Are we so sure that Democratic politicians are merely giving lip service to the idea that abortion is a morally weighty choice? Or is it possible that most ARE fundamentally uncomfortable with on demand abortion and actual believe it to be, if not an evil, than a difficult choice which is a sad part of reality? I'm just not sure how many people there actually are out there who have the same generally positive view of abortion that LizardBreath seems to hold. I say this all as a pro-choice Democrat, by the way.

It's a rude question, but if she wasn't ready to have a baby, what makes anybody sure she was ready to have sex? Both were her choice, of course -- but if you leave out the latter, I dunno that there is much traction to the former.

If we can't distinguish between RU-486 and late second-term all under the term "abortion," we cede too much. Taking RU-486 should in no way be considered such a major moral event.

Well said. The notion that moral choices can be different for different people, or subtly graded for the same people in differing circumstances is exactly the kind of grown-up complexity that frightens the bedwetters on the right, and the overwhelming majority of Americans agrees with this notion.

So let's stop being intimidated by Bible-belt crybabies.

But as LizardBreath points, there's also a real downside to the constant repetition of this kind of rhetoric, and politicians ought to keep this in mind too.

Where? I see LizardBreath saying that if she were to posit that there was a substantial moral character to the decision now, she would not, looking back, be certain where the balance rested, but that she is personally glad now that she made the decision she made then.

No doubt people can be found that feel the same about the moral question, but regret the decision they made (either way) in the past, too.

But I don't see how any of that is a "downside" to recognition of the fact that decisions about abortion are frequently highly emotionally charged decisions, often made in a time when a person is under a lot of stress, and frequently one that challenges the moral beliefs of the person making the decision, in either direction, and often one's that involve highly subjective factors that other people are not fit to judge.

In the long run, we'd be a lot better off if we laid off the guilt

Acknowledging the charged context of the decision for many of the people making it has nothing to do with guilt.

and simply acknowledged instead that early and mid-term fetuses aren't sentient

That is, at best, debatable, and probably in practice an irresolvable semantic morass that doesn't really solve anything anyway.

and women should be able to freely choose whether they want to bring theirs to term.

Yes, well, sure it would be nice if for any political view I hold everyone would just agree to agree with me, but in practice that's not going to happen, either because of different perceptions of facts or different value systems applied to those facts (or both).

I had an abortion when I was in college and, frankly, it wasn't pleasant, but neither was it earth shattering. I had a brief rebound relationship with someone after breaking up with a long term boyfriend. Although I was on the pill, I still got pregnant. It sounds skanky, but I was not sure who the father was and I did not want the whole sordid mess of paternity tests, et al. The bad thing was I was in England for a semester when I found out and both guys were back in the states. In England at the time, you had to get permission from two doctors to get an abortion. It was pretty routine though. They did not ask a lot of questions, just stamped the form. I still remember going to the clinic and the guys who performed the procedure watching a soccer game on TV the whole time.

Fifteen years later, I'm happily married, employed and have two wonderful kids. I really never think of the abortion except when the right wing crazies go on and on about it. I was only about five weeks pregnant when I had the abortion. So maybe I'm a terrible, soulless person or maybe in some cases it just isn't that big a thing.

Abortion is not a morally weighty issue? Are you kidding me? She's choosing to end the life. How callous is this woman? Having sex 2 months into a relationship is a morally weighty issue. Ending the pregnancy because she didn't like the inconveniences is a morally weighty issue. Any argument otherwise is insulting to pro-lifers, pro-choicers, all mother, and all babies... and all fathers for that matter. Pardon me while I go throw up.

And she says she was choosing the lesser of two evils? Yes, one evil is killing a baby growing inside of you, and the other evil is having the baby and being inconvenienced because you chose to have sex 2 months into a relationship. Hmmm, she chose the lesser of two evils, all right.

Sometimes the Washington monthly makes me want to switch sides.

It's a rude question, but if she wasn't ready to have a baby, what makes anybody sure she was ready to have sex? Both were her choice, of course -- but if you leave out the latter, I dunno that there is much traction to the former.

This is another piece of rhetoric from the right -- the constant repetition of which should be halted.

While not wanting to make presuppositions about Lizardbreath's situation, I suggest, quite simply, that a woman (or man) can be "ready" to have sex without being ready to make a lifelong commitment to a child.

The two are not inextricably intertwined. I know because I have had sex many many many times, and do not have a child to show for it. (You see, there's this thing called "birth control"....)

I suspect that is true in 98% of all cases involving coitus. I suspect that the commenter knows this as well.

Gee, somebody who can't identify the father of the baby thinks it's "no big deal" to end the baby's life.

Big shocker there. Go back to the trailer park, Teresa.

"Acknowledging" that abortion is morally charged also serves to confirm that abortion should be emotionally charged, especially when this is repeated constantly. In the long run, this acknowledgment probably hurts the pro-choice cause more than it helps, and it certainly causes pregnant women far more pain than they would otherwise have to endure.

My wife of 26 years and I have two lovely daughters in College - with enough in the 529 to cover expenses. We had an abortion of "convenience" while we were dating in college. I seriously doubt we could have made it together if we went ahead and had the child. No money, lousy jobs and a massive re-direction in life goals would have blown us apart.

cmdicely:

"Yes, well, sure it would be nice if for any political view I hold everyone would just agree to agree with me, but in practice that's not going to happen, either because of different perceptions of facts or different value systems applied to those facts (or both)."

This is precisely the argument of the pro-choice side.

Pro-choice incorporates the values of those who are pro-abortion and those who are anti-abortion. It simply lets the individual woman choose according to her value system, not anybody else's.

early and mid-term fetuses aren't sentient and women should be able to freely choose whether they want to bring theirs to term.

Of course they're sentient. Look at these 4D pictures of the sentient fetuses. It will convince anyone with a heart (in other words, any one not a liberal) abortion is wrong because it is murder of the unborn.

Link of unborn mid-term human

Al
..

I probably should not have put my personal life on display for everyone, but frankly, some of you need to grow up. About a million abortions are performed every year. If they all had earth shattering mental health effects on the women who go through them, we would be dealing with a lot of seriously disturbed women out there. The reason that people choose not to tell others that they have had an abortion is that people like you jump down their throats. But, guess what, odds are you know plenty of women -- your sisters, aunts, even mothers -- who have had an abortion and manage to get up every morning and go on with their lives. I did not like having to do it, but it was the best choice at the time for me and my family.

