I hold the same view of abortion that LindsAy does and don’t see how it is at all conflicted. Just because I don’t believe the government should be able to tell someone whether or not they can have an abortion doesn’t mean I think women should have them. I don’t think the government should tell people whether or not they can smoke BUT I don’t think smoking is a something anyone should do. Sure, the parallels are not exact but the thinking behind it is the same. I like Steve Forbes’ take on it, “Abortions should be legal, safe, and rare.”

What Malia said.

Dang Ned, you started out with a doozie. Anytime you want to get some discussion going, just write a post about abortion. Of course its always good to throw in some bait, like a quote from Mark Rose or something.

But seriously, I think that how unwed mothers are treated is a good discussion to have. But I also think this country has come a long way in that regard. Good people, those Americans are.

Malia (Ginger),
Sorry about the misspelling; note the correction.

I think the “conflict” is evident in her own choice of words. But the catch, is that she acknowledges the “thing” at issue is a human life; are you acknowledging the same? And, frankly, the MAIN conflict I see is in claiming the culture’s attitudes encourage abortion, which is–you know, not a good thing, for some reason.

Glen,
How do you think that unwed mothers should be treated?

But the catch, is that she acknowledges the “thing” at issue is a human life

Does she? I don’t think she’s saying what you think she is saying.

But here’s the thing that is so frustrating about the “all or nothing” crowd… Do you *really* think our culture’s attitude encourages abortion? Really? Because I can tell you that I have never known a woman on the planet who WANTS to have an abortion or who thinks it’s the easy way out.

I really think that some people forget that abortion is surgery and no surgery to one’s body is taken lightly. There are always side effects and consequences. It isn’t something that anybody WANTS, but I’m afraid we don’t live in a perfect world…and sometimes a person acts out of desperation or necessity.

Ginger,
Well, that’s Lindsay’s point, not mine, though I am darn certain that how unwed pregnant women perceive they’re viewed by society affects said women’s decision.

But are you saying that the reason abortion is uncomfortable for some and a difficult decision for some is simply because it is a surgical procedure?

dolphin,
“Baby,” “wonderful human beings”–sure, she probably means “persons,” but the “thing” in the womb (especially when a Partial-birth abortion is at issue) is human and living.

As for Lindsey’s point…well, as an “unwed mother”, I can tell you that there is definitely a different treatment than if I was married with 2.5 kids and the picket fence…and that’s even being a divorced unwed parent. There is a definite unspoken stigma…I could cite many examples, but I’m heading out to pick up my daughter from school in a minute, so I can’t elaborate just now…

But are you saying that the reason abortion is uncomfortable for some and a difficult decision for some is simply because it is a surgical procedure?

Heck no! I bolded the word “simply” because there’s that black or white, all or nothing thinking coming through again…a woman’s decision is much more complex than an “ouch, it’s surgery” or whatever…

Again, people make out like women are one-dimensional creatures who don’t want to be inconvenienced…it just isn’t that simple!!!

I did say “potential” human being, simply because I didn’t want to polarize the issue by writing “fetus” or “baby,” although I do have a personal opinion on that. It just wasn’t the point of the post.

I think that for many teens, particularly middle-to-upper class teens who could feasibly give birth to a baby and either keep it with the help of their families or give it up for adoption, fear of suffering from the stigma over being an unwed mother outweighs the fear of abortion. And that’s unfortunate. And I’m sure I have contributed to that stigma before with my doubletakes at some of the pregnant teenagers that frequent Opry Mills, for example. I have two teenagers and I just don’t think most of them have the frontal lobe development to realize the emotional toll an abortion could take on them down the road.

I think Lindsay has a great post on this topic [as usual]. I think I fall in a similar place on the pro-choice - pro-life spectrum. I’m not sure it’s worth elaborating on my position here….I won’t be convincing the pro-life peeps and not all of the pro-choice peeps would be happy, either.

But the main point — how we treat pregnant teens in particular — well we’re downright Victorian about it. I get it if YOU [this being the generic you] don’t think it’s “right” for people to have sex before they get married. I agree that teenagers aren’t emotionally ready to deal with the consequences. And that’s not going to stop many of them from having sex, is it? Didn’t think so.

I think as a society we need to get our heads together about what’s really important. In my book, that would be the people who are already here….be they pregnant teenagers or whoever….and help those around us who need a hand. Not judge people for choices they made in the past.

Ginger,
I hear you . . . I used the word “simply” because that was the focus of your comment–it appeared that you were advising that just because someone feels uncomfortable with abortion doesn’t mean that they view the thing being dealt with as being anything worth feeling uncomfortable about.

I am definitely not saying that women are one-dimensional creatures or that the decision of what to do when you end up pregnant is simple. I would, however, assert that it is pretty simple to determine whether what’s being aborted is human or living or blameless . . . especially after the first trimester of development.

Lindsay,
Thanks for stopping by, but as long as a “baby” or “potential human life” or “human fetus” is flatly inferior to society’s obligation to protect innocent human life or to a woman’s right to autonomy for autonomy’s sake, then it seems merely unfortunate and no more of a concern than a host of other outpatient surgical procedures a young woman might undergo.

