On a personal level do you support or oppose abortions and a womans right to choose?

Well said, I started to comment but realized you said it all.

But what about the woman who has an abortion at 16 and then she marries the man of her dreams. She gets pregnant at 24 and when she goes for her first ultrasound--it hits her. She realizes what she had done at 16 was taking a baby's life for no other reason than her own selfish convenience. Had that happen to a friend of mine. She was an emotional mess for most of that pregnancy--wracked with guilt. It took her almost 2 years to forgive herself. Now she works at a crisis pregnancy center--counseling teen girls who were in her situation. I took in 3 of the girls she counseled and they had lovely babies and graduated from high school. Two are married now and the third when on to college and runs an assisted living facility in Arizona. Her son is in the military and served in Iraq.

Then thats her

She made a choice, and later she regreted it, thats her

the key is, she made a choice for herself

now let the next woman decide for herself

She realizes what she had done at 16 was taking a baby's life for no other reason than her own selfish convenience. Had that happen to a friend of mine. She was an emotional mess for most of that pregnancy--wracked with guilt. It took her almost 2 years to forgive herself.

It's too bad she wasn't educated regarding the growth of a fertilized egg to baby stage so that she'd realize an early term abortion was not "taking a baby's life". Just because she may have made a bad decision for herself doesn't mean that women should be denied bodily autonomy.

I think comprehensive sex-ed and abstinence first education would go a long way in helping to reduce abortions. Also, I'm pretty sure God isn't going to send a woman to Hell for having an abortion. That is simply not Biblical.

"If there is a GOD and abortion is a sin, then there are and will be millions of women that chose to have and abortion that will be automatically consigned to Hell."

I'm glad to see that you have decided not just to speak for yourself Renard...but to speak for God Also..I don't think and I use the words "I don't think" God is that vindictive as to punish a 16 year old for having an abortion...and I am pro-life and Catholic.

renard

I truly believe that it is her decision and no one elses to either carry a baby , have a baby and keep a baby or give a baby up for adoption..

Well you picked a complicated issue. As I see it, we keep trying to force this into a binary - pro-life or pro-choice. I personally believe that abortion is a very personal decision that ultimately falls on the woman. But this is complicated by the fact that at some point the mass of cells nurtured by her body becomes her corporeal child - a viable entity that could survive outside of its mother.

I am not going to try to define the point where cells transform into child but I will offer this scenario I used months ago in another discussion on this topic. My youngest son was delivered by c-section - it was scheduled by the doctor based upon availability of staff and facilities. Thus my son's birth time was not divine in any sense of the word - it was a decision of medical personnel.

As soon as the doctor removed my son from its mother (even with the umbilical cord attached) she and I had a son. Now, was my son a viable entity with precious life 5 minutes before the procedure?

I think to truly contemplate the balance of a woman's choice and protecting the life of the unborn child we should start with a pointed scenario such as I have offered. Was the fetus at -5 minutes my son? Was it a precious life? Should we as a species protect this life similar to how we protect it at +5 minutes? Do we in fact have two lives to consider: the mother and the unborn child?

To me, my -5 minute son was no different than my +5 minute son. A medically unnecessary partial birth abortion at -5 minutes would have been murder (pro-life). So now move back to -5 months. If my wife was in medical danger by her pregnancy an abortion at that point in time would be removing a growth that was threatening her health (pro-choice).

Given these extremes, my position is that there is a point where a fetus is a viable entity. At that point (and beyond) it is a life that we as a species should protect. The mother should not be free to arbitrarily end this life unless it threatens her health. In short, at this point the mother is obliged to protect this life just as she (and others) are obliged to protect it after birth.

My -5 minute son's life was just as precious as my +5 minute son's life.

My -5 month son's life was far less precious than the health of my wife.

And Carolyn, your friend could have had the baby and given it up and felt that regret, or had the child and regretted it, disliked it for being there. She can't really say that either of those options would have been best for her.