My parents are hard core Catholics who don't believe in abortion and my mother goes on all the time about how women never recover from this decision. I don't feel like shattering her illusions -- and I am sure some of your family members don't like shattering yours.

By the way, having sex with someone new while recovering from a break up isn't exactly a new thing either. Sad, unfortunate, but hardly unheard of. I have had less than five sexual partners in my forty years on this earth and been happily married for 13 years. I don't think this makes me trailer trash.

Maybe I’m wrong but even the evangelicals are getting tired of the abortion ‘debate’. Compared to global warming and any number of real problems this seems like decadence. I guess that’s why we have to talk about it.

I can’t imagine an America where women ascend to the most powerful positions in society, where women have wealth and power and, at the same time, power over their reproduction is dictated by a bunch of men like Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback and Jerry Falwell- men with bad hair and dubious tailoring.

Bless LizardBreath and bless you, Kevin, for the courage to bring this argument to the fore.

Never having had an abortion, I've hesitated to attack this "abortion victim" meme.

(And no, Americanist, it's not about responsibility or maturity or the morality of having sex. It's about the availability and effectiveness of contraception. Period.)

But this "devastating choice" nonsense is too dangerous to let grow.

In classic wingnut style, it infantilizes women. "Poor babies, they're too feeble-minded to decide whether to have sex, too dumb to use contraception correctly, too morally dense to realize that an abortion will destroy their lives forever.

"Let's just strap them up to the reproduction machine, give them frontal lobotomies and leave them to enjoy 50 years of forced fertility.

"For their own good."

"...The world would be a better place." [End of Drum's post.]
And perhaps, just perhaps, the child aborted by Lizard Breath would have made the world a better place if he or she had been allowed to exist. How sad. I just don't understand people who are so callous about the consequences of ending a pregnancy. A person has ceased to be, a unique individual will never have the chance to live. All that human potential is gone. And some speak of it in terms of "political usefulness," and act like there are no moral implications.
And Teresa, if you think it's only "right wing crazies" who agonize over this, then perhaps you need to get out more. You comment, "...maybe in some cases it just isn't that big a thing." Is your life, your very existence, a big thing? How about the life of a child who is gone forever?
I'm glad to hear that you have a happy life. But don't be surprised if people like me consider it a tragedy that a child's life was terminated, a child who never had the chance to be happy, because a self-absorbed adolescent didn't want to be inconvenienced with paternity tests.
Kevin, do you think the attitude you expose in your post can really be called "progressive"?
How sad.

You can't even prove that Al is sentient, let alone the viability of a month-old fetus.

It's a rude question, but if she wasn't ready to have a baby, what makes anybody sure she was ready to have sex? Both were her choice, of course -- but if you leave out the latter, I dunno that there is much traction to the former.

I take great comfort in the fact that people who speak like this ONLY have sex when they want to make a baby and at no other time.

The women I have known who had abortions did not face a moral dilemma. They just did not want to have a child at that time, knowing it would lock them in to lives with undesirable men and in an economic class they had no intention of remaining. These women did grow up to become productive and good parents, but they understood the potential babies they aborted would have made their lives miserable. Not only do unwanted babies make the lives of the mothers miserable, they make for a miserable society, too.

Politicians seem to want to make abortion a moral dilemma. It provides political cover when they impose authority on others' reproduction rights.

"Acknowledging" that abortion is morally charged also serves to confirm that abortion should be emotionally charged

Exactly... I think that if we interviewed enough women who decide to abort, we'd find much less weeping and wailing than we'd like. The prospect of gestation and parenthood tends to lend a sort of practical clarity to most individuals' perceptions, IME, and no matter how much waffling might precede conception, seeing that line on the test makes reality seem like a pretty high-definition picture. It doesn't mean they're necessarily happy about their decisions, but regret and ambivalence aren't the same emotions, after all.

I'd like to add that I worked as a child protective service worker for ten years and saw many, many "unwanted" children who were born to mothers who did not need a child. I find it interesting that all those people who go on about the "sanctity" of life are no where to be found when these kids need foster homes, adoptive homes, etc... There are about 4,000 children in my state alone who need adoptive homes. Yet, when it comes time to raise a crack baby or a child with cerebral palsy or a child who has been sexually abused, there are few people willing to step up to the plate. I would have a lot more respect for the "pro-life" folks if I saw them actually taking care of a child whose mother chose not to have an abortion.

perhaps, just perhaps, the child aborted by Lizard Breath would have made the world a better place if he or she had been allowed to exist

Perhaps... I'd bet that the children of most intelligent, pragmatic people would have some value. They'd have to beat the mindless little drones that most fanatics seek to produce, anyway.

Teresa,

Don't let them get to you. Andrew Sullivan recently pointed out that they estimate that 90% of Down's Syndrome fetuses are aborted, and pointed out, quite rightly, that these were not all performed by pro-choice people.

The fact is, there is a distressing "It's okay for me, and not for you" thread going through the morals crowd.

- Republicans against embryonic stem cell research (except if they are in the family of a former president with Alzheimer's)
- Republicans against gay marriage (unless their daughters are gay. Suppose we could add gay parenting to this too.)
- Republicans against medical malpractice suits. (Unless your Rick Santorum and your wife can get 2x the cap you want to impose on the rest of the country.)

Take comfort in the fact that the people attacking you 1) have slept with more than one person in their lifetimes, and sometimes had a small gap between one person and the next and 2) in your same situation would have likely done the same thing. The only difference is that they would still be good people of course...

Remind me again: when and how did putting a baby up for adoption cease to be an option in America?

And perhaps, just perhaps, the child aborted by Lizard Breath would have made the world a better place if he or she had been allowed to exist.

What a load of crap. By this same logic, I should mourn every menstrual period, since each one represents a potential unique baby as well.

Dice (for once) only JUST misses the point...LB remembers when she was pregnant by a guy with whom she wanted no long term consequences. She aborted the baby. (She doesn't mention if the guy was prepared to do the right thing by her and his child: curious omission.) LB says, looking back, IF she thought of it as a question of right and wrong, she's not sure if she did the moral thing... but, hey, so what? She got control over her life: and after all, that's what counts.