Laura,
Interesting. I do my part to help pregnant, unwed teenagers and one big, loving thing I think we can and should do for all teenagers is not pooh-pooh the gravity of choosing to have sex outside of marriage or pooh-pooh teens’ capacity to choose not to. And I trust you’ll not judge me or others for “judging people for choices they made in the past . . .”

I just stumbled across this conversation. As a Nashville guy, its good to see a site like this up.

My whole position on abortion is this:

You can’t convince me, because one, the Bible says God knows us before we’re in the womb and the simple fact I have felt the stirring of new life in my body three times…that it’s a “Potential Person.” No amount of arguing is going to change my mind on that. I’m set on that.

That said, they must keep abortion legal and safe.

By the grace of God, I did not end up pregnant and unwed. I probably should have. If I would have, I don’t know that I could’ve faced my parents and told them. I just don’t know that I could’ve.

If my own 14 year old daughter were to end up in that situation and as much as I’d like to think she would feel she could come to me, she might not be able to. That would upset me, yeah, but, I would be even more upset if my little girl went to some dingy trailer off Dickerson Rd. to have an abortion and possibly face sepsis, ruin her female organs and possibly die.

It’s difficult either way a person chooses. It has to be legal. It just has to.

“Baby,” “wonderful human beings”

Oh well if we’re ignoring important qualifiers such as “growing” and “potentially” then I guess I see you point. Still, don’t you think in the interest of honest discussion, we ought not to willfully ignore parts of a post that are intrinsic to it’s meaning?

Dang, you busted me, dolphin–I was hoping everyone around here would not read her post and would take my assertions as gospel.

We’re having an “honest discussion”; you can read Lindsay’s comment. I’d say that in the interest of not wanting to be divisive, she used some “conflicting” language.

sistasmiff,
As even most of the other pro-choice commenters have acknowledged an abortion is of some consequence–emotionally, physically (and even morally). And I’m concerned about the mixed message sent by condoning–not to mention facilitating, “safe” abortion.

We’re having an “honest discussion”; you can read Lindsay’s comment.

In which she points out that you left off an important part of her comment. How exactly is it honest to draw conclusions about her post based on cherry-picked pieces of it?

I would, however, assert that it is pretty simple to determine whether what’s being aborted is human or living or blameless

I’d assert that if it really were that simple, abortion wouldn’t be the hot topic that it is.

As even most of the other pro-choice commenters have acknowledged an abortion is of some consequence–emotionally, physically (and even morally).

We don’t ban many things that are of consequence. The problem with your argument is that (whether you intend it to or not), it’s coming off as “either abortion is murder and we should ban it or it’s not and we should be completely indifferent to it.” That’s just not based in reality where there are plenty of unpleasant things that aren’t necessarily worthy of prohibition. If abortion is murder than most pro-choicers would agree with you that it should be illegal (I know of few people who think murder should be legal). But just because it’s not murder doesn’t imply that it’s emotionally, physically or morally neutral or positive.

Oh gosh, I’m getting fisked. dolphin, the conflicting message is there for all to see.

The “conflicting” aspect of her message is that it’s really important, but she’s not really sure why and the gov’t ought to stay out of her autonomy and young women wouldn’t want to do this (often) bad thing if it wasn’t for the bad/mixed message that our culture sends.

I’m not sure how it isn’t obvious that “what is being aborted” is (a) human, (b) alive and (c) free of blame for the situation it’s in. Please enlighten me.

We don’t ban many things that are of consequence. And almost all of the things we do ban are of consequence . . . checkmate.

Oh gosh, I’m getting fisked.

I’m trying to have a discussion with you.

the conflicting message is there for all to see.

Well enlighten me. I don’t see the conflict in saying, “There’s this thing that I don’t like, but I don’t think it should be illegal.” There are LOTS of things I don’t like but don’t think should be illegal. Am I in conflict?

I’m not sure how it isn’t obvious that “what is being aborted” is (a) human, (b) alive and (c) free of blame for the situation it’s in. Please enlighten me.

A fetus isn’t a human in the same way a seed isn’t a watermelon. A seed has the potential to become watermelon, but only if certain conditions are met. A fetus, likewise, has the potential to become a human if certain conditions are met. Ask anyone who has ever experienced a miscarriage if the mere existence of a fetus automatically leads to the birth of a human.

“Alive” is a tricky question. If you’re suggesting that the material the fetus is made up of is organic, then you’re correct. The individual cells are also most certainly alive. As an “organism” though, a fetus fails several of the criteria for the traditional definition of life (which are homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction). Of course, traditionally, the criteria are measured over the “life” of the suspected life form, when puts us back to square one when discussing a fetus (since it then becomes dependent on your own beliefs on when life begins). Of course there are even major disputes in the scientific community over the criteria of life as laid out in the traditional criteria (for example, are viruses life? What about fire?).

