Alright, let’s fucking stop all this nonsense and get back to fundamentals.
When one person breathes, one person eats, one person shits, then there’s (duh!) one person.
A woman is one person. A pregnant woman is one person.
When a baby is born, that is the beginning of the baby’s life.
And before anyone scoffs at that notion, consider that life-beginning-at-birth is how we as a people, in our own culture, treat the entire issue. Consider:
When a baby is born, there is a birth certificate. The birth certificate is used to confer rights. When you can vote, when you can drive, when you can drink, when you can marry, when you join catechism, when you have a bar/bat mitzvah, when you qualify for Social Security, when you go to kindergarten, when you can sign legal contracts by yourself, when you are eligible to be drafted, when you qualify for Medicare, when you can get a discount at the movies, and every other way we as a society determine age-contingent matters. We say, “Since the day I was born,” to indicate our entire lives. Our tombstones show the year of death following the year of birth.
We celebrate birthdays, not erections, not that moment Mom and Dad did the dirty in the back seat of the car. We talk of “one on the way” (but not yet here). When a baby is born, we say, “A new life came into this world.” We send out birth announcements. Christenings happen after birth. And as we have bridal showers before the woman is a bride, we have baby showers before the woman gives birth to a baby.
When a woman menstruates, we don’t have a funeral. When there’s a miscarriage, there can be terrible suffering and grief, but there’s no funeral or death certificate. When a birth delivers a dead fetus, it is called “stillborn,” not the death of a 9-month-old baby.
Even in the rhetoric employed by those who advocate government control of women’s bodies employs very clear language: “unborn” and “pre-born.” Both terms mean, literally, “not born,” meaning not yet of this world, not yet persons.
It’s a romantic to engage in nostalgia for the man’s small contribution by entertaining notions of life beginning at conception, but conception is just one prerequisite to birthing a new life, along with the billions of events that must happen in the woman’s body, including implantation and gestation, use of the woman’s body’s entire metabolism, sufficient nutrition for the woman, adequate health of the woman, as well as proper progress of all the cellular development within the woman’s womb … and, most important, childbirth.
Of course, we could demand that the government control all contributing factors to human life. Of course, unless one is using artificial insemination, an erection and ejaculation are also required — so perhaps the government should regulate and control men’s penises as well.
Or maybe not. Maybe not, because all of this talk of life beginning at any point other than birth is just ridiculous.
yep! my sentiments exactly. until a fetus can live on its own, outside the womb, without needing the blood and biology of the mother, it has no “right to life.” right to life begins at birth. until then, the woman decides.
First, I do agree with you, and my beliefs are almost exactly in line with yours.
But it is important to recognize that our concept of birth is based on things that we believe. I believe (which is to say, I know in my heart of hearts) that life does begin at birth.
But I know people who really do believe that life begins at conception. And I’m not talking about wingnuts or religious right-wingers. I’m talking about good friends of mine, who are deeply religious. And most of them are are pro-choice, but are only pro-choice because of their ability to reconcile belief with fact.
I think one of the battles that the left often loses in the abortion debate is that of compassion. We think ourselves compassionate in almost every regard, but when it comes to arguing about the rights (or lack thereof) of an unborn child, we fail to empathize with those with a different belief set.
Try to imagine believing that, at conception, a new soul is introduced to the world. A soul can’t be described by neurons, nerves, muscles, or thought. But it could take root in those few little cells.
I don’t believe in souls, btw.
But if I did, I have to imagine that it would pain me greatly to think of another life being extinguished. I would hope that I, like my friends, would be able to reconcile my beliefs with the needs of a secular society.
And that is the root of the debate, I suppose. Pro-choicers feel that a religious concept of birth is being forced down their throat. Pro-lifers feel that an atheistic viewpoint of birth is being down their throat.
Who is right? Who the f*ck knows. If we could prove or disprove the existence of souls and God one way or the other, we’d be in a far different place.
So when belief sets are at odds, all that is left for a secular society to base laws on are observation. And observation leads to the conclusion that life begins at birth, whether that’s really true or not.
But I think it’s important that we don’t belittle the beliefs of others. We have no right.
…if “pro-choice” folks were trying to force anything down the throats of anyone. The “pro-choice” view is that if you area against abortion, you don’t have to have one, more power to you.