Kevin completely missed the point -- LB didn't say that there is a downside to considering abortion a moral issue. She just said SHE didn't think of hers as a choice between right and wrong -- and she strongly hints: 'good thing, too, cuz I just might realize that I did something irrevocably wrong.'

That abortion may often (perhaps always) be a mortal sin, does NOT mean that it should often (if not always) be also illegal.

But the more progressives blow off the moral significance of the choices involved, BEGINNING with the mutual decision of a man and woman to have sex which often DOES involve the possibility of a third life, the more certain it is that, sooner or later, somebody will find a better civic balance... and it won't be us.

perhaps, just perhaps, the child aborted by Lizard Breath would have made the world a better place

And perhaps, just perhaps, it would have grown up to be a mass murderer. Your argument carries no weight whatsoever.

Most important thing about the Values War is that it is free. It costs the rich nothing. If the Republicans could keep money in the hands of their plutocratic base by being pro-choice they would be. As it is their coalition is plutocrats and preachers. I am sure some of the Republicans wish things were different.

Big shocker there. Go back to the trailer park, Teresa.
Posted by: Dear Teresa

Thank gawd for ad hominem attacks, without them some mouth-breathers would have to resort to: "nyah, nyah, nyah."

And this one didn't even have the stones to use their own handle.

George Will on his son with Down's Syndrome, and current trends in aborting such children:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16720750/site/newsweek/

But the more progressives blow off the moral significance of the choices involved, BEGINNING with the mutual decision of a man and woman to have sex which often DOES involve the possibility of a third life, the more certain it is that, sooner or later, somebody will find a better civic balance... and it won't be us.
Posted by: theAmericanist

and their moral certainty will last just as long it takes one of their daughters to get pregnant, or to die in a back alley with a hanger perforation.

the right wingers have defined morality for too long ... they can suck on it. anyone who waxes sentimental about 4D ultrasounds but doesn't worry their pretty little mind about >500,000 dead iraqis can suck my hairy balls.

But the more progressives blow off the moral significance of the choices involved, BEGINNING with the mutual decision of a man and woman to have sex which often DOES involve the possibility of a third life, the more certain it is that, sooner or later, somebody will find a better civic balance... and it won't be us.

I don't know that anyone is "blowing off" the moral significance. I suspect that it is ALWAYS a consideration for women contemplating abortions. But many times, it is not the only consideration and/or those women do not come to the moral conclusion that you would like them to.

Deal with it.

George Will on his son with Down's Syndrome, and current trends in aborting such children:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16720750/site/newsweek/
Posted by: on point re Down's Syndrome

We would all agree that it would be easier to choose to raise a child with a disability or mental retardation when one is wealthy. George Will doesn't deign to look below his income bracket on any other issue, either.

DRIVEL!

If reasoinging ability is the criteria, those yet-born fetuses are more sentient than Mr. Drum; and less deserving of "termination" than a death row murderer. Abortion is the termination of a life; you can decide your position, political and personal, around that, but to deny it is desperate.

TOH

Have to disagree, Kevin. Abortion is a weighty moral choice and should be seen that way. Precisely because it is a difficult matter maybe next time the poster you quote will be a little more careful about contraception.

Abortion is a solution to a problem but it is far from the ideal solutions: contraception or abstinence.

Ideal use contraception has a 99.5% success rate. Typical use approaches 98% success.

2% failure among contraception users is still a fuckload of unwanted pregnancies, even amongst those whom the fetus-huggers would stipulate are being "responsible" in their perverted morality.

Thank God people are starting to say this in public. Look, we treat sentient creatures-- pigs, cows, chickens-- a lot worse than we treat aborted fetuses. Could someone please explain to me why aborting a five-week-old fetus is a bigger deal ethically or emotionally than eating bacon?

"Acknowledging" that abortion is morally charged also serves to confirm that abortion should be emotionally charged, especially when this is repeated constantly.

Only when done ineptly or by people who themselves can't separate description from prescription, both of which are, unfortunately, common factors in Democratic advocacy, and not just on this issue.

But not acknowledging that abortion is, in fact, often a morally and emotionally charged decision both makes advocates seem out of touch and misses one of the most practically potent arguments for the urgent necessity, not just the abstract desirability, of nonintervention.

The Americanist is all wrong at 3:59. Lizard Breath explained in her post that the guy did turn out to be a good guy, and that she is now raising two children with him. Right guy, wrong time. There was no "curious omission". And she didn't "strongly hint" anything.

The women I have known who had abortions did not face a moral dilemma.

Some of those I've known have, others haven't. Some who haven't have had a decision that was strongly emotionally charged for reasons which weren't about morality. Some haven't done that, either. Sometimes, people I've known have had more than one abortion, and its been different for different abortions.

Recognizing that something occurs frequently enough to be an important consideration does not mean that it happens everytime, that it ought to happen every time, etc.

Bearing a child is also a weighty moral choice, can also be an emotional disaster for the mother, and can also lead to disastrous social effects. The conservatives here are ending up at "Abortion is wrong" + "Don't have sex if you can't raise a kid".

They're not really comparing the good and bad effects of abortion vs. having a kid; theydon't really care about the results.

Contraception is not a cure all. As I mentioned in my original post, I was on the pill when I got pregnant. Unfortunately, I recently had a case of bronchitis and was given a 10 days worth of antibiotics. The doctor did not bother mentioning that antibiotics can weaken the effects of the pill. I am sure I am not the only one who did not know this at 18.

And perhaps, just perhaps, the child aborted by Lizard Breath would have made the world a better place if he or she had been allowed to exist.

And perhaps, just perhaps, the child that would have developed from the sperm you ejaculated when masturbating would have made the world a better place if only he or she had been allowed to exist...

Remind me again: when and how did putting a baby up for adoption cease to be an option in America?

The lawyer Joel Steinberg took an unwanted child from a woman, Michele Launders, in order to be adopted out, but he did not adopt the child to a loving home. Joel Steinberg kept the child for himself, which was kept in a kind of legal limbo, and then beat the child to death over some years time.

Joel Steinberg is now out of prison. Perhaps he wants to adopt your unwanted child. Perhaps every child put up for adoption will fall into the hands of a Steinberg. Perhaps abortion is a better choice.

