After a friend printed a misguided defence of abortion (from her comments thread)

[fpb]

Rephrase your premise as follows:
I don't agree with abortions... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with rape... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with burglary... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with assault... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with embezzlement... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with fraud... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with forced marriage... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.

etc., etc., etc.....

Excuse me, if something is wrong, why the Hell should it be safe and legal, only because "it's going to happen"? Crime is always "going to happen". That is the point of having laws. We do not have laws against something which, though wrong, is never going to happen (e.g. there is no law against stealing someone's soul). The point of having a law against it is to state that it is a disapproved and forbidden activity, and that, if you are caught (which, alas, will not always be the case), you will be punished. This trash about "it's going to happen anyway" is simply something that abortionists repeat ad nauseam, on the principle that if we hear a statement often enough we're going to take it for granted.

Comments

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

If the fetus can't live outside the womb; it isn't alive. If it can be kept alive on an artificial respirator, then it's a baby. If it can't, it isn't.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

So, since you can't live outside of an environment without harmful elements and with the proper oxygen level, you're not alive?

Since you can't live without the proper forms of feeding, you're not alive?

Please don't try to re-define "life" as "able to live as I do, maybe with help." (Unless, of course, you've got a really good reason you can expound here?)

Unless you truly believe that life somehow appears at some point around extrauterine viability-- in which case the definition of "life" would change, depending on the available technology-- you might want to find another word.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Unless you truly believe that life somehow appears at some point around extrauterine viability

Actually, yes, I do believe in this.

Perhaps 'life' wasn't the best term, but there really isn't a good term for it. A fetus, in my eyes, is a potential human until it can live outside the womb.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

A human fetus, by definition, is human.

I believe what you mean is person; IE, you don't believe a non-viable fetus is a PERSON.

Which makes it really morally problematic, when you consider that kids these days are easily viable at 24 weeks-- that would mean that because of technology, they are a person now, when they wouldn't have been in, say, the 60s.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Okay, I meant person then. I'm multi-tasking at work. Sorry. Bad choice of words.

Yes, there is a moral problem. However, I don't believe this moral problem outweighs the woman's right to choose whether to continue the pregnancy or not.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

To be frank, Ayla, I do not think you would "believe" anything else if an angel out of heaven gave you a crystal-plated solid gold answer. I think that, in this case, your reason is the servant of your will: you keep producing arguments because it is your will that sex should be available without the risk of another human being at the end of it. I also think this is a revolt against nature and reason.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I also think this is a revolt against nature and reason.

I can get the nature argument, but why reason? The world is already over-populated. So wouldn't it be reasonable to enforce some sort of population control policy like China has?

And yes. I do believe sex should be available without the risk of a baby. I honestly don't see what's wrong with this. Just say, I got pregnant now. It's entirely possible. I am in no position to raise a child. I would be an awful parent. Yes, I could give the child out for adoption, but that could possibly lead it to being in a not-so-nice home (I have nothing against adoption, adoptive parents or anything like that. I'm just saying it's possible). The whole pregnancy process could and possibly would disrupt my life enough that I might not graduate for at least a few more years. The baby-raising process would interrupt my life enough that I won't be able to get a good job. These might sound like selfish reasons, but if I ever had a child, I would want to to be able to ensure it had a good home. I simply couldn't do it now. And obviously I'm not going to have sex willy-nilly without protection, but if anything were to happen, I would want abortion to be around as a last resort.

And that's all it is to me. A last resort. I don't think women should be aborting babies right and left, but given the choice between a university student or a teenage mother raising a baby and abortion, I think aborting the pregnancy is a lesser evil than not being able to provide a good home for the baby.

If you could produce an angel from heaven, then I'd believe in God. If you could produce said angel who told me that fetuses at 8-12 ish weeks were conscious and aware, then I would be anti-abortion. I'm not stubbornly sticking my head in the sand. I'm just weighing up the odds. Coming from parents who should never have had children, I think that it would have been better for them if I had simply been aborted.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

NO IT WOULD NOT. Because then it would have been impossible for us to know you, and something which is both valuable and pleasant in our life would not exist. Your friends do not just put up with you, Ayla: they are grateful for your existence and welcome you - however wrong-headed, messed-up, obstinate, you may be - every time you turn up. You really have to understand that. I for one am not in the least amused by references to your possible not being there. But what you have said is that your views on this matter are a by-product of the terrible self-image that your parents managed to imprint in you; which does not surprise me in the least. However, it does not make a good argument. Because it means that if you had not had the kind of parents you had, then your views would be different. And the point with argument, reason, and indeed morality, is that they should be universal, not depending on individual attitudes. You yourself, when you say that "a woman should have the right to decide,", that "sex should not be coupled with conception", and so on, imply a universal validity for your demands. If you say that "a woman has the right to choose," then she has it whether she will or nill. If you exclude the male from that decision (which is contrary to all experience), then that has to be valid for all males. But your clear statement that your view depends on issues with your own parenting undercuts your argument.

As for it being a revolt against reason, you seem not to distinguish between reason, which is universal, and any individual's reasoning faculty, which is limited by the circumstances of that particular person. When I use these words in the abstract - reason, liberty, justice, etc. - I always mean them in their abstract and universal meaning, and I think you will find most people do the same.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Well I'd probably be a little bit less obstinate every time I turned up if I were on your flist. :p Otherwise, yes, I do have a tendency to show up every time there's controversy. What can I say? Controversy draws me in. I enjoy arguments.

Sorry, I'll try to respond to the rest of your points later. I'm currently at work and should probably be doing some work. :)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Oh, all right - restored. But next time you start a fifty-response thread, I'll be calling you on that.

And yes, work does involve a certain demand to work. One of those universal moral demands we were talking about. Hope it's not too boring.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to!

Well, actually it is. It's better than my last job at some random clothing store with scary bosses, but it's pretty boring. On the bright side, I can tell people that my job is to look up porn. It is quite a major part of my job. On the not so bright side, I'm morally against what my work does. I don't believe in filtering the internet. :(

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Does that mean that a human in outer space, or in Antarctica, or in any other place where a human being cannot normally live, can be legitimately killed? It strikes me that you never stop to consider the consequences of what you say.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Actually that wasn't my point at all.

If it can be kept alive on an artificial respirator, then it's a baby.

I didn't say that the baby had to be able to breathe on its own and surivive wholly by itself. That would be silly. But I'm saying that for a large part of the pregnancy, the fetus cannot be kept alive outside the woman's body.

Humans in Antarctica or outer space or wherever can be kept alive using modern technology.

If you want to dispute that something is a baby when it can't be kept alive in the outside world by any technology, then go right ahead. But I most certainly did not imply that people can be killed if they can't naturally survive somewhere.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Humans in Antarctica or outer space or wherever can be kept alive using modern technology.

Which is much more elaborate, difficult and expensive than that required to keep a baby alive. So?

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I was just saying that I certainly don't believe in killing people because they can't survive in a physical environment.

My point was also that while you can keep a 24 week old fetus alive, it's impossible (with current technology) to keep a 6 week old fetus alive outside the womb. It has nothing to do with how expensive it is. It's just completely impossible right now.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It will be possible in time. And the way things are going, you, my friend, will live to see it. Then what? Because if we were to follow your premises, that would be the end of the right to abortion. And what would happen then to your deep-seated sense that abortion is your right? You have to understand that the only way to argue about moral issues is as though they were eternal.