"If there is a GOD and abortion is a sin, then there are and will be millions of women that chose to have and abortion that will be automatically consigned to Hell."

Not if they're Christian. Isn't Christian belief that Christ died for our sins, and if you accept Him, you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven regardless of what you have done? Isn't that what salvation is all about?

A medically unnecessary partial birth abortion at -5 minutes would have been murder (pro-life).

I agree. The law is quite clear on this issue as well. An abortion can not be performed past fetal viability (24 weeks) unless the mothers life is endanger or if the fetus is defective. About 1% of all abortions are performed past 21 weeks. They are rare for a reason.

I am, and will always be, pro-choice in all cases and all reasons.

I am, and will always be, pro-choice in all cases and all reasons.

I do believe many people are comfortable with a dogmatic position: 100% on one side or the other (life begins at conception ... life begins at birth). Some view this mostly in political/ideological or religious terms. That certainly helps to abstract away the nuances. Similarly, I understand those who simply assert that whatever the law stipulates is correct.

My post #1.7 was trying to encourage a philosophical discussion - one that ignores politics, religion, law, ideology, etc. to focus on the deeper question of what is right for our species. This - in concert with this article - is a personal question (not certain there is a 'right' answer) so the philosophical reasons supporting your opinion is really what matters.

Philosophically, we know (as much as we know anything) that life indeed exists after birth. So does it exist at -5 minutes? If so, does it exist at -5 weeks? If life exists at even -5 seconds, there is a point when a woman carries another life inside of her. Is this life as precious as that of the mother? If not then what is it about a scheduled c-section that makes this life precious?

Personally, I see abortion as a medical procedure. How and when it should be applied would depend upon the answer to the philosophical question of life. I believe this answer is complex and cannot be answered in simplistic terms as the pro-choice / pro-life camps would suggest.

Catholic Hospitals feel the exact same way you do, Renard. They do not perform abortions, as per their beliefs...but they have backed the President in his health care reform, to get people the health care they need. I think this says a lot, about reaching out to people, and putting health care before personal beliefs.

If they can reach a middle ground, you would think the rest of us could as well.

The law is quite clear on this issue as well. An abortion can not be performed past fetal viability (24 weeks) unless the mothers life is endanger or if the fetus is defective. About 1% of all abortions are performed past 21 weeks.

Thanks for pointing this out LanaD. I'm not sure why no one seems to know these facts. They seem to think women just get bored 7 or 8 months in and try to get the fetus aborted. Late term abortion was a fake issue used to try to get some form of abortion banned as a "foot-in-the-door" precedent. They make it sound awful and just leave out the part where the fetus is going to die anyway and probably take the mother with it. Most late term abortion fetuses were wanted by their parents and their loss is mourned. They weren't disposed of cavalierly by unfeeling harlots as the Anti-choice brigade would have everyone think.

kaviaq

In the chance that you are indirectly referring to my post (that LanaD was responding to) you are well off my point. It was LanaD who introduced law.

See my position is that there is a point of viability in which we have two precious lives: the mother and the child. This is not neat and tidy. Politically, pro-choice will not address this for the same reason pro-life holds onto the life begins at conception notion.

I want to ignore politics, law, ideology, religion and look at the philosophical question of what is right for our species regarding procreation. This is why I jumped to the -5 minute scenario. Not to engage in a discussion on partial birth abortion but to bring out what I believe to be a decent question. If a c-section scheduled at 10:00am produces a precious life, what was that entity at 9:55am? What is so special about the scheduled medical procedure that we allow it to deliniate precious life from something we can discard? (regardless of likelihood ... this is philosophical)

And if we see the 9:55am fetus and the 10:00am infant both as precious life then we have successfully entered the philosophical discussion and can start moving into say -5 weeks where viability seems to enter the picture. The questions are complex as we move from a pregnant woman (say 3 months) into a woman carrying viable (fully formed) life. We move from one life to two commingled lives. If the fetus is compromising the health of its mother and one must die for the other to live, it would seem logical to save the mother at the expense of the unborn. If however the mother chooses to no longer be pregnant after 7 months (unlikely or not) does the life of the viable fetus not matter? Is its life something that can be arbitrarily discarded? Is the mother's choice simply about her body at this point or is it a choice about her body AND her corporeal child. In short, it gets real complicated when we recognize commingled lives.

