Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,123 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

Imperatrix

 

Blog Traffic: 9739

Posts: 41

My Comments: 4801

User Comments: 2438

Photos: 22

Friends: 55

Following: 49

Followers: 18

Points: 5057

Last Online: 5 hours ago


 
 

Visitors

FedUpToHere gingerdoxie Shaunepawn AmalaTsering maggiesnextphase wesleyonrot ButteroseSherry 1derlander LouieLouie anamaria7754 jjohnson1957 LiaStorm55 OpinionNateTed
 

When Is It Moral to Abort? (an invitation to all points of view)

Added: Thursday, May 16th 2019 at 5:53am by Imperatrix
Category: About Me > About Me > Emotions
 
 
 

Good grief I hate this topic, but here goes anyway.  Pro-choicers, this one's for you, but anyone can chime in, of course.  Feel free to argue with each other if you feel it necessary, I would ask that folks keep it civil, attacking the viewpoint as opposed to the person expressing it.  I'd also appreciate it if Bible quoting was refrained from (or any other sacred text, for that matter) because we do not all practice the same religion and many practice no religion at all.  If you object to abortion on religious grounds, feel free to share that, but spare us your preaching as we've heard it all before.

Briefly, ever so briefly, here is my history with the topic of abortion.  I became pregnant for the first time very young, I was only thirteen, had the deed done the day before my 14th birthday.  I was not given a choice.   Later on, when I was barely 19, I became pregnant a second time.  I chose to abort this pregnancy, and my mother paid for it, accompanying me to the clinic.  At 25, and married, I experienced my third pregnancy, lost to a miscarriage almost 6 months in.  I wanted that baby, but was not to have it.

In fact, I was never, ever, to have children.  I feel robbed of my immortality.  Of course, that wasn't a concern of mine at 19, never even thought of it that way at that tender age. But it was that abortion, and the one before it, which had rendered my uterus so scarred that I'd never be able to carry to term.  They were correct.

How this news began to eat at me mentally and emotionally cannot be described, though I've tried many times.  And my personal story is not particularly related in any specific way to this post, I just wanted to let my readers know that I speak from experience and many other women who regret ever having had an abortion have done the same.  Their heartbreaking stories abound on the internet.

Since the age of 25, after miscarrying the baby I finally felt 'ready' for, I have become Pro-life. (gently pro-life, not militantly)  I lean this way not out of any religious belief, but from the desire to spare other women from the grief I've dealt with for a lifetime now.  It never goes away.  The act cannot be undone.

And, to avoid the endless probing of my own mind, trying to crystallize a truth that even scientists cannot entirely agree upon, I have come to the belief that life begins at conception.  I got there by listening to my heart instead of my head.

So, without re-living (again) the pain all this has caused me, let's get on to the real red meat of this post, because my heart ain't on that menu today.

Recently, my home helper, 'N', who is preggers, flippantly informed me that the child she is now carrying would have been aborted if the ultrasound had revealed a female child, I've been disturbed by the thought.  I asked her why she felt that way, and again found the reply selfish and flippant.  She said, and I quote, "I already have a girl and if I am going to go through this again I'm at least going to get what I want.  And I want a boy."

~shudders~

I'd like to know how other pro-choicers feel about that as a reason.  I'd also be interested to hear what sorts of other scenarios under which they'd find it justifyable.

Is it ok to abort because you can't afford a child, or another child?  How about if the child is revealed to have a birth defect?  Is it ok to abort if you've been cheating on your husband and do not know who the father is?  Or if it's not the gender you desire?  If we're going to be ok with aborting for gender, why not hair color or skin tone?

What if the parents are fit, healthy, and can easily afford the rearing of that child but a divorce is in progress and the woman aborts just to punish her soon-to-be ex?

Two possible arguments that I'm tired of seeing are "Women should have a right to do what they want with their bodies " and "Pro-lifers want to force women to have unwanted children but then want to cut welfare programs and such designed to help women with young children! "

re: Argument #1: No, we do NOT have the right to do what we want with our own bodies, no one does, neither male nor female.  Ask anyone sitting in prison on a drug charge how free they are to do what they want with their bodies.  Or try selling a kidney on ebay, see how that sort of freedom works out for ya.  Hell-o, go for a ride in your car without a seatbelt on...you'll get a nice fat ticket for that sort of freedom.

re: Argument #2: There are Pro-lifers from all walks of life so this is just meanspirited stereotyping.  Many Pro-life organizations will help a woman all the way through pregnancy and delivery and, if the child is to be placed for adoption, will help with that process too.  So if that's your argument, spare me that as well because it's political and I feel this issue transcends politics.