Whether you believe in souls or not, this is a question of when the government steps in and takes controls of a person’s life, a person’s body. I’m sorry, but if it’s someone else’s religion that I have to eat something or drink something or say something or do something just to appease their own faith, well, there’s something very fucked up with that.
Their faith or whatever says they must fuck with other people’s lives. Too bad it’s none of their business.
Again, look at it through their eyes.
The pro-choice view is forcing something down their throats. It is forcing them to stand by while another life (by their beliefs) is taken.
Would you accept it if the government decided it was OK to kill a child within the first 6 months of birth? I don’t remember anything from within my first 6 months, do you? Maybe my life didn’t really start until I gained some degree of self-consciousness.
You are correct; it is a matter of when the government steps in to take control. Let me give you two situations to try to explain what I’m trying to say.
Situation 1: An adult is murdered. Both the atheistic and the religious beliefs say that this is wrong, for one reason or another, because I have ended another’s life, and noone is going to argue that because it is a fact. OK.
Situation 2: An abortion. The atheistic (or agnostic, whatever) belief says ‘meh. Whatever. Just some cells’. The religious belief says ‘Whoa, hold on there. A person was just killed.’ In this case, the two beliefs differ.
The fundamental issue, then, is how the government determines when it is ok to step in. And what I’m saying, is that the argument should be made that the government should step in on the basis of observable fact, not on belief. Just saying I believe life begins at birth holds no more water than I believe life begins at conception.
I hope I’m not sounding confrontational. If I am, I apologize. I have had a lot of these discussions with people of different belief sets than mine, who I care about very deeply, and who feel that in the abortion debate their beliefs are being belittled. This is my inadequate way of trying to express how they feel.
Scenario 1: Your girlfriend (or boyfriend) gets ill. The government comes and drags you out of home and puts you on line to give her regular transfusions, maybe takes a kidney, some bone marrow. You lose 9 months of work. And then once she’s better, you are “free.” If you refuse, you’re charged with murder.
Scenario 2: Your girlfriend gets pregnant, and thee government assumes control of her body, takes her heart and liver and kidneys, everything, forcing her to provide sustenance to this fetus, until finally it’s born, and then she’s “free.”
But I think maybe I’m just not doing a very good job of explaining.
In Scenario 1, you’re still dealing with two people who are ‘people’ by any belief system, religious or secular. My point is that the point at which you think cells become ‘people’ (ok, a person, not people) can change dependent on your beliefs. But the point at which government can determine that cells become ‘people’ is, as you say, at birth.
In my own analogy, I was just trying to offer up a different, hypothetical belief set to show the other point of view by making your (and my, incidentally) opinion of when life begins ‘wrong’.
Your scenario 2 is a perfect illustration of why the government shouldn’t criminalize abortion, but it still doesn’t address the differences in beliefs.
I disagree, because the comparison you offer assumes that the fetus is a person. And therefore it’s exactly like having the government force one person to give his/her body to support the life of another.
If the fetus is not a person, then the analogy I offered fails, and demands of “rights” on behalf of a portion of the woman’s body — rights that somehow trump the rights of the woman herself — are founded on nothing.
Just to clarify, what exactly are you disagreeing with? My ‘analogy’ or my analysis of one (or both) of yours?
but I really do have to hit the hay. It’s nigh on 2am here & I have to get up in a coupla hours.
But I do think this is an important discussion, and I promise I will respond and further flesh out what I’m trying to say in the morning, when I’ll be more awake and coherent.
Me, too. But even with fresh brain cells, I’m baffled at how to get through to people who think:
…and even though their disagreeing with me is okay, my disagreeing with them somehow oppresses them. Might as well be debating how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
Oh wait — they do that, too. sigh
Good night.
I wasn’t making this argument…I guess I was trying to say that you would both equally feel as if you’re being oppressed by the other’s views.
If I may, let me step back and try to pinpoint exactly what it is I’m trying to say (after having had a night for it all to run through my head).
I’m not arguing against the conclusion that you draw. I’m arguing a matter of semantics in how you come to the conclusion, but I think it’s an important semantic because it reshapes the debate. What I’m trying to convey is only really valid in the context of discussing abortion with people holding different beliefs than you (and I think maybe that’s getting me into some trouble here).
All I’m really trying to say is that there is a difference between
abortion should be legal because life begins at birth.
and
abortion should be legal because, regardless of when you believe life begins, the government has to be belief-neutral, and all observable evidence indicates life beings at birth.