I do not believe it is possible to simply side with pro-choice or pro-life without disregarding important philosophical questions regarding procreation.

If however the mother chooses to no longer be pregnant after 7 months (unlikely or not) does the life of the viable fetus not matter?

As has been stated time and time again, "Late Term Abortions" are NOT done on a whim! They are NOT done because the woman woke up and said , I'm tired of being pregnant, I think I'll have a late term abortion".......

Late term abortions are very restricted and are performed when it is a life and death situation, either the mother's or the infants. This is a viable infant and no Dr ...would be stupid enough to just perform this sort of procedure for the Hell of it!

There is not side to take at this point......this procedure is performed when absolutely necessary ...

and any woman who is pro-choice, is going to tell you the same thing....early termination of pregnancy at the woman's discretion, and late term abortions when there is a life at stake...

Is the mother's choice simply about her body at this point or is it a choice about her body AND her corporeal child. In short, it gets real complicated when we recognize commingled lives.

At the point of viability.....abortions are restricted. There is no commingling of lives at this point, it is a life or death situation.

So this seems to make your question null and void.

Course, I'm sure Kaviaq will be able to explain it better than I....she handles these things very well, and doesn't hold back the truth.

~Sara

Sara

At the point of viability.....abortions are restricted. ... So this seems to make your question null and void.

It would if my question was about law. But, as I have said (without acknowledgement), my question has absolutely NOTHING to do with law. It also has nothing to do with ideology, religion or any other bias.

I was (and am about done with) carrying renard's concept of 'on a personal level' to its essence.

Here is a greatly oversimplified paraphrase:

Hypothetically speaking, and solely in terms of what is truly 'right' for our species, should each woman have singular control over the life of her unborn child (at any stage)?

I suspect from your posts that you would answer this question 'no'. I suspect that you believe that at the point of viability two precious lives are in play and that one life should not have absolute control over another's existence.

But this is simply my suspicion. I do not want to be presumptuous.

I have attempted to frame this as a philosophical question ... one that enables us to deeply consider what we truly - personally - believe regardless of what the law happens to say, what a politician yaps about or what a religion professes.

What is right? What are the conditions and circumstances (if any) that shift the balance of control that a mother has over the existence of her unborn?

At this point, these questions are simply rhetorical. I just thought I would make one last attempt to be clear about what I have been asking.

TiG,

I think the answer to your question has been right there all along, sorta of like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, finding her answer in her own backyard....

We have all said that late term abortions are only done in extreme circumstances....no woman would willingly have an abortion at that stage in the pregnancy...

We, I believe, have all said that the zygote, embryo , fetus, is a potential baby...and the point of viability is around the 26th week, when again, in an extreme emergency, that baby could be born, and make it on it's own. It would be better off of course if the pregnancy were to continue to 37-40 weeks, but if not, that child still has a chance....at life on it's own.

I do understand your question, but I dont know why you would ask such a thing. I'm not being argumentative, I'm truly curious...

Just to clarify my stance, I am pro-choice....that is NOT pro-abortion....I have never met anyone that is pro-abortion.

and your comment about not being able to side with either side until this type of question is answered, again I think that you know the answer to this as well. There are those that would make it seem that women use late term abortions(or as they have so smugly named it "partial birth" abortion) as just a way to terminate a pregnancy. This, as I believe you know, is not true. Late term abortions, as has been mentioned by all of us, are done in extreme situations, only.So there is a point of viability that we have all agreed to, and that is when the fetus is viable on its own...which is about the 26th week, I believe. I think that is likely pushing it, not sure anyone would want to deliver a baby this early...unless there was something terribly wrong, and they had no choice. So is this the "shift" you were searching for? Please clue me in, because I am still really curious as to the "why" behind your questions. Is it to see if we believe that women have the right to terminate at any time during the 9 months? And what point does this make?