I want to know on what moral grounds Pro-choicers base their decision.  Not religious, but moral.  I hear so many say that they themselves personally think it's wrong, and would not have an abortion themselves, but that they think that decision should be left up to the potential mother-to-be, entirely ignoring any wishes of the father as if pregancy happens by immaculate conception.

Besides, if you believe it's wrong, then it's wrong...right?  And if it's wrong why in the world would you vociferously express the view that women who are under the duress of an unwanted pregnancy should be entirely free to make such a life-changing, (and life-ending) mistake?

By doing so you may as well say abortion is a right and proper way to handle any and all unwanted pregnancies.

I say it's far easier to avoid those sorts of pregnancies in the first place and never, ever have to worry about being faced with having to make that 'choice' in the first place.  Odd how most mothers would literally die before allowing the hands of a stranger to harm their offspring, but willingly do just that while that offspring remains in the womb.

And in case you're curious as to what MY reasoning was behind the abortion I had at 19?  Sadly, no good reason existed.  I was busy partying and screwing around on the man I lived with at the time, and just couldn't be bothered with carrying it to term. 

And...that's what I'd already been taught to do.

My parent's reasoning for the one they made me have at 13?  "You were just so young ."

:(

So, dear Blogsters, do share your thoughts regardless of where you stand on the issue.

Anon comments are open if you want to sign out to speak...I'll understand.

But please, please, please, DO try to be kind to each other.  I am after understanding , not necessarily agreement, though a few 'attagirls' are always a soothing sight.


 

User Comments

{#bag-on-head.gif}

Personally, I think abortion should be avoided as much as possible, there are plenty of ways of preventing pregnancy. I think if you are old enough to have sex, you should be responsible enough to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. In those rare cases that birth control methods fail, then it should be up to the woman to choose, it ain't nobody elses fucking business. In cases of incest and rape, there shouldn't be any reason that the woman should be able to have an abortion... just my opinion!

Did you mean in your last statement that apart from rape and incest there shouldn't be any need for a woman to have an abortion? What about health issues?

actually I left a word out, it should have read: In cases of incest and rape, there shouldn't be any reason that the woman should NOT be able to have an abortion... just my opinion!

What a difference a word makes. Lol

@skip, who said..."I think if you are old enough to have sex, you should be responsible enough to prevent an unwanted pregnancy..."

I'd agree but when it comes to the very young who think...no, who believe in their heart of hearts that nothing 'bad' is ever going to happen to them , this expectation is sadly unrealistic.

For example, auto insurance is sky high for young men under the age of 25, and super expensive for males still in their teens.  We could say that anyone old enough to drive a car should be responsible enough to do so safely, but youngsters really do believe they are invulnerable so they tend to drive recklessly and the stats bear that out.   So do the graveyards.

At 13 I certainly knew that intercourse could result in pregnancy I just didn't believe it would happen to ME, understand? 

I know you're an old fart, haha, but don't ya remember being invulnerable?  I do!  So I ask a separate question...at what age does a young woman get to decide for herself what to do when faced with an unplanned pregnancy?

I won't use the term 'unwanted' in this scenario because I did not want to have an abortion at that time, I wanted to have a baby instead.  But at not-quite-fourteen, what sort of wisdom, or lack thereof, guided that want?

Of course my folks would have had to either help me raise it or force me to give it up for adoption, so they should have had some say in the matter, but I am not convinced they had a moral right to make the final decision, especially when that decision disregarded what I wanted to do.

How do you feel about forcing abortion on minors?

Ya just had to go there didn't you. I was 16 when I was raped and turned up pregnant. I could have had an abortion but my thought was why punish a baby for the sins of the father. I had that baby and I kept him. I had the help of my whole family. No birth control method worked with me except condoms and husbands hate those. After the 4th I decided that was enough and went the route of tubes tied. That worked.

I agree with skip on this, rape, incest, life of mother but not for any other reason.

Sorry to hear you had to go through that, kats, especially so young, but I agree with your reasoning in regards to why you chose to carry the baby to term.

If we can agree that life begins at conception then even rape or incest should not stand as a moral reason to abort; the new life created is innocent.

I realize many people argue the point at which life begins, some say it's not until the baby can survive outside the womb, and others, like myself, believe it begins once all the required bits have come together and begun to replicate.  Others still argue various points in-between, which is why even with our current legal permissions for abortion being very generous, most outlaw it after the pregnancy has reached a certain point.

For me, it's simple to just say it begins at conception because to say otherwise just leads to endless questioning.  Is it when the heart begins to beat?  When the brain stem forms?  When the nerve endings and such are formed fully enough to experience pain?

Nah, these questions, as Obama once famously said, are "Above my paygrade."

Thanks for stopping by, and for the thoughtful comment.