Hey dopes,

Nothing confirms the "selfish and superficial" stereotype of pro-choicers like a 100% lifestyle abortion where adoption is never considered. And then you top it off with whining about all this morality talk being politics to garner the favor of Jesus freaks.

But hey, when you're a hip urbanite, you don't have time to deal with outdated modes of thinking about "right" and "wrong."

Thanks!

Yours truly,
A pro-lifer

I would think that the pro-life crowd would be happy to have LizardBreath's comments represent the pro-choice side. There's nothing they'd like better than to define the abortion debate as "Defenders of innocent unborn children vs. selfish bitches who only care about their own desires". Her words seem to acknowledge that she never thought about any possible moral or ethical dimension to getting an abortion, she just really wanted one because how it would affect HER lifestyle. Life vs. Lifestyle is exactly the way pro-lifers want to discuss abortion.

Mike

Joel Steinberg is now out of prison. Perhaps he wants to adopt your unwanted child. Perhaps every child put up for adoption will fall into the hands of a Steinberg. Perhaps abortion is a better choice.

He may also be standing outside your house with a machete. Better stay indoors.

Kevin, what you and Lizardbreath don't seem to realize is that people come to the (majority) pro choice position via various paths. Some believe what you and Lizardbreath do, that an abortion is no more morally weighty than having a boil lanced. Other pro choice folks believe abortion is a grave moral wrong but that legalized abortion is the least bad of a variety of unsavory options. I think maybe the echochamber has allowed you to overlook the fact that your position is basically on the fringe.

Oh, and on the matter of being sentient. The notion that even late in the second trimester a fetus is not "sentient" is, how shall I put this, bullshit. A fetus at 24 weeks is not significantly less sentient than a full-term baby at birth. Wingnuts are justifiably excoriated for making up their own science about evolution, the Grand Canyon, and so forth. So let's not, as progressives, start making up science about human gestation. A baby born at the tail end of the second trimester has 50/50 or better odds of living if delivered to the NICU.

They're not really comparing the good and bad effects of abortion vs. having a kid; they don't really care about the results.

Not care is a little strong. We actually subordinate that result to the first principle that an embryo is a human life and we have no right to cause it direct harm.

But not acknowledging that abortion is, in fact, often a morally and emotionally charged decision both makes advocates seem out of touch

Maybe, just maybe, they are out of touch.

and misses one of the most practically potent arguments for the urgent necessity, not just the abstract desirability, of nonintervention

I agree, which is one more reason why Roe is an abominable decision and should have let the American people work out their morals and emotions legislatively.

Sometimes the Washington monthly makes me want to switch sides.

Don't let the door hit your ass....

Hal: Abortion is not a morally weighty issue? ... Having sex 2 months into a relationship is a morally weighty issue. Ending the pregnancy because she didn't like the inconveniences is a morally weighty issue. Any argument otherwise is insulting to pro-lifers, pro-choicers, all mother, and all babies... and all fathers for that matter.

This presumes an absolute morality and that you know what that morality is. Of all moral codes that have existed since we grew out of Homo Erectus, you know which one is "right." How arrogant.

People vary. To have a different morality than yours is not insulting you. For you to argue that everyone's morality must be the same as yours does insult us.

I have invested in two abortions in my lifetime, each time paying for half, while my girlfriend paid the other half. In the first case, my then girlfriend felt some minor psychological discomfort. The other girlfriend, some years later, did not.

Those who would be sorrier to have an abortion than to have the baby should have the baby. Those who would be sorrier to have the baby should have the abortion.

Those of us who are not involved in a particular person's decision should STFU and not try to create guilt where none exists.

For many people, abortion is simply not a weighty moral decision, and for others it is. Since moral opinions on the subject differ, arguing that abortion should be outlawed is the same as arguing that one's own religion's precepts should be made into public policy, which reminds me of the Taliban.

Next up for the American Christian Taliban, outlawing eating shrimp and weaving cloth that mixes linen and wool, because the Bible says they are an abomination.

Ideal use contraception has a 99.5% success rate. Typical use approaches 98% success.

2% failure among contraception users is still a fuckload of unwanted pregnancies, even amongst those whom the fetus-huggers would stipulate are being "responsible" in their perverted morality.

As somebody you would surely regard as a "pervert," I wish to thank you for pointing out that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancies. You should give talks at high schools.

I love how all the pro-lifers talk about how wonderful adoption is. Like I mentioned above, no one talks about the thousands and thousands of children eligible for adoption through the foster care system in this country. If you asked a pro-lifer why they have chosen NOT to adopt, they will give you the same arguments that people give you about why they had an abortion: it is not the right time, I don't have the money, it would interfer with my job etc... Somehow they believe that parents who want these kids will magically appear. As a former DSS worker, I can tell you they don't. There are way too many children raised in group homes and orphanages. Because they aren't all cute little white babies they don't get adopted.

Pro-lifers don't want to deal with the reality that there ARE unwanted children -- children actually walking around, talking, out of the womb -- and that they don't want them either. Foster care adoption is practically free. There is no good reason if you are really pro-life not to go get a child from your local Dept of Social Services.

Teresa

It costs the rich nothing. If the Republicans could keep money in the hands of their plutocratic base by being pro-choice they would be. As it is their coalition is plutocrats and preachers. I am sure some of the Republicans wish things were different.

Damn those politicians for carrying out the will of the people!

Lizardbreath is quite aware of the anti-abortion arguments. She just doesn't accept them and doesn't believe that Democrats should pass them on in the attempt to come up with a centrist abortion stand. In particular, she's denying the "emotional trauma to the woman" argument. There a boatload of irony here, because the so-called pro-life side does everything it can to maximize trauma to the woman in this kind of case case, and then uses the trauma they tried to cause as an argument against abortion.

That seems malicious, especially because they are probably aware that childraising can be terribly traumatic -- not just inconvenient, as the liars say -- but they don't care about that. (Two words: Andrea Yates. The one with the pro-life husband who wanted more kids).

I agree, which is one more reason why Roe is an abominable decision and should have let the American people work out their morals and emotions legislatively.

The nonintervention I was talking about was government intervention in personal emotional decisions, not judicial nonintervention in controversial policy practices, which is of course a ridiculous thing to demand.