Anyway, I hope I have answered your question. I have tried to, honestly.

~Sara

Sara

I think the answer to your question has been right there all along, sorta of like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, finding her answer in her own backyard....

I was not asking a question to get a specific answer. I was asking a question to encourage a deeper discusson on the topic of this article. In other words, it is not that I am lost looking for guidance. I have considered this problem myself - personally and philosophically. I do not seek a specific answer, but rather a discussion. I am curious about the depth to which others have considered the philosophical question independent of factors such as law.

and your comment about not being able to side with either side until this type of question is answered...

I never intended to give THAT impression. My view is that I would not side with either extreme. Both extremes are political in nature and force a serious and complex question into simplistic and rather dogmatic terms. Again, I am not confused looking for guidance. I am opinionated seeking thoughtful discussion on a complex issue. I am curious about what everyone else thinks about the topic ... not what side of the fence they are on.

We have all said that late term abortions are only done in extreme circumstances....no woman would willingly have an abortion at that stage in the pregnancy...

It may indeed be as you say - that everyone on this thread believes as you do. I stated upfront where I stood. My position is similar to yours (but likely not identical if we were to explore the nuances). But I have had discussions (including NV) regarding abortion and the critical question of life and I can state that 'all' self-proclaimed pro-choice people do NOT share your position on late term abortion (one aspect of this topic). In fact here is probably my best example of a thoughtful discussion of the general topic that remained civil in spite of some very extreme differences in perspectives.

Late term abortions, as has been mentioned by all of us, are done in extreme situations, only..

I did not seek a discussion of the highly political late term abortion notion. It just coincides (in terms of time frame) with the opening question - is it life at t-5 seconds or not?

Is it to see if we believe that women have the right to terminate at any time during the 9 months?

It is to see how close (or how different) our personal opinons (outside of distortive factors such as law, religion, etc.) are regarding the nature of life we attribute to the unborn and the relative control over that life we attribute to its mother. There is no simple answer and such a discussion would demand that we explain our positions (provide the 'why'). My objective was the discussion itself. I thought that this opinion article was a very good place to have such a discussion.

I hope I have satisfied your curiousity as to the discussion I was trying to encourage and why I was trying to encourage it.

I support a woman's right to choose, at any time, and for any reason. This is not my decision to make for any woman other than myself. I have faith in women and physicians to make the right decisions.

Lola

Note, this is not a challenge ... it is a question.

That said, do you believe that it is correct (philosophically only) that the mother have exclusive life or death control over her viable fetus?

That said, do you believe that it is correct (philosophically only) that the mother have exclusive life or death control over her viable fetus?

Yup.

Because that fetus is in that woman's body, using it to live.

Yes. However, I say, "I support a woman's right to choose, at any time, and for any reason", because I do not believe that women wake up in their 6th or 7th month of pregnancy and decide to terminate. I think it's silly that anyone believes that of women. I'm also a person that believes if you can't trust a woman with this type of decision why on earth would anyone trust her with a baby. I also don't believe there a physicians out there that would terminate a healthy pregnancy for any woman IF EVER a woman would request an abortion in her 6+ months of pregnancy. IF there is a physician that would because they're offered enough money, then certainly they'd do it for money regardless of the law.

I'm discussed with the people who freak out about the services that Dr. Tiller offered, and the legal BS he had to tolerate because of these stupid laws. The only people who suffer are the women that desperately need someone like Dr. Tiller to help them. God Bless his soul.

TJG

So existence dependency grants existence control? That which depends upon you for existence and is contained within an environment that you provide can rightly (philosophically) lose its existence at your discretion?

Do not answer those questions directly. The questions were posed to simply emphasize that your belief is probably based on more than dependence and containment.