With regard to your argument #1 I don't agree with the way you framed that... while I don't think you're wrong in what you're saying, I don't think most people who say "I own my body" would dispute that. I do ABSOLUTELY own my own body, but there are laws, and there are conditions that make it appear otherwise. I get that, but most who make that argument aren't talking about those things. I'm not when I say it. If I use my hands to kill someone and end up in prison then that changes things. But a government telling me what I can and cannot put in my body is where I insist rightfully that I do OWN my body because they have no authority there.

On the issue of abortion. I was always pro-choice based on a liberty perspective but I changed to pro-life when I became more educated on the issue. I'm like most people I know. Pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest... but absolutely NO tolerance for forcing a decision on a woman ever. Which is why despite my personal feelings being pro-life, I think pro-choice is the future because it really should come down the woman and her creator (if there is one). Force will never work and pro choice may be ugly and awful, but I don't see how coercion could ever be acceptable.

It's a tough issue. One I like to avoid most days.

@ Scott--I agree on principal that we do indeed own our bodies, and do exactly as we choose with them, laws notwithstanding.  The line, both legally and morally, is drawn when our actions affect the body of another, which brings us back to that troubling question--when does life begin?

I also have a hard time wrapping my head around this...

"Pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest... but absolutely NO tolerance for forcing a decision on a woman ever"

Some folks consider that a sexist stance, because men ARE required to contribute 50% of the genetic material required to create a brand new human, so why does a potential father get zero say in the matter?  Yes, the woman has to incubate that material, but the condition is temporary and in westernized nations, generally considered safe.  (Of course there are exceptions, there are always exceptions, as exceptions prove the rule itself.)

In regards to forcing decisions, the woman holds every single card in the deck once she becomes pregnant.  She can abort against the father's wishes and she can bear the child against his wishes too and demand 18 years of financial support.  Either choice can be absolutely devastating if the child's father is not in agreement.

I'm keen to hear your thoughts on the matter in regards to the utter disregardment of the male's wishes in this matter, especially when the full force of the State can be brought to bear upon him when it comes to financial responsibility.

When life begins is not something I'm qualified to speak about. If people wanna say at conception, I'm not gonna argue it.

I've been all in on the Non Aggression Principle for a long time. That's why I take that stance... but I'm not gonna tell you that I'd be OK with the woman holding all of the cards. I get what you're saying and I 100% think disregarding the male's wishes is wrong. It's a great point...  one I discussed at great length with Becky on here a long time ago.

Let me just say this without trying to sound like I'm having it both ways. I do think there is a role for the state with regard to male's rights here. I don't know what the solution is but I'd say if there was a framework of laws in place where the father has stated he DOES want the baby...  then I would support some action to see that baby end up where it's wanted, rather than aborted.

I don't know what I'd support. I just imagine such horrible things in forcing a women to have the child for any reason. I think what you're getting at is part of the solution though. The right's of the other half need to be protected to such a degree that it serves as a deterrent to the woman who ends up pregnant and wishes to abort. If she knows there are consequences where she could lose her freedom by denying the rights of the father by her own choices, then perhaps that's exactly what is needed? Does that make any sense? Would it be a good place to start?

I know men who've dealt with both scenarios you mention and it's never ever right. Like I said, very tough issue.

I can say for sure that if the man doesn't want it and the woman doesn't either, that I support no coercion by the state to see that child come to term, no matter how much I'd rather it did. There's just something very sick about that in my mind. I'd rather it be between the woman and her creator than her and the state. The state doesn't give a fuck about life... this shit going on right now is one big fake virtue signal imo.

Was talking with Yvonne about this. She says contracts between the consenting parties... and laws to make clear what each person's right are if they don't create one. With the contract it's closer to black and white, and laws to make clear what the consequences are without a contract. We talked about this at great length and I get what she means because we knew a man who poked a hole in a condom which led to a big mess for both of them.

She made me rethink what I just said to you and I said see..  that's why I don't like to discuss this lol

Could one of the biggest problem with abortion is that it is turning out to be a money making business? The abortion centers make money and the states are being robbed of potential workers. Everything in life needs moderation. My wife had her first son at age 13 and she loves him dearly because they stuck it out. I remember as a youngster when times were difficult, I sometimes had wished that I was aborted. I no longer feel that way. 

If there were no abortions and babies that flooding the country, someone will find a way to kill some of them especially if those babies are not from the dominant race. They may even try to sterilize the females of that race. It has happened. Follow the dollars on the abortion issue is the only advise I can give myself. 

It's hard to reply to that, writer2, because I am not familiar with the cultural references required to do so intelligently.  I'll do my best using the only real cultural references I have, as an American.

You might be surprised to learn that black women in America are not overrepresented in abortion statistics.  Nor are unmarried women.  It's been a while since I researched the stats, but when I did so a few years ago it was quite surprising to learn that educated, married, WHITE women who already have children at home were the most overrepresented group when numbers are adjusted on a per capita basis.