Biologists have been studying, arguing, and debating what life is for centuries and even with all our modern technology there is still no agreed upon answer, so it’s difficult for me to understand how you can say that it’s “pretty simple” and “obvious” with no further explanation. If you’ve solved one of the oldest and most difficult questions of biology, it’s important that you share that secret with the world.

And almost all of the things we do ban are of consequence

All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

Nice try, dolphin.

A fetus is obviously growing, it obviously has organization, it obviously has metabolism, it obviously adapts, it obviously responds to stimuli and it is capable–given time and nutrients, to reproduce. It also has homeostasis–absent sharp medical instruments. Yes, it is dependent on its “hostess” but so is a 3 month old child.

Human is a species. Human fetuses are human, typically.

And I didn’t blithely throw out “illegality” (actually, I didn’t bring it up in my post) but I did challenge the assertion a societal obligation to protect innocent human life should be flatly inferior to bodily autonomy.

I guess you got me on the All Things of Consequence Are Not Illegal assertion . . . oh wait, I didn’t assert otherwise!

Ned, Here’s where your argument bothers me. You’re focusing on the fetus, but what about the pregnant woman? Her life loses all value outside hosting the fetus? She has ALREADY been born and proven to be a viable human being. No, I don’t mind one bit saying that a grown woman’s life is more valuable to me than that of a fetus — however human it might be — that’s not yet, and may never be viable.

I’d prefer that both a fetus and a pregnant woman are valued and cared for. But there are times when one must be chosen over the other.

*Cheers & applause! Cheers & applause!*

it is capable–given time and nutrients, to reproduce.

Really? Care to cite a single example of a fetus reproducing?

It also has homeostasis–absent sharp medical instruments.

Uh, no it doesn’t. That’s simply untrue. The woman’s body has homeostasis. The fetus does not. Take a fetus out of a woman and see how long it survives?

Yes, it is dependent on its “hostess” but so is a 3 month old child.

But a 3 month old child will not be dependent on its “hostess” for it’s entire life span. That’s why I said the biological definition of life is only marginally helpful. The biological definition of life is only helpful if you an established point at which life begins which is the very question that’s being asked here.

Human is a species. Human fetuses are human, typically.

By that usage of the word, my skin cells are human, yet I don’t mind washing 1000s of them down the drain every morning in the shower. None of us disagree that it’s a human fetus. Where we disagree is whether it’s a human being.

And I didn’t blithely throw out “illegality”

You’re right. I shouldn’t have assumed, so I’ll ask: Do you think abortion should be legal?

I did challenge the assertion a societal obligation to protect innocent human life should be flatly inferior to bodily autonomy.

And I’m challenging your assertion that a fetus is “human life.” I can prove beyond the show of anyone’s doubt that a woman is human life. Can you do the same of the fetus?

oh wait, I didn’t assert otherwise!

What I was trying to get you to understand (and perhaps clarify, which is why I expressly wrote “(whether you intend it to or not), it’s coming off as…”), is that when you keep saying ‘well if you don’t like abortion, why do you support the right to make the choice to have on,’ it sounds like you’re making the very assertion you’re saying you’re not.

And I’m not the only one hearing it that way. That’s what Ginger (Ginger correct me if I’m wrong) is referring to when she talks about “black or white, all or nothing thinking.”

I’m sensing a little presumption about what I believe based on a stereotype of “pro-lifers.”

Certainly the woman’s life is important, but is one human’s “life” flatly inferior to another human’s “health” or “convenience”? I think that, especially after the first trimester of development, too little interest is paid to the life of fetal humans–as far as the law is concerned.

I donate significant time and resources to help women in crisis pregnancies, so I definitely think they’re valuable, but not to the exclusion of all other values or interests. I’d say you and I have a different calculation of which “times” a pregnant woman must be chosen over a fetus.

dolphin,
I don’t mean to be cantankerous, sorry.

“Human skin cell” is not equivalent to “human fetus (i.e., in an early stage of development).” A human skin cell will never, can never (absent some cloning technique) develop into a “human being.”

The textbook definition of “homeostasis” is “metabolic equilibrium actively maintained by several complex biological mechanisms that operate via the autonomic nervous system to offset disrupting changes” that’s all present in a fetus, though of course a fetus relies on the mother, er host, for nutrients (and protection). Take a three-month-old away from its mother or caretaker and see how long it survives.

As an aside, one of the most interesting things about reproduction to me is that the placenta (which is the only body organ that a human or woman can regrow and which a woman grows then loses in each pregnancy) serves as a buffer or translator of all the nutrients supplied by the mother. A fetus is an individual, though dependent, organism.

Sure I think abortion should be illegal except if it is the only way to save the life of the mother, and even then I think the doctor has an obligation to attempt to protect the life of his/her other patient–the fetus. But I didn’t even raise that in my post, so it is a straw man to assert that I criticized her for opposing prohibition of abortion.

I know what pro-choicers may expect my argument to be (hence the tendency to dismiss talk of abortion as “tired”), but I think progress is stifled when we don’t actually pay attention to the argument.