessarily should trump what the woman sees as her own best choice.
___
How did she FORM her freaking opinion in the first place? Was nothing compelling? Nothing “external?” If you’re saying that of proposed advice or whatever, surely you’re aware that before she formed her present opinion, your insistence that there’s nothing “externally compelling” would have been in play as a condition at that time as well. So she only came to her view based on what — internal rolls of dice? No counsel from others? No ethic informed by anything — not even going back to Kindergarten?
Granted that we don’t know all of what goes into her opinion. She may well feel there are “compelling” things at work – either to continue the pregnancy or to end it.
____
I’d thought you a rational fellow in these parts, Doug, but I’m beginning to see that you’re only courteous, forbearing and measured. There’s a difference.
You’re mistaking me giving my opinion for me stating something I claim is external, objective truth. There is a big difference between the two.
___
This conversation is too easy, because your replies keep begging/avoiding the question: “It may well be that the woman wants to make such sacrifices – again, it’s up to her.”
Right. And there’s nothing about advising her to carry her child to term that makes it in the least LESS “up to her.” You keep saying those words as if they mean anything other than that she’s existentially and legally free to make a final decision, regardless of whether, how much, or how persuasively others have counseled her either way.
Yet again – not arguing what you claim I am. On “sacrifices” or not – if, on balance, she wants to continue the pregnancy, then I’m saying it’s a wanted pregnancy, despite any negatives she may feel. Likewise, she may end up having an abortion, but I’m not saying she will have no regrets at all, nor that to some degree she doesn’t want to continue the pregnancy. I don’t have a problem with other people giving her their opinions, pursuant to that.
____
“Well yeah, it is the point. You’re acting as if there is no difference between sentient versus non-sentient, and in the womb versus outside. If there was no sentience, emotion, etc., on our part, there would be no “morality” debate in the first place. As for being inside the womb – it most certainly makes a huge difference. If that is not the case, the considerations of the abortion argument are mostly changed or rendered moot.”
The point was an analogy concerning indifference. The analogy holds regardless. Whether you’re breathing and walking about is a red herring for that purpose. YOUR indifference to unborn life is what I’m impeaching. If you don’t like my indifference to your gedanken murder, how’s it feel?
There again – you’re bringing up feelings; my point is that the unborn, to a point in gestation, don’t have any. “Relative indifference” – you can say that. I place higher value on the woman’s freedom than I do on every single pregnancy being continued, so I’m relatively indifferent to every single life being continued. Same for you, if you think the life of the unborn is the highest “trump card” – you’re relatively indifferent to the other things, then.
___
Someone has to have power of attorney for the poor voiceless little bastards, don’t you think?
No, I don’t, not compared to what the woman wants. If it comes down to preventing a pregnancy versus ending it by abortion, alone, then I much prefer preventing it – I’m not “indifferent,” period. Once a pregnancy is fact, then of course prevention is no longer an option, and then I’m weighing what the pregnant woman or girl wants.
____
Why not always counsel a woman to carry to term, even if you think she’d be happiest to abort?
“Because I am more concerned with her wishes than yours.”
Not obviously. This is indifference masquerading as respect. “Whatever you want is just dandy by me!” But what if there’s another life involved? Surely you’re aware of the range of pro-choice rationales for abortion — many of which concede that a human life of value is destroyed (for good reasons, the argument goes on to pitch). Apparently you disagree with those rationales — which is interesting because that again parks you well south of the rationality I thought I was seeing in your various posts here.
Again, relative indifference, which is true for all of us. I do think what the woman wants is the most important thing (again, to a point in gestation). And there certainly is a life involved – no debate there. My rationale is that the woman’s desire, either way, is a good enough reason. There is no lack of rationality, there is just differing valuation. If a pro-choicer is saying that “a life of value is destroyed,” then they’re still of the opinion that said value is not a compelling reason to have abortion be illegal.
____
Not sure where this conversation stands now, honestly. I regret not having read far more of your posts over a longer period so I’d know which pro-choice rationales you find most cogent.