And there is not a huge profit to be made on the procedure, either.  Actually it's rather simple and can done quickly in a clinic setting with the woman going home almost immediately afterwards.

In America it's become so unpopular in recent decades there are not many dollars to follow other than those who are granted by our Federal Government to Planned Parenthood.  I understand that they provide many health related services to uninsured women, such as cancer screenings, in addition to providing free or low-cost birth control to anyone who wants it.

However, I do wish they'd stop offering to arrange or provide abortions, simply because at least half the population is solidly against the procedure.  And until they take abortion off their menu of services I'd happily see them defunded.

On the issue of sterilization, I was referring to Israel, something that not many have spoken about in the media. I agree with you on your stance with Planned Parenthood unless abortion is because the mother is at risk, or she was raped or it was incest. On the stats you found, I find it interesting. I thought it would have shown Blacks as the target of abortion, but that's an eye opener you found.

We are pro-life, as most here on Blogster already know! Does a woman have a right to her own body? Certainly! All humans do. We can even destroy our bodies if we wish! However the body that pregnant women bear is a different thing. It is another body. Many laws , if a pregnant woman is murdered, call for 2 charges of murder!

 But let's talk on another line about this; the law. The 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from authority on health! Therefore it is a state problem with the Supreme, or any federal court, forbidden from judging on abortion. The judiciary is part of the federal government.

Many states are now passing laws hindering, or forbidding, abortion. The people are speaking.

Hi, us2!

Like your reasoning about the dependent human in the mother's womb! Although, I'd like to hold with the 10th Amendment, the Courts - via the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and substantive-due-process - have reduced the Bill-of-Rights to a Bill-of-Privileges; the Courts have gotten away the this arrogation of power because Congress hasn't restricted the Court's jurisdiction. If one has a Republican House - such as Gingrich possessed in 1994 - one could easily a the majority of House members acting to rein in the Federal Courts; but neither Trent Lott in 1994, not Mitch McConnell in 2019, could cudgel 50 members (VP Pence - we opine- would willingly break the tie, if such were needed) of the Senate to restrict the Federal Courts. As it is, the only way to bring the Courts to Constitutional ground is via a Senate which depends upon their State Legislatures allowing them to represent their respective State's interests; which is only one of the benefits which would be realized by repeal of the 17th Amendment....

Cordially, tjd

Thanks,TJ, Another fix I would like to see would be a state-sponsored Constitutional convention!

I agree, nomads, our laws currently allow folks to have it both ways; it's perfectly legal to deliberately kill a baby in the womb as long as mommy is ok with it, but if she's injured or killed in some sort of accident or crime, the culprit is doubly charged if the baby in her womb is also damaged or killed.

What a cockamamie set of laws we have!

I'm all for state's rights, and yes, the people are speaking.

Hi, Imperatrix!

Morticia (Carolyn Jones) was a babe!

Regarding abortion: Abortion may be made legal - as it has been - but it can never be made moral! Abortion goes to the very ground/root of morality, unless one chooses to deny existence is intelligently ordered by God; if such is the case, then one - as a nihilist, consciously or otherwise - equate power with morality (Note: the nihilist is fraught with all kinds of contradictions, but he/she cannot - as a nihilist, and - as logical consequence necessarily an egoist - be concerned with logical, or rational coherence; such concepts, and views are mere perturbations for the übermenschen's)... Those which argue 'morality' post-denying objective morality e.g., natural law (teleological) and/or Kantian morality (deontological) opt for as Kant indicates 'pragmatic rules' as is the wont of the practical nihilist... So if one stipulate that humans are differ from cows by degree, rather than kind (and note the stipulation is inherently contradictory...), then one may imperiously/dictatorially claim abortion is 'moral,' but then moral means what ever accords with the egoist's sentimental hubris...

jjohnson1957 is right up to the point he intimates a woman has a moral right to abort a baby (jj is okay as long as he stipulates her right is legal and only a legal right); society has an interest is what is held to be moral and immoral, since such conceptions - irrespective of whether we, as a society, acknowledge such, or otherwise - influence our conception of law, and its limitations... A society which allows the systematic extermination (murder, by definition), of the most vulnerable among us, has descended into organized barbarism, and - it goes-without-saying - has repudiated the inalienable - right-to-life; this reduces the Law to human whim (today the understanding of law may favor an individuals interest, but the social-political winds may shift, and the same individual will come to be disenfranchised...).