I know you’re probably all rolling your eyes right now, but let me explain why I think the difference is important. (also, after reading bayprairie’s post, yes, human-ness or humanity is probably more accurate than life. Substitute as necessary please.)
In the first argument, I am drawing my conclusion based on a statement that is asserting my belief as fact. If I make this argument to a religious friend of mine, I lose them immediately, because they believe differently. And if they disagree with the basis of my argument, then I can’t expect them to follow me to the conclusion.
In the second argument, I am drawing the conclusion based on something that is not belief oriented. Even though it is logically the same, to me, as the first argument, it’s different to someone who doesn’t believe life begins at birth. This argument moves the debate out of the territory of morality because it isn’t predicated on a belief.
That is my only point. I still don’t know if I managed to clear it up at all. I am however quite proud of myself for getting through that without using the word ‘Framing’ which I’m really starting to hate…
that their personal beliefs should be forced on people who don’t hold them aren’t any more likely to be moved by your second argument than your first.
The point that needs to be made with them is that once you establish the principle that the government can legislate private behavior and reproductive choices, you have also established the right of government to force abortions, require the use birth control, limit the number of children, require sterilization, etc.
They would be much better off keeping government out of these matters and supporting programs that reduce the number of abortions.
look ej, heres’ the deal. i can’t tell where you’re coming from. but here’s a couple of responses.
if you are coming at this from a position that abortion is morally right or morally wrong you’ll never get anywhere. that’s simplistic thought for a very complex situation. this isn’t a “let there be light!” deal. there is no cliche, or stereotype of, “the universal abortion”. where’s the s on that word? abortion? which one? whos are you talking about? borrow this concept. there are abortionS. each is unique. there is no physics of morality, no mathematics nor scientific “law of moral gravity” that can establish a moral certitude thats true in every case for myriad situations. oh sure it’d be nice if there was, yes? but i’m afraid each is a unique situation and set of circumstances. please resist simplistic forms of moral generalization on the subject of women’s abortions. also, try and imagine situations when abortion is not only morally right, its friggin wonderful! they do exist.
when does life begin? is that where your coming from? another losing proposition. do you think the egg was not alive before the sperm impregnated it? do you think that the sperm was less living prior to the union? does life really begin at conception? isn’t the word “conception” a word to approximate a wordless reality? and isn’t that also true for the word “begin”? weren’t sperm and egg alive before they hooked up?
what you’re really talking about, i’m guessing, and maybe now we’re getting somewhere, is when you feel humanity begins. or when human awareness, or humanness begins. something just a bit more difficult to define, something a little more elusive, than biological life and something that can’t be pinned down in the biology lab. but now we’re no longer on solid scientific ground once again either are we, because, as you say, this is now subject to opinion.
i’m going to quit writing about this now and move on to something else.
one small point here, please keep in mind that abortion is legal.
but just for the sake of argument lets suppose one day soon it is not. how is a government better able to determine what should happen within a woman’s body than the woman herself? do you not believe in a woman’s free will and her right of self-determination? can you admit that a woman knows the circumstances of her life, her pregnancy, her situation, her path, far better than some words in a law book? surely you must be able to see that a woman, along with her health care provider(s), are best able to determine what’s correct for her health. do you feel more comfortable handing that over to a tom delay type? a politician put in charge of women’s bodies? could it be that deep down you simply aren’t all that comfortable with the idea of putting much trust in women? i mean you do seem to be making the point here that governmental right TRUMPS a woman’s right to control her very own body, are you not? is that the type of government you really want? one that controls a woman’s own body against her will? would that situation not fit the very definition of slavery? as soon as you reach the government interference point how is a pro (fetal) life position any different from one that is pro-slavery?
anywho, food for thought, yes? perhaps one day you’ll be lucky enough to find a woman who’ll speak of her personal experiences on this matter to you. i think what you’ll find when you get down to the personal level is how understandable the choices she made really were. A lot of the problem is you’re thinking of this in the abstract. Believe me, for many it isn’t. And when you move out of the cloud of the abstract into the world of someone you know personally things get much clearer and easier to understand. Do yourself a favor too, go here and do some reading. The Center for Reproductive Rights. You really seem as if you’re working through things and a little reading over there might help you with your friends. And as you stated, I hope I’m not seeming confrontational either. Obviously Ive spent some time putting down my thoughts and while I might seem assertive believe me, if I was being confrontational I’d have written much much less!
enjoy!