I mean, Roe is about the most poorly reasoned, well-known, USSC decision I can think of off the top of my head, but what you point to is not something I would characterize as one of its problems.

Let the American people work out their morals and emotions without the minority imposing their beliefs through state police coercion.

If the majority were to be militantly pro-abortion and impose their authoritarian beliefs by making all unwanted preganancies be aborted, I think Chris would change his opinion about legislated remedies regarding reproductive rights. Chris, take your argument to China, where abortion is forced on women by the state.

Seeing this post and then the comments that follow is another nice example of why the abortion debate isn't a debate, but rather two sides completely talking past each other. If you think, as Kevin does, that the fetus isn't a sentient human being, then there's nothing wrong with abortion. Specifically, it's not murder. Then a lot of the moral discussion seems pointless, and all the pro-lifers seem moralistic at best and crazy at worst.

But if you do think the fetus is a sentient human being (which clearly means you think the fetus has a soul, since there's obviously no physical brain at the start), then abortion is flat out murder and the idea of choice seems callous at best and evil at worst.

No way to square that circle, I'm afraid.

The idea that women don't agonize over the abortion decision is just too emotionally threatening to many people--especially men. Never being able to make the decision himself puts a man in the position of only being able to experience the result of the decision. His mother could have aborted him. His wife/girlfriend could abort his child. His wife/girlfriend could override his wish for a child to be aborted, ensuring that he has to pay child support for 18 years.

It's not fair. Nor is it fair that a woman pays the price in temporary physical restrictions, bears the pain of labor and/or a C-section and various risks to her health in order to carry a pregnancy to term. She usually takes a financial hit as well, since she is usually the parent who adjusts her job responsibilities downward to allow for infant care afterwards. She gets the final say because yes, it is her body. We don't need to examine her soul. In the last three months of a pregnancy there are medical issues relating to the dangers of a late abortion, and the possibility of fetal sentience. These should be left to a woman and her doctor to decide. That may not be perfect, but it's the best we can do with a unique legal situation where two people are sharing the same body.

But the need for abortion is as much a commentary on men's sexual behavior as women's. If all men refused to have sex unless they were emotionally and financially ready to support a child, and they had sex only with women who agreed they were ready to bear their children, there would be very few abortions. There would also be very little sex. The negotiations would resemble the much ridiculed sexual consent policy suggested by feminists at Antioch College.
http://soc.enotes.com/rape-campus-article
I think people called it a real romance-killer.

Married couples would also, of course, abstain from sex unless they could support more children.

So, everybody, teach your sons to keep it zipped unless they're ready to settle down and be fathers.

I don't know about everybody else, but I don't think that's going to work.

Pro-lifers don't want to deal with the reality that there ARE unwanted children -- children actually walking around, talking, out of the womb -- and that they don't want them either.

We deal with it by acknowledging that it has zero bearing on the fact that abortion is an injustice towards the unborn.

We also contend that an environment of abortion on demand creates more problems by encouraging promiscuous behavior.

(Also, many pro-lifers do adopt for exactly that reason.)

It always comes down to sex for those guys.

Thanks, Kevin, for this post.

Like many, many, many women, I had a very early abortion when I was too young to become a mother. I felt GREAT after my abortion -- I had dodged a huge bullet and my life was back in my hands. Since I do not believe that a fetus four weeks after conception is a human being, I did not feel I was facing a moral dilemma.

The vast, vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Those that take place in the second trimester are almost always performed because the fetus has a devastating congenital problem. Those decisions are extremely painful for parents and I will not judge them.

I think this is right on. It's also worth noting that a similar argument applies to the struggle for the acceptance of homosexuality. Too often people let the argument turn on whether or not gay people have a choice in their sexual orientation. But that is to concede that if they did have a choice, it would be wrong to have same-sex sexual relations. It would not be.

(Two words: Andrea Yates. The one with the pro-life husband who wanted more kids).

So because Mr. Yates was an asshole who didn't care about his wife's mental trauma, I can't advocate for the rights of the unborm. Got it, thanks!

More Politics 101: folks will often dissent from people they agree with on a particular issue, if they decide that they don't want to be associated with "those people".

Abortion famously has two overlapping majorities -- a pro-life majority that recognizes not all abortions are morally equal, which rejects 'abortion on demand' in light of the irresponsible behavior that causes demand for abortion to be quite high; and a pro-choice majority that believes these are decisions to be made by a woman, with perhaps the advice of her doctor and maybe spiritual counsel.

So consider what we've seen in this thread: LB said in the part Kevin quoted "I did not want to be locked into a minimum eighteen-year relationship with someone I'd been dating for a couple of months. I did not want to be responsible forever for someone who didn't exist yet...."

and yet she had sex with the guy, and so obviously the two of 'em WERE responsible for the baby. Nobody else made her pregnant, but this guy... and LB.

So Emerson 'corrects' me about responsibility, asserting "Lizard Breath explained in her post that the guy did turn out to be a good guy, and that she is now raising two children with him. Right guy, wrong time...."

I don't doubt LB said that elsewhere, I was just noting what Kevin quoted. Emerson goes on to show he can't read with his ideological blinders on, arguing LB didn't "hint" at anything.

But she DID say: "I'm not certain that my reasons for not wanting to continue a pregnancy at the time qualify as sufficient to do a wrong thing..."

You can't have it both ways, folks. Either she was ready to have sex and therefore, to accept responsibility for the natural consequence (the aborted baby), or she was not. I take her at her word, and say: not.

If like Emerson you say she was not only responsible enough to have sex, but shazzam! it worked out with the guy, they have two wonderful kids, etc., then you can't dodge that these same two folks killed their first child. (Um... it wasn't a slice of underdone bacon.)

Recognizing reality doesn't necessarily make somebody anti-choice btw; but it does help in recognizing the real moral issues -- and, not incidentally, the actual politics of this mess.

You guys are ferociously unkind, yanno.

Teresa: I used to volunteer at a cerebral palsy center; I spent a year working with Asberger's kids. My mom spent 20 years volunteering with teenaged mothers in an adoption service. I know Down Syndrome kids, etc. Just how much do you think you can teach me?

And byallthingsgodly, doesn't it make your skin crawl to read dbake: "Could someone please explain to me why aborting a five-week-old fetus is a bigger deal ethically or emotionally than eating bacon?"