If the legality of abortion is overturned then, that is the end of that grisly satanic procedure...); abortion can never be made to accord the moral law (if a woman has cancer of the cervix  or some other life threatening malady, and if in treating the malady the baby is lost, then such is an unintended consequence of attempting to save the mother's life; such is not abortion...)! But, if an individual - or group of individual's - choose to argue abortion as a moral good/right, they must delineate their moral code/conception of what constitutes moral, and provide a principled defense of such a code. Such a delineation, and such a defense is not at all possible; such a moral code ineluctably will be inherently contradictory, and such is the reason why - since 1973 - the argument for abortion has never taken place on the moral ground - even by so-called 'moral-philosophers.' Abortion, simply cannot be defended on a moral ground!

Cordially, tjd

 

 

 What is your views on men having a vasectomy? I had one at age 42. 

Can we please stay on topic?  Why not write your own blog about the subject of vasectomy ? Many of us are interested in the topic of abortion would like this page to stay on topic . Thank you.

Good idea. I'll write a blog on it. Thanks for the tip.

You're welcome, and thank you for not taking offense, and for understanding.  

Hi, writer!

Well, if you rendered yourself sterile, such an action cannot be reconciled with Kant's Categorical Imperative (The chief duty of rational agents is perpetualization of rational agents), nor would it accord with the natural law (the formal cause of a reproductive organ points towards its final-cause i.e., 'perfection' i.e., goal/end raison-d'être - or reason-for-being); so - by each moral system the 'tubes-being-tied' - is immoral, but in rendering yourself incapable of reproduction you are not murdering anyone! If women have their eggs removed, they too perform an act which is immoral, but such an act is not murdering anyone in the process...

My own view - regarding you, or anyone else which may choose to have a vasectomy; is that such an action is your choice (moral actors must be allowed the liberty to act contrary to the moral law; unless such actions harm others)! I'm something of a libertarian when it comes what individuals choose to do - as long as their choices harm no human being, and as long as they do not attempt to codify into law behaviors which are inherently morally lawless e.g., abortion and sodomy.  

Regarding what I expressed above regarding abortion is a view that I fully embrace, but it is not my view; it is the Perennial view of Western Culture as per the natural law (although the Catholic Church - and more Christian Churches embrace the natural law; the natural Law antedates these Christian Churches by at least 400 years; Aristotle formalizes the natural law in the Nicomachean Ethics; the Church adopts the natural law and Saint Thomas Aquinas - and others - grounds the law, making it consonant with Christ's teaching and drawing what inferences may be circumscribed...), so although I embrace the natural Law and Categorical Imperative (Note: the Categorical Imperative is a weaker argument than the natural law, but it easier to explain; the natural law should be easier to explain, but - in delineating the natural law - one must usually overcome an ingrained cultural prejudice ignorance vis-à-vis the natural law and God...), those are not my arguments; the former is rationality's (Aristotle formalizes what was intuited by many of his antecedent's including Socrates, Plato, but others as well; it is "rationality's", because such is but one of the manifest aspects of existence which is unveiled by the discursive use of dispassionate reason reflecting upon Man and His place in objective reality) and the latter is Immanuel Kant's...

Cordially, tjd

Did you not see the request made to writertwo about sticking to the topic of this blog? 

Thanks for your response tjd. I am amazed by the interlectual high standards you put in your response. It comes with lot's of research on the topic. Question, Will there be a moral issue for Catholic priests who are not allowed to engage in sex?

Well if you and TJ Donegan insist on taking over this blog I definitely will not be contributing.  This is a problem with this site, some people do not know how to stay on topic and think it's ok to hijack other people's blogs to their liking.  Disrespectful, in my opinion. So, take it way, you two!

 

If Imperatrix has a problem with it, I'm sure she will let us know. She is more than capable of speaking for herself. She is one of our best bloggers.

Wow what happened to the blog that you were going to write on the subject of your vasectomy?  Would it be because Imperatrix attracts more readers than you?  You are arrogant , and truth be told, a fraud, as well.  

OK. You are getting personal and showing disrespect so I would no longer respond to your comment. Thanks for the tip though.

Disrespect begets disrespect. If you do not think it's disrespectful to hijack a blog (that was written to discuss abortion) for the purpose of discussing your vasectomy, then you need to rethink the meaning of disrespect. 

Oh, incidentally, many of us here know Imperatrix a hell of a lot longer than you, so you do not need to tell us that "she is one of our best bloggers." We already know that, which is why we are here on her blog  and not yours.  

Hi, Writer!

Although discussing Catholic priests/clergy is not allowed by 'anonymous,' I'm not sure if I understand your question? But - thinking that you are asking: "What will/should happen to clergy caught abusing children?" we will answer - in deference to 'anonymous' - on my blog...

Cordially, tjd

Hi, Anonymous!

I was writing that - likely - as you wrote that...? I didn't see your request until I had already made that post... Sorry!