Thanks for your thoughts. I think I’ve successfully managed to really sound like a schmuck through this entire comment section.
I think I wasn’t entirely clear above about context. I was only making points that I think can help in discussing debate with people who don’t believe that life begins at birth. I wasn’t espousing my own views at all. And that debate does take place on an abstract level, though specific, non-abstract arguments are definitely powerful tools.
I think you were reading my arguments as my beliefs. That’s not the case. I’ve stated before on this site that the right of a woman to have an abortion is essential to an equal society. I don’t think there should be any legal restrictions on when a woman should / should not be able to have an abortion.
I do subscribe to the school of “don’t like abortion? don’t have one.” And I do know women who have had abortions, and I can honestly say that I think of them no differently than I would a woman who hasn’t had an abortion. I don’t think abortion is immoral at all, and even if I did, it isn’t my place to judge. Especially since I’m a dude and dudes don’t have abortions and can’t understand what a woman goes through.
I will never, ever, ever argue that abortion should be criminalized, and in fact will fight til my dying day to keep it legal and easily accessible.
I don’t know how to state it any more plainly than that.
All I wanted to do in this thread is to heighten awareness as to why we lose some of the crowd who have trouble reconciling the notion that it is right for the government to legislate in a way that is inconsistent with what they believe.
no its fine. i’m really not speaking directly to “you” either. but to your metaphorical friends.
No, I’m not. They can advocate that people not have abortions. They can try and prevent unwanted pregnancies by promoting abstinence or safe sex. They can promote adoption. No one’s saying they can’t do any of these things.
But, at the end of the day, they cannot ban abortions, and they cannot raise the bar for getting one above “I want an abortion”. Why?
It’s simple. Laws are based on both consensus and inalienable rights of human beings. Humans have an inalienable right to control their bodies. (If they don’t, you’ve got a fascist society, so please don’t even try to debate this point) Now, everyone can accept that, after a baby is born, it is a human being. It does all the things that humans do. No questions there. But what about before it’s born? At what point does it stop being a collection of cells and start being a person?
The answer is that it doesn’t, legally. Legally, it becomes a person when it’s born. This is a natural dividing line. Anything before that is more or less arbitrary and, thus, unjustifiable. This means that the only person qualified to determine whether or not a foetus is enough of a person that it shouldn’t be aborted is the woman carrying it. Because she’s the one that, one way or another, has to deal with the consequences of her choice.
To some degree, any law is forcing something down someone’s throat. Laws against murder are. Laws against theft are. The question is whether or not it can be justified, independent of any “This shall be so” dictates from the deity of the week.
in a character in a story I’m working on — a Healer, working in a woman’s clinic. She sits with the women facing the decision to terminate a pregnancy, whether through their choice or because of medical necessity, and eases their souls and the souls of the unborn; while she recognizes the value of the individual soul, she knows that many people are physically or emotionally incapable of accepting the care and responsibility of the young soul and thus it’s best to let it return to where it came from to await a receptive and ready caretaker.
I’m still fleshing out the story, else I’d post an excerpt…
I would definitely be interested in reading some of your story. Let me know where I can, when it’s ready (please!) 🙂
Good morning, Folks. I rated each of you with a 4 because I think open and honest debate is needed to establish rhetoric that has common sense to begin with. The fact that you folks can discuss this in the open and give substantial reasons for your side and reason, is probably more than the real other side can do.
I feel they have lost the real objectivity on this whole issue. I for one would not have had an abortion unless I was raped or it ment my life or something like incest. But I do not judge, for the better word, others for their actions in this action.
I find it hard to believe that as adults and open minds that society can not sit down and discuss this and get along without criminalizing every aspect of this matter. What a shame for the toerh side to have been so stern that they simply can not and will not let other opinions enter the discussion. That laws have to be set down to make this a crime.
Frankly I do not want to see the back alleys and bedroom antics come back to give abortions to any woman. This is very unsafe and this is a crime.
My question is why can we not get our opinions together and work for the betterment of society from both sides? Why does the Christian Right feel that their view is the ONLY view to be had? This disturbes me greatly.
Anyhow, you all have made this a very interesting discussion. Thank you all.