Still, though, you keep spouting non-sequiturs: ” I’m weighing the desire of people such as you who who would have elective abortion be illegal against the desire of the pregnant women themselves.” – what I think should be illegal has nothing to do with persuasion and her free choice. Nothing. Decomposing horse, and you’re still astride the damn thing.
It’s not a non-sequitur. It’s what the argument is – a difference of opinions. And for the manyeth time – I’m not saying you can’t be pro-choice and still advise for continuing the pregnancy. You had said:
And yet here you are deliberately contriving reasons to remain indifferent to unborn human life.
I’m not doing that. If we are debating whether abortion should be legal or not, that is one thing, and there I don’t find the opinions of pro-lifers to be good enough reasons for making abortion illegal. If we are talking about somebody who is okay with the woman having the legal choice, yet still advising her to not have an abortion, then I am fine with that. Might be that I’d do the same, myself.
____
“It’s not ‘right’ for everybody to have kids at a certain time”
Justify that. That is, please provide your warrant for the assertion. I’ll simply counter that “the right time” for someone to “have kids” is generally at the end of gestation. That’s how nature works. It’s a given. That humans can choose otherwise doesn’t prove that it’s not a “right” time, because humans can make wrong choices. I think what you really mean involves less a sense of “right” versus “wrong” and more a sense of simply “what I happen to want.” Fine as far as that goes, but we should be clear about that, eh?
Yes – I mean that some people are glad they had kids later, versus earlier, and among that group are some people who had abortions. As a society, I don’t see that we need to compel, nor advise, that every single pregnancy be continued. And yet again, should one person hold that the life of the unborn is the top priority, then I don’t see the harm in them giving their opinion to the pregnant woman.
_____
“The fact is that for many women, having an abortion is the best thing to do, at a given time, and that on balance they are glad of it, and that they’d do the same thing again in a similar situation.”
Abstract. How would you know, for any particular woman before you? You don’t. If the unborn life has value, it seems to me that the default advice should be “please carry the child to term, for its sake” — not “don’t worry about the little bugger, it’s only as valuable as you want it to be. Go for the gusto of what you think’ll make you the happiest sot in your town!”
Yeah, we don’t know, for sure, for the particular woman. I think that usually she herself will be the best one to decide.
____
“Knowing” that abortion is best for some abstract cohort of women doesn’t in any way inform you concerning a particular woman in front of you. All you know is she’s about to kill an unborn child (or not). If the child has value, it in no way violates a pro-choice ethic to advise her to carry the child to term. Yet you resist this.
Again, no I don’t. If you feel that way – then go ahead and tell her how you feel.
If you feel that way – then go ahead and tell her how you feel.
I don’t think that’s what he’s getting at, Doug. I think he’s more asking a.) whether YOU ever feel that way, and if so b.) why wouldn’t YOU say so.
“We were talking about signs a woman gives that she’ll be happier having an abortion versus not having one. Part of it is how they feel about the unborn and what they believe.”
Basically, you’re not saying anything at all. Everything you’re saying reduces to “whatever a person wants is fine.” Two points. First, that’s not a pro-choice view. Mark me — I’m not saying it’s antithetical to pro-choice. I’m just saying that “respecting what a person wants” has nothing to do with the conviction that abortion ought to be a legal option for women. Second, it’s a silly view. Whatever a person wants is not necessarily fine at all. Really, what you’re saying reduces to “meh.” You have no horse in the race. Whether it’s fine to abort or not is a matter of indifference to you. It’s their affair. I suspect in slaveholding days, you’d’ve been on the sidelines while abolitionists ranted and raved. “Whatever makes folks happy.”
“Does the potential-persuader want to have her beliefs changed or not? If so, then fine, but that may not be the case.”
In other words, “meh.” No stakes are so high that there’s cause to get involved. I’m not my brother’s keeper. Nothing to see here. Move along. If the unborn matter at all, it’s not my concern.
“Are we first and foremost concerned with her happiness.”
Pro-life folk generally believe that happiness — any kind worth possessing — is inconsistent with sacrificing helpless life in pursuit of one’s own pleasure.
If you feel responsible to avoid impairing her happiness (of whatever sort), how is it that you see no interest in whether the unborn child has a stake in its own happiness?