Cordially, tjd

Thanks tdj. 

tjdonegan, I never said anything about not allowing Catholic priests/clergy discussions, so your little "dig" is not appreciated.  I, for one, came to this blog specifically because I am interested in learning more about how people feel regarding "When is it moral to abort?"  

 

Anon...I have stopped by to read here and there as I went about my day (took my mother to get her hair permed) and will be responding to comments later or tomorrow, maybe even over the weekend, as time allows.

But if you've read my blogs before you know I do not mind the tangents some of these conversations take.  Actually, some of the best comments can be found among these tangents and they do not prevent anyone who wishes to comment on the initial topic from doing so.

Please do not moderate my blog, lol, I just asked folks to be civil if possible because I wanted conversation to take place as opposed to a bunch of name-calling nonsense.  I haven't read every comment yet, but so far, so good.

Now...I'm off to take a bit of a nap.

Keep calm and carry on!  (all of you)  Anon, feel free to share your story, the side chatter...if it doesn't apply to you...so pay it no mind, please.

{#basic-cool.gif}

Imperatrix, it was not my intention to moderate your blog.  At the same time, for those of us who are interested in your question of " when is it moral to to ABORT," speaking for myself, and as a female, my interest in this very important topic is why I visited this blog.  I have no interest in reading about "Mr. all about me" and his vasectomy at 42 and the walls of text that would then follow between him and TJ Donegan.  Out of courtesy, if it were me , I would've started my own blog, so as not to sabotage someone else's.

It's all good, my friend.  Another time; another blog!  {#thumbs_up.gif}


@ tj, who said--

"...But, if an individual - or group of individual's - choose to argue abortion as a moral good/right, they must delineate their moral code/conception of what constitutes moral, and provide a principled defense of such a code. Such a delineation, and such a defense is not at all possible; such a moral code ineluctably will be inherently contradictory, and such is the reason why - since 1973 - the argument for abortion has never taken place on the moral ground - even by so-called 'moral-philosophers.'..."

And this, as Frank Zappa would have said, is the crux of the biscuit .  The only moral argument to be made as far as I've seen in all these years is more of an abdication of having to make a moral argument in the first place, not wanting to force their choice on another human being.

But we do that all the time, don't we?  Every time we vote, evict somebody from their home or fire them from their job, every time we kill or wound or maim, every time we put granny in a nursing home even though she doesn't want to go...many of life's decisions (and the enforcement of those decisions via deterrence or punishment) go directly against the wishes of other human beings.

So why is it different for abortion?

They say "I cannot personally justify it but I won't force another to justify it."

Well, I cannot personally justify beheading my neighbor (well, maybe I could, haha) and I will happily support the full power of the State to discourage me from doing it in the hopes that this support would also prevent my neighbor from beheading ME!  (And I assure you, he'd have no justification because I'm just a total sweetheart.)

And why do they call it beheading anyway?  Shouldn't it be DE-heading?  While I'm at it, what does it mean to be gruntled?  I see disgruntled people all the time...

{#basic-laugh.gif}

I am married to an old academic, btw, of the Political Philosophy persuasion, so forgive me if some of your commentary leaves my eyeballs glazed over after a few paragraphs, as my own personal philosophy is more than schizophrenic, it's afflicted with multiple personality disorder, depending on the day...and my mood.

After seventeen years of listening to his bloviating and pontificating and lecturing I'm all philosophied out.  I will forever remain a 'lover of knowledge' of course, but am firmly convinced that some things will forever remain unknowable to us puny humans and I'm perfectly fine with that.

{#basic-cool.gif}

I appreciate your efforts, Anon, because I understood the topic was of interest to you or you wouldn't be here.  Do come back, and often!

{#basic-laugh.gif}

I wasn't sure I wanted to chime in on this subject.   I think you can guess where I stand.   I agree with TJs opening statement... you can make it legal but you can never make it 'moral'.  At least not by my standard of morality.  And while it's perfectly understandable to me why some would choose it, (and I confess, I considered it myself at one point).  Those conditions don't make it a moral choice.

  I suspect many who take this option actually feel the same way... but do it anyway.  I've heard other women tell me "I knew it was wrong... but..."  

I also know women who bravely carried out pregnancies that many would have terminated.   We all live with the choices we make... one way or another. 

We die with them too, maggie.

Not to pry if you don't care to share, but what were the circumstances that caused you to consider an abortion yourself?

So many cite financial concerns, but money doesn't make people happy, it merely makes them comfortable.  Anyone who doubts this need only remember how many wealthy, powerful, or famous people take their own lives.

It will pm you. 

Thanks.

WE can all talk all day on this subject. It is a subject of disagreement on all sides. I'm sure that nobody will change anyone's feelings. I do applaud Imperiatrix's wish for civility and for everybody's compliance! Thank you, lady, for the post.