I just met a baby the other day, born at 23 weeks. Cute little kid with ENORMOUS ears. I know for a fact that there are preemies like that born every day, who couldn't have possibly survived if they had been born that early... say 34 years ago.

It helps to recognize that technology and morals, not to speak of the law, directly conflict on these issues.

And yet debake is only marginally worse than Nolo, who writes: "By this same logic, I should mourn every menstrual period, since each one represents a potential unique baby as well."

No, it doesn't. Where did YOU learn about the birds and bees?

Basic biology -- even with an ectopic pregnancy, and certainly with menses, there is no growing baby. Psst.... virgins have periods, they don't have babies. (You could look it up.)

And of course, Gex gives away the fundamentaly juvenile nature of the pro-choice arguments here: "I take great comfort in the fact that people who speak like this ONLY have sex when they want to make a baby and at no other time."

Riiight.

Emerson put his finger on it, but he doesn't know when he does: Pro-life folks have LEARNED something in the 34 years they have been Constitutionally on the outside; pro-choice folks have not.

Conservatives aren't the cartoon of "Abortion is wrong" + "Don't have sex if you can't raise a kid".

They look at a story like LB's and think: how sad, that she was having sex with a guy she wasn't willing to have a child with.

Isn't that EXACTLY the civic morality we want to teach .... young men?

It doesn't improve her story any to say, well, it has a happy ending: she DID decide the guy was worthy, so they had two more kids.

Kinda tough on the first one, though. There is a reason pro-life folks call these "lifestyle abortions".

Emerson componds his error, claiming that conservatives are "not really comparing the good and bad effects of abortion vs. having a kid; they don't really care about the results."

Not so. For one thing, it's pro-life folks who have spent a ton of money trying to find a post-abortion syndrome, and if you DO go into adoption clinics, or groups of Down Syndrome parents, you tend to find lots more pro-life than pro-choice folks.

These are people who have made a commitment to follow through. When did that become a bad thing?

The moral issue isn't that complex: there are some things that humans cannot control, even though we initiate 'em by our actions. So we are morally responsible for consequences we cannot predict, which is why we need to be more careful about the initial acts that we CAN control.

When did progressives start disrespecting that principle?

For another, it really does help to recognize that abortion is a clash of rights, a contradiction in the proper role of government to protect us all: we're talking about a man and woman who agree to have sex, and the natural result of that act will (in the cases we're talking about; otherwise we'd be talking about outlawing contraception), unless interrupted by the choice of the mother, be a living baby who from the instant of birth, HAS rights.

From what she said, LB's abortion has no moral implications for her... yet she DID say that if it did, she is not at all sure she made the moral choice.

Gee, how convenient.

The folks who have defended here include a guy who thinks a baby has the moral value of a BLT, another who figures that pro-life men never ejaculate except for procreative purposes, not to mention the guy who figures that every ejaculation broadcasts doomed genius, yet another who figures menstruation = pregnancy, a woman who bravely spoke up about how she was once pregnant without knowing who the father could be (TMI, say I), and finally the impressive moral insight that adoption must be evil because one nut managed to adopt a kid he abused.

Contrast the folks who criticized LB in this thread -- mildly, at that: I wondered if she was ready to be having sex, since she wasn't ready to have a child; another noted that T wasn't doing the pro-choice cause much good when she publicly recollected not knowing who the father was, and a couple folks pointed out that pro-life people would be only TOO happy if LB characterized the pro-choice case.

Better her than the bacon guy, but that ain't saying much.

If the majority were to be militantly pro-abortion and impose their authoritarian beliefs by making all unwanted preganancies be aborted, I think Chris would change his opinion about legislated remedies regarding reproductive rights. Chris, take your argument to China, where abortion is forced on women by the state.

Thank you for that ringing condemnation of totalitarianism.

Or are you saying that forced abortions is the prefered policy preference of a majority of Chinese?

In fact, it's closer to the U.S. abortion regime: unaccountable elites impose their opinions on a populace which has little or no recourse to changing the law. If I lived there, I'd denounce the regime for requiring abortions, much like I denounce our current regime for allowing abortions that Americans don't want to be allowed.

Matt,

If you think, as Kevin does, that the fetus isn't a sentient human being...But if you do think the fetus is a sentient human being...

there is a 3rd view: that an embryo doesn't start out as sentient but becomes sentient over time. In this view a termination with hours of conception poses little to no moral hazard while at the other end of the spectrum an abortion of a fetus within hours of birth is morally questionable.

No way to square that circle

One reason the culture of rape makes so much noise and has so much confidence in their righteousness is because they think the majority is on their side, which is why they want legislators to impose a 'democratic' ban on abortion. Make abortion mandatory for all pregnancies that do not satisfy the requirements for ideal parenting, and they will change their position and be forced to defend reproductivie rights along with most pro-choice advocates.

Pro-choice protects everyone's right to determine their own reproductive schedule. Pro-choice is against mandatory abortion just as much as they are for abortion on demand under the guidelines established in R v W. If abortion were imposed by the state, the anti-abortion faction would have a legitimate argument. But no one makes the claim they should not be allowed to reproduce and that the state should stop them from reproducing.

I become emotional on this issue because I think authoritarians are imposing their beliefs on others. In China it works the same way, but instead of imposing pregnancy, the state imposes abortion. It is the same imposition on an individual's reproduction rights. Whether that imposition is to make someone have an abortion or to make someone carry a pregnancy, it is the same terrible use of moral authority with state power.

You can't have it both ways, folks. Either she was ready to have sex and therefore, to accept responsibility for the natural consequence (the aborted baby), or she was not. I take her at her word, and say: not.

The "natural consequence" was pregnancy. Terminating the pregnancy by conscious choice is "taking responsibility" for the natural consequence.

One might argue over whether it is a morally proper way to do so based on various value assumptions, but it certainly is not a failure to take responsibility. Failing to take responsibility would be not considering the effects, and (for instance) having the child not through conscious choice to keep and care for it, but simply failure to deal with the issue at all.

It doesn't really help to use "responsibility" as a vehicle to insinuate a particular view of morality into the discussion while evading question of the moral premise.

Not so. For one thing, it's pro-life folks who have spent a ton of money trying to find a post-abortion syndrome

Yes, because they desperately want it to exist since it would validate their worldview. So?

and if you DO go into adoption clinics, or groups of Down Syndrome parents, you tend to find lots more pro-life than pro-choice folks.