That which depends upon you for existence and is contained within an environment that you provide can rightly (philosophically) lose its existence at your discretion?

If it is in my body and fully dependent on my body for life, then yes.

If it is a being, such as a cat or baby, that can maintain stasis outside of my body, then I can give it away and it lives.

But at this point, a fetus is fully dependent on a woman to live.

TJG

If it is a being, such as a cat or baby, that can maintain stasis outside of my body, then I can give it away and it lives.

You can give it away but you could also choose to ignore it and it will die. It exists only because of the environment you provide it and the actions you take. It is fully dependent and contained within an environment you supply.

Is there more than existence and containment that determines control over life?

I think your answer ultimately nets to this: anything that exists within your body does so at your discretion. My follow up would be: even if that existence is a viable human life? I suspect you would answer: yes.

I am just moving this discussion ahead at a quick pace. If I have misrepresented your thinking I expect you will make the necessary corrections.

Not helping 45 million people because of a minimal number of abortions is a Logic Fail.

Not to mention that if men could get pregnant, the legality of abortion would never be in question.

Any person that cannot see the greater good....

What if, say, 10% of right to lifers cannot reproduce (for various reasons). Statistically speaking that would be pretty impressive. But if it were true, what conclusion would you draw?

renard

I think some in the right to life movement are serious concerned and caring individuals, but in my own opinion I think most are simply trying to gain notoriety and personally could give a rats ass about the unborn or the children that are born and put up for adoption in this country.

We may be moving a little off subject but this is your article so I will continue.

I appreciate, as do you, that there are people in this world who sincerely believe that (at some stage) an unborn fetus is precious life just as some believe that what takes place within a woman's body is a deeply personal consideration that involves her alone and the support group she invites. I believe there is sincerity in both groups.

Similarly both groups are tied to political action. Thus, almost by definition, both groups are fighting an agenda war and will have ruthless elements and contain individuals with less than sincere motivation. For many, the underlying considerations are not nearly as important as winning. We see this pheonomenon all the time with partisan bickering - 'my team is right, your team is wrong'.

I see these as pretty equivalent groups on either side of a complex issue.

I think the right to lifers could do more to end abortion by working to make orphanages clean,safe,nurturing, education oriented places for children unfortunate in life to be wanted by their mothers to grow up and develop.

I sense you are implying that the pro-lifers do not favor improving conditions and services of orphanages and that the pro-choicers do. I do not know what you base that on. However, I would guess that a pro-lifer would agree with improving the conditions but would argue that such action would have an indirect affect on reducing abortions. They would likely agree that education is key but the education would not be limited to orphans. My guess is that they would argue that their focus is on preventing unwanted pregnancies and protecting the life of unborn entities. Having a better system to care for unwanted children supports this but only indirectly.

(BTW, I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I disagree with both extremes and consider the issue to be profoundly more nuanced than these groups recognize.)

renard

If only 1 out of every 10 people that cant have a kid would adopt we would have zero children in foster care.

Hard to argue with your position / recommendation.

Which is why I don't listen to people who pay lip service to serious issues or problems within society.

To me they are like people who go to church on holidays, just show ponies.

But how does this tie to pro-life (or pro-choice for that matter)? This strikes me as another article which focuses on the choice of procreation vs. adoption and duplicitous elements of society. Plus who are the individuals (in your opinion of course) who are paying lip service?

renard

I am saying that the pro life movement is full of xxxx and that they need to put their money where their mouths is, and get involved in a real meaningful way with adoptions and children's safety and educational issues, especially as it relates to sexual and physical abuse at both the state run and private organizations for unwanted children.

Both groups are dogmatic and extreme in their arguments. If you argue that pro-life should get involved in adoptions, etc. I would expect you to argue that pro-choice do likewise. Both groups focus on a central issue of abortion so indirect actions such as education to help reduce unwanted pregnancies is common ground.

Both groups could do well to assist in social issues related to children such as you describe rather than continue the endless political fighting.