Thank you for your contributions here, nomads.

:)

Something to think about...

Skip...both of my abortions were done legally and still left me too scarred up to bear children.

 

a legal one is much safer, but nothing comes with a guarantee... I just think that this Alabama senate, made up of a bunch of "good ole boys" don't have the right to decide for any woman.

I am pro choice because despite my belief that abortion is wrong, I will not be a part of forcing my belief onto someone else since I do not walk in their shoes. The government can try to legislate morality all they want, but abortions existed long before they were made legal and since there was no data to account for the number of abortions performed except in cases where the abortionist was caught, I doubt the figures tell the true story of just how many actually occurred. 

Hi there, girly-friend...my counterargument to the 'forcing my belief' justification can be seen in my reply to tjdonegan, a few comments above.

We force our beliefs on others all the time and we use the State to do it, so why should this be any different in regards to abortion?

So, we again make abortion illegal and what happens to the child after it's born? Nobody cares about that, which is just as immoral as abortions, in my opinion.

Americans who want abortions made illegal do not adopt enough times to handle the number of children available for adoption currently in the foster care system. Currently there are upwards of 700,000 children available and only 150,000 americans actually adopt. OBTW, some of those children have been there for 16 years waiting.

Orphanages were closed because they were too expensive to operate and too many children were being abused. There must be something wrong with me because in my view, the right to life of a baby should also include the right to be cared for properly and maybe include something like love?

We want abortions to be illegal and at the same time fight against affordable birth control. Birth control, in some quarters is now considered to be an abortifacient so when will that become illegal?

Do you ever wonder if abortions became legal because the orphanages and unwed mother homes became too much of a burden on the taxpayers? What did they think would happen? Miraculously having sex was going to stop and people were going to become moral? These places existed to take care of the offspring of the existing morality. At least for those who didn't go the route of illegal abortions. 

What happens after the child is born is a whole 'nuther topic, but the bottom line is this: if there is no birth, there is no life, no chance at all for a better situation down the road.

I may do another post about the foster care system and my experiences with it, and my stepdaughter, who lived with my ex and me for a time after burning all her bridges in Maryland, in and out of group homes, foster homes, residential 'treatment' centers...etc.

I know some success stories exist, and god bless the foster parents who sincerly try to help, but if I were Empress of America, I'd outlaw fostering-for-pay and reinstitute orphanages with no expense spared.

Most troubled foster kids live out of plastic bags, carrying their belongings from home to home, deprived of roots and continuity and anything resembling real family.

In an orphanage setting, these kids could bond with each other, with their caregivers, with their community and school.  Foster parents who can afford to support children on their own wages could be considered, but if you can't afford a child the state should not be paying you to take one in.

Too many end up in foster-farms, where folks take in multiple rotating children and give back almost nothing in return for the stipend they are paid by the state.  Our foster-for-pay system also invites abusers and such to participate, especially with kids that have emotional issues and problems.  Whose gonna believe them if they tell, right?

Anyway, I get where you're coming from but it's another topic for another day.  I am getting way behind on my notifications but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your thoughtful reply.

The times, they are a changing...aren't they ever? 

Biotech has come a long way since the 70's and 80's and the pace of progress is fierce. 

It seems obvious that tools will become available and be applied wheather in the USA or elsewhere, that will remake reproductive possibilites and complicate choices.

That vears way off topic - perhaps I'll host a discussion, though it's too easy to get dystopic about the subject if ine does not include diety.

I'm inclined toward extreamly tight restictions on abortion, particularly once birth controls are advanced significantly in a post-scarcity society, though meanwhile I expect the young women of repriductive age will exercise their "right to push the Easy Button" by aborting little problems as they arise.

 

 

You just sent a small shiver down my spine, 1nder, with the words "little problem" because that's all my mother EVER referred to my first baby as...not a baby, not an embryo, not a human being at all or even a clump of cells...just a 'little problem' to be eradicated.

And imagining dystopian futures are my favorite form of entertainment, so if you do host that discussion, I'll be there, adding my own deliciously dark thoughts.

This has to be one of the best posts, that I've read for a long time, because it's something that effects us all "well most of us" at some time in our life.

When I was raped by my step-father, as a school girl, {only once, because I went to the police} if I had become pregnant, to be truthful I really don't know if I would have aborted or not, {I hated him with a violent passion, so I could have} but I was lucky, I wasn't pregnant, but married very young to get away from him.

My beautiful daughter, "Amanda"*Mandy* un-be-known to me, fell pregnant, and had an abortion when she was 18, I found out, a few weeks later, when she arrived home bombed out of her head, and asked if she could move back home, Lin said NO, and that is when she spluttered out that she had killed our first {and as it turned out only} grandkid,{wrong wording} would I have let her have an abortion, NO, I would have quite work, and looked after the baby."BUT", words are cheep.