I don't know what an "adoption clinic" is, but certainly this doesn't match my experience of adoptive parents, particularly those adopting any but white infants.

For another, it really does help to recognize that abortion is a clash of rights

Whether it is a clash of rights is a legitimately debated proposition; it certainly helps to recognize why some people see it that way, and to realize that those people will not be convinced by arguments premised on positions contrary to the axioms on which they believe it is a clash of rights. But that doesn't mean that that position must be accepted as correct, any more than the need to recognize the same about the other side means their position must be recognized as correct, either.

a contradiction in the proper role of government to protect us all: we're talking about a man and woman who agree to have sex, and the natural result of that act will (in the cases we're talking about; otherwise we'd be talking about outlawing contraception), unless interrupted by the choice of the mother, be a living baby who from the instant of birth, HAS rights.

Actually, the incidence of conception without contraception isn't high enough to even remotely justify this statement; more accurately, pregnancy is one possible consequence of such activity. But even if it does occur, while there is certainly no dispute that rights other than those of the woman are involved once the baby is born, there is no universally accepted clash of rights before that, and no necessary contradiction in the government's supposed "proper role" to "protect us all".

I disagree.

Fetuses do have a morally ambiguous status, as evidenced in the legal prosecution one would presume ensue if a person ended another's pregnancy without her consent.

I would consider that some form of murder or manslaughter to the unborn child and not just injury to the woman.

Thus, the ambiguity.

By the way, I'm pro-choice.

Sometimes you can't do away with ambiguity, and, in this case, it's always going to be there. There's no clear cut right way to handle this issue, and there are dueling and conflicting values/priorities at stake, that can't be harmonized, but I side with personal choice and freedom, yet only for the woman carrying the child, noone else.

Those who would hammer on others to agree that there is no ambiguity find no favor with me. Choose a side, or stay out of it, but don't ever fool yourself into thinking this is a clear cut issue.

Or are you saying that forced abortions is the prefered policy preference of a majority of Chinese?

No, I am saying that when you prevent a woman from having an abortion with state police powers you are no different than a Chinese Communist who drags a pregnant woman to have an abortion.

Making a woman carry a pregnancy = making a woman have an abortion.

Turn the issue around...how do you feel about a state enforcing a one-child policy, and to the point of compulsory abortion upon pregnancy after the first child?

To me, this is unacceptable for the same reasons that I would not accept state prohibition of abortion - it's not for the state, or anyone else to decide, but ultimately the woman, often with the advice and approval of her partner(s), family, friends, doctors, and associates.

This is why I disagree with men who feel they should have control over the decision if they believe themselves to be the father, and also why I feel there's nothing wrong with providing incentives and what not towards a particular decision by the woman - i.e. trying to minimize abortions in the American case, or trying to minimize pregnancies in the latter case I hypothesized.

Fetuses do have a morally ambiguous status, as evidenced in the legal prosecution one would presume ensue if a person ended another's pregnancy without her consent.

I would consider that some form of murder or manslaughter to the unborn child and not just injury to the woman.

And so would the law in some jurisdictions in the US, but not in others; as an example, in California, the unlawful deliberate killing of either a human being or a fetus is murder. (And the language of the law explicitly calls out those two categories.)

Sometimes you can't do away with ambiguity, and, in this case, it's always going to be there.

Maybe, maybe not: its the absence of an agreed consensus definition, and that certainly could change in the future. 200 years from now maybe prohibition of abortion (or, alternatively, abortion itself) will be held as universally reviled as slavery, because everyone will agree on a particular definition of the boundaries of "humanity" and ideas of human rights which will make the issue trivial and obvious to answer.

But that's not where we are today, for sure.

Here and now.

Chris: So because Mr. Yates was an asshole who didn't care about his wife's mental trauma, I can't advocate for the rights of the unborm.

I think that you should at least acknowledge that carrying babies to term is not a risk-free alternative.

As to the case for advocating civil rights for the unborn that the government takes active steps to protect, it may be a case where government intervention makes the social problems worse. A civil right should not be based on a contemporary, and probably transient, religious teaching of one sect about when the soul "enters" the body. Governmental non-intervention recognizea the religious diversity in this debate.

I can't advocate for the rights of the unborn.

You can advocate until the cows come home. It is your imposition of beliefs with state power that you have to stifle. Convince with arguments, but do not use the police or majority rule to make individuals obey your subjective morality.

If I believed that cancerous tumors were invested with souls and attempted to coerce people with cancer to not have them cut out, you might think I stepped over the line between my beliefs and people's rights. That is how I feel when you say an embryo is a human being and individuals must be prevented from aborting them.

theAmericanist: Either she was ready to have sex and therefore, to accept responsibility for the natural consequence (the aborted baby), or she was not.

I disagree with you there. The obvious third alternative is to use contraceptive pills, with abortion as a last alternative when the antibiotic caused the contraceptive to fail.

cmdicely: I mean, Roe is about the most poorly reasoned, well-known, USSC decision I can think of off the top of my head,

How soon we forget Bush v Gore.

I think that you should at least acknowledge that carrying babies to term is not a risk-free alternative.

Not only is it not risk-free, it's far, far more dangerous than abortion.

Making a woman carry a pregnancy = making a woman have an abortion.

Asserting an absurdity does =/= making it so.

"Having sex 2 months into a relationship is a morally weighty issue. Ending the pregnancy because she didn't like the inconveniences is a morally weighty issue."

It's a wonder you can get out of bed in the morning, what with all that moral weight hanging onto you.

Conservatives aren't the cartoon of "Abortion is wrong" + "Don't have sex if you can't raise a kid".

Yes you are. You go on at enormous length, but that's all you have to say.

Next time you talk about a "curious omission", why don't you bother to read what the person wrote?

And my point about Mrs. Yates, besides the fact that her husband was a fanatic right-to-lifer like you, is that childraising can be terribly traumatic for the mother. Chris isn't really talking about the mother's trauma here (the topic of LB's post), he's anti-abortion and anti-sex and that's all.

Are there some people who are ready to have sex, but not ready to raise a child? Yes! You say no, but that's you. What should they do? They should use birth control and, if it doesn't work, have abortions or adopt out (their choice).