The happiness of a non-sapient cur is to gnaw a bone, and we begrudge it not. The happiness of an unborn child is precisely to draw nourishment via its mother. This is its natural and proper role — and yet for being natural and proper this little bastard is loathed as a parasite by pro-choicers who prefer the unnatural and improper destruction of not only its happiness, but its life — risibly, sometimes, as if it were for its own good because it’s not wanted. Heh. Maybe it wants itself — something lost on those who think it’s all about themselves.
“… to a point in gestation I put what the woman wants, herself, first.”
That’s not an opinion, it’s a decided course of inaction. The opinion I was taking issue with, you provide no warrant for. That’s fine — but it’s not showcasing rationality. If I rant, it’s not an irrational rant. It’s ranting because someone who sounds rational is not exposing any turtles whatsoever. Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air. I’m just pointing to the wonder and exclaiming, “Daaaaamn, dawg! Lookit THAT!” And yes, I understand that “many people feel as [you] do.” It’s the lack of thought to go with that feeling that’s the stunning thing. Again — “meh” as worldview.
“You’re mistaking me giving my opinion for me stating something I claim is external, objective truth. There is a big difference between the two.”
Not sure I’m mistaking one for the other. I’m simply plying to see whether there’re any turtles under you.
“you’re bringing up feelings; my point is that the unborn, to a point in gestation, don’t have any”
And it’s not necessarily the case that in my gedanken murder of Doug, you would know how many people might be indifferent to it. I pose the question of how you’d feel about it to you as observer of the gedanken experiment, not as participant. As participant, you might be as oblivious to everyone else’s indifference — and as dead — as our analogous fetus.
The question is what kind of people we indifferent folk are, in either situation.
“Again, relative indifference, which is true for all of us. I do think what the woman wants is the most important thing (again, to a point in gestation). ”
Well, that latter qualification really has me wondering, now — but I’m learning the futitily of seeking turtles under your opinions.
“My rationale is that the woman’s desire, either way, is a good enough reason.”
Are you consistent with that in all of life, or is abortion a special case?
“I don’t find the opinions of pro-lifers to be good enough reasons for making abortion illegal.”
Well, if we’ve established that no turtles are necessary, all we pro-lifers need to do is get enough votes and voters. They could be motivated by coin tosses, apparently, and that’d be dandily admissible. ;-)
Pretty soon here, we’re going to be chatting so far back in the archives even Google’s crawl-bots will be indifferent to all this. ;-)
“If you feel that way – then go ahead and tell her how you feel.”
Xalisae: I don’t think that’s what he’s getting at, Doug. I think he’s more asking a.) whether YOU ever feel that way, and if so b.) why wouldn’t YOU say so.
X, I’ve said that for some particular women, I’d say it was best for them to continue the pregnancy. This is based on me knowing what they believe and how they feel. Rasqual said, “You resist this,” and I replied, immediately before what you chose to copy, “no I don’t.”
Pretty soon here, we’re going to be chatting so far back in the archives even Google’s crawl-bots will be indifferent to all this.
Rasqual, I think commenting is disabled after two weeks, which means Monday, Sept., 5 will be the end here. If necessary, we can shift things forward, perhaps to a “Jivin’ J’s Life Links” or a “Proliferations” – since they tend to be grab-bags anyway…? If anything I’d say something like picking ones close to the 1st or 15th of a month would work well.
___
“We were talking about signs a woman gives that she’ll be happier having an abortion versus not having one. Part of it is how they feel about the unborn and what they believe.”
Basically, you’re not saying anything at all. Everything you’re saying reduces to “whatever a person wants is fine.”
No – you are generalizing from the particular. I am saying that in this case I think what the pregnant woman wants should come first. You are saying that in this case the life of the unborn should come first.
___
Two points. First, that’s not a pro-choice view. Mark me — I’m not saying it’s antithetical to pro-choice. I’m just saying that “respecting what a person wants” has nothing to do with the conviction that abortion ought to be a legal option for women.
For other than therapeutic abortions, what sense does that make? Why else would a woman be choosing to have an abortion, or, for that matter, be choosing to continue a pregnancy? Unless one is looking at abortions that one thinks are medically necessary for the woman, what other justification for legal abortion would one see?