After having lost both of my children, Shaughan purely by accident, and Mandy by her own hand, do I believe in abortion, I have to say NO, except maybe in a case of rape, I really don't know.

Awww, Sandra, what pain you've been through as a mother...so sad, so sad!

Sadly my own parents are sort of going through a similar scenario in their old age.  My older brother did marry and have two children, but he died in 2001 and his daughter died last spring.  My brother's son has all but disowned our side of the family since his father's death and is only seen at Christmas when he comes for the money he knows gramma (my mom) will hand him.  He has never married and if he's fathered any children we are unaware of them.

When my brother's daughter died last year, she left behind a 5 year old son, my parent's first great-grandchild.  That child is bi-racial, and is almost never brought out to see them due to their opinions on race-mixing, opinions I am sure they now wish they had NEVER tried to inculcate their grandkids with.

Those words can never be taken back, and while I can honestly say they love their great-grandchild, the only one they're ever likely to have, their attitudes have not changed.

Question that you don't have to answer if you don't want to...how would you have reacted if Mandy had told you her pregnancy had been caused by a man of another race?

Well now, that is a question and a half, to be honest I don't really know, I think I would have been very upset, I don't care what color a person is, but having said that, I have never believed in mixed marriages, nor mixed children, I shouldn't be saying this, but it is the truth, so I would not have been happy if Mandy had had a mixed baby.

You should always say what's on your mind, Sandra, even if it's not in keeping with more recent 'trends.'  Odd that these trends almost exclusively exist in western nations, isn't it?  Almost everywhere else in the world the mixing of races is not viewed as something desireable, but for us white folks, we're supposed to consider it precious or special in some way.

My parents came from a different time, a time when these things were just not done, not by otherwise 'respectable' people.  And it was not because they hated the other, not at all, they just came from, and remained in, different cultural spheres.

As my daddy, who was born in a coal camp, used to say, "Every man coming out of the mine is the same color."  Hahah.  And they played together outdoors as children, but were separated everywhere else.

Another topic for another day, we'll see how some other difficult topics I (may) introduce around here go first.  I'm pleased (so far) at how well the participants in this post have managed to express themselves without being hateful, but not many pro-choicers have weighed in, though I know we have quite a few here!

THIS is how Blogster USED to be.  Civil, if occasionally heated. 

{#basic-cool.gif}

You write so well, and this subject, the mixed race is something I cant' seem to get my head around, and really I don't agree with it at all. Once again great post.

I'm agin it.  I think we had this discussion a few years ago and I am pretty sure it was your post that got it going.  Back then I did a little research to insure I wasn't blowing smoke with my response.  I won't go back to redo the research, the key element I remember clearly:  taking crime and abortion out of the stats, about 80% of pregnancies result in the birth of a human baby.  The rest end with stillbirth, miscarriage, or accidental abruption.  What they never result in is the birth of a kitten, a pony, or a new TV.  So.  Left alone, embryos are people.  Killing people is morally and legally wrong.  What does it take to make a wrong right?  My opinion may cause some vitriol to spew...but...I do NOT believe rape or incest or defect or convenience are reasons to abort.  The health of the mother is a debatable and should be determined by competent medical personnel.  I also do NOT believe the federal government has any place in that decision, or any other medical decisions.  See?  Doesn't take three long paragraphs.

Brevity is the soul of wit!

I too do not feel abortion should be justified if the pregnancy results from rape or incest, as obviously I feel the child is innocent and should not be killed because it was created involuntarily.

But another reason is this: If we have laws which ONLY permit abortion in cases of rape or incest, how many innocent men will stand accused of these crimes by women simply wanting an abortion?

And it's certainly heinous when chosen for gender or whatever...because as technology advances we can now select for all manner of desired results, from hair color to height.  Sad, sad, sad.

Thanks for the pithy comment, ol' bean!

This one is a tough one for me & I don't really have a solid answer for myself on exactly how I feel. Only because there are so many circumstance & reasons to or not to behind each pregnancy. Therefore it is hard for me to judge at all what would be right or wrong. Honestly it becomes so complicated in my head that I can't choose a side period. I have no idea what I would do if I was in some of these women's places...I can say I would know (which is have the baby-I've always thought that for myself)....but do I really know...I don't think anyone does until they are in that situation. You can have an idea, and a belief, but I've seen people change their minds many times when they are the ones in it. 
Mostly for me it's more of the trauma/abuse/rape etc... situations that give me the struggle. Just saying you don't want a kid because it's a boy-that I don't agree with. So I have some opinions but each opinion is circumstance and reason based. So I can't just throw all in a lump. 

Post A Comment