Anti-abortion abstinence-only prohibitionists have helped this coutnry have a higher abortion rate than any European country, just as drug prohibitionists have contributed mightily to keeping our addiiction levels high as they are.

As I said, these people don't care what happens. They just want to preach and condemn.

It's a wonder you can get out of bed in the morning, what with all that moral weight hanging onto you.

Not getting much sex probably.

Ah, Dice reverts to form: a master at missing the point. (Isn't that a third year class at law school?)

When LB says that there is no moral implication in her abortion, she is saying the OPPOSITE of "I am responsible for what I did". (Good lawyers know when the facts are against 'em -- but then, they can't teach THAT in law school, Dice.)

LB is saying her act had no significance, so she is no more responsible for the effect (the aborted baby) than any other meaningless act in life. She aborted a kid, she got her hair cut, she took the LSATs.

(As philosophy, you could make this into one of those 'butterfly wings in the Amazon' arguments, but it doesn't apply. There are folks who insist that they do, so! believe that abortion is just like lancing a boil -- which would make a baby growing inside the mother into a kind of infection: what's that say about the father, or their relationship?)

But she ALSO says (as Emerson points out) that partly because of this choice, she and the guy have wound up living happily ever after.

Can't have it both ways: either she was responsible enough to have sex, in which case there IS a moral consequence to the abortion, or (as she does) you can say there is no such moral significance to the abortion -- in which case, she wasn't responsible enough to have sex.

Hell, LB herself says that the abortion enabled her to 'take control of her own life'.

Note that she did NOT say: 'Choosing to have sex with this guy is how I took control over my own life.'

So LB is making as purely irresponsible a rationalization as you're likely to find (which is probably why they spend a whole year teaching the technique in law school, right Dice?).

Responsibility is about doing THIS, and accepting THAT for the result. LB wants to believe there was no moral consequence of her literally irresponsible sex with the guy (cuz the pregnancy could have no moral significance, since she claims to feel that the abortion had none), yet she adds that the abortion enabled her to 'take control' of her life.

What motivates a lot of pro-life folks, IME, is that this is one of those issues that obviously humans do NOT have that much control over. When people become pregnant and when they don't is a cosmic roll of the dice, and the ONLY way to ensure that it doesn't happen to you, or to somebody cuz of you, is to abstain.

So that's not the issue.

The moral issue is what happens WHEN you have sex, and the natural result occurs: a baby is coming.

Denying that has moral significance, as LB does, leaves you with her haunted "IF".

I consider myself a liberal but I am also pro-life, in that I oppose war, capital punishment and also abortion. It sounds to me like Lizardbreath found it inconvenient to be pregnant. That is not an acceptable reason to end a human life. She should have been smarter about contraception or given the baby up for adoption. Abortion should never be a form of birth control. That being said, I recognize that a woman should also not be an incubator for a rapist. Nor should a fetus conceived through incest be carried to term. I accept that sometimes the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus, which is only common sense.

I think Bill Clinton's construction concerning abortion rights remains the best for liberals to arrticulate - Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

The world would be a better place if we put more people out of their misery.

Yes! Trolls!

Choice of evils. No jury would convict.

dbake: "Could someone please explain to me why aborting a five-week-old fetus is a bigger deal ethically or emotionally than eating bacon?"

I don't think that helps the pro-choice/anti-government side of the argument. If you need an "explanation" of the differences between humans and pigs, you might belong in a different discussion.

I think that you should at least acknowledge that carrying babies to term is not a risk-free alternative.

Carrying babies to term is not a risk-free alternative.

Abortion is still the unjust termination of a human life.

A civil right should not be based on a contemporary, and probably transient, religious teaching of one sect about when the soul "enters" the body.

Neither should it be based on arbitrary definitions of what is and isn't human life, which is what you get unless you use the biological definition that life begins when a unique human is present after fertilization.

NOTE: I won't get into matters of embryology. There is a certain point when the embryo is self-organized and directs its own development, needing only nutrition and an hospitable environment.

For the record, I have no idea when the soul enters the body. But I still know that an embryo is a human life deserving of our protection, which I knew before I became a Christian.

You can advocate until the cows come home. It is your imposition of beliefs with state power that you have to stifle. Convince with arguments, but do not use the police or majority rule to make individuals obey your subjective morality

If the fetus is a human to which we have obligations, then it is permissible to use political influence to protect it legally. You can't just define away members of humanity and then harm them.

If I believed that cancerous tumors were invested with souls and attempted to coerce people with cancer to not have them cut out, you might think I stepped over the line between my beliefs and people's rights. That is how I feel when you say an embryo is a human being and individuals must be prevented from aborting them.

It is easily demonstrable that cancerous tumors are not humans. It is also easily demonstrable that fetuses are human. You just have to look at science, not at your "feelings."

Did I say ensoulment matters?

Can't have it both ways: either she was responsible enough to have sex, in which case there IS a moral consequence to the abortion, or (as she does) you can say there is no such moral significance to the abortion -- in which case, she wasn't responsible enough to have sex.

She took responsibility for having the abortion, but denied that it had the moral weight that you claimed that it did. (Your logic-chopping is silly. You're not a high school debate team, are you?)

Deflater, "inconvenient" is a shitty, insulting word to use. What was at issue was the next 20 years or so of her life and her possibility of having a career. If you call that "convenience" your a sick puppy.

What motivates a lot of pro-life folks, IME, is that this is one of those issues that obviously humans do NOT have that much control over.

Thanks for the confession! Guilty, guilty, guilty! I've been saying for years that anti-abortionists don't WANT women to have control over their lives. A century ago you'd be saying that syphilis is God's punishment for sin, and that syphilitics shouldn't be getting medical treatment because that would contravene God's law.

As somebody you would surely regard as a "pervert," I wish to thank you for pointing out that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancies. You should give talks at high schools.

Well, sure, abstinence will solve a host of problems, but at what cost? After all, abstaining from driving is the best way to prevent car crashes, but we recognize that driving has certain advantages that we don't want to give up even at the expense of safety, so we continue to drive while trying to ameliorate the potential harm through use of seatbelts, air bags, etc. Same with flying, and drinking, and riding a bike, and playing sports, and walking outside, etc. Every activity carries with it some risk whic