___
Second, it’s a silly view. Whatever a person wants is not necessarily fine at all. Really, what you’re saying reduces to “meh.” You have no horse in the race. Whether it’s fine to abort or not is a matter of indifference to you. It’s their affair. I suspect in slaveholding days, you’d’ve been on the sidelines while abolitionists ranted and raved. “Whatever makes folks happy.”
The silliness here is that you’re nearly-continually mischaracterizing my argument. I’m not saying “whatever makes folks happy,” without qualification. If we are talking about society’s position, whether abortion is legal or not, I’m comparing society’s “horses in the race,” the value we put on freedom and the value we put on the unborn life. If we are talking about one person talking to the pregnant woman, then the “horses in the race” will be the feelings and beliefs of both those people. On the societal scale, once again, it’s a case of “is there a good enough reason to restrict people’s freedom?” In most situations, we don’t see a good enough reason. In a relative few – those for which laws exist – we do.
Do I see a good enough reason for slavery to be illegal? Yes I do.
___
If you feel responsible to avoid impairing her happiness (of whatever sort), how is it that you see no interest in whether the unborn child has a stake in its own happiness?
The happiness of an unborn child is precisely to draw nourishment via its mother. This is its natural and proper role — and yet for being natural and proper this little bastard is loathed as a parasite by pro-choicers who prefer the unnatural and improper destruction of not only its happiness, but its life — risibly, sometimes, as if it were for its own good because it’s not wanted. Heh. Maybe it wants itself — something lost on those who think it’s all about themselves.
I’m saying there is no “wanting” before there is emotion, mental awareness, personality, etc. There is no happiness or sadness. “Parasite” – while it fits under some definitions, I think it’s often mentioned just to push pro-lifers’ buttons. If a pregnant woman feels that the unborn baby is a “parasite,” I think that reflects on her not wanting it, rather than any general-case quality of the unborn, again unless we take a fairly far-out-there definition. I do not say that being unwanted means that abortion is chosen “for the good of the unborn.”
I think that you and others have “empathy” for the unborn before that can really apply, in that there are as yet no thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc., on the part of the unborn. I am not saying this is somehow “wrong” in an objective way, though I do feel it’s “imaginative.” It’s one more thing that goes into the mix of the abortion debate.
___
The question is what kind of people we indifferent folk are, in either situation.
Or what makes a difference to us, or what do we value the most. It’s all the same thing.
___
“Again, relative indifference, which is true for all of us. I do think what the woman wants is the most important thing (again, to a point in gestation). ”
Well, that latter qualification really has me wondering, now — but I’m learning the futitily of seeking turtles under your opinions.
There are no “turtles,” in this discussion, beyond what cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary. If we empathize with suffering, then would it not be logical to consider whether suffering can exist, in the given case?
____
“My rationale is that the woman’s desire, either way, is a good enough reason.”
Are you consistent with that in all of life, or is abortion a special case?
In all of life – of course not. In fact, I’m almost entirely in agreement with society’s current approach to it, which is almost always that it’s not solely up to the individual. I do see abortion as a special case, though not the only one. To think of another example, I’d say the case of somebody breaking into somebody else’s house, let us say in a state where it’s legal to shoot the intruder. At that point, I think it’s properly up to the desire of the resident – they are free to shoot the intruder, or to not shoot. They may be philosophically-opposed to killing, or not. They may feel their life is threatened enough to shoot, or not. I think their desire – either way – is a good enough reason.
____
“I don’t find the opinions of pro-lifers to be good enough reasons for making abortion illegal.”
Well, if we’ve established that no turtles are necessary, all we pro-lifers need to do is get enough votes and voters. They could be motivated by coin tosses, apparently, and that’d be dandily admissible. ;-)
At the very least, again – there’s no agreement that any “turtles” are around. I agree – enough votes from pro-lifers, and abortion would become illegal. It might take a while, given the workings of our government, but in the end – if there was sufficient opinion for abortion to be illegal, it would be. I don’t agree there is a good enough reason for that, however, same as I don’t agree there’s a good enough reason for making slavery legal again.