impulsenine wrote:
The consequences heaped upon a woman denied abortion is, usually, motherhood. Sometimes that is tough, but it's not as tough as death.
But is it fair to impose the pain and suffering of birth on a woman who doesn't want the child and who may be emotionally and/or financially incapable of handling the responsibility of rearing a child? There are plenty of questions here.
The Christian argument against abortion is basically that the power to take life shouldn't be in human hands: don't kill people. (This, of course, means that a pro-capital punishment, pro-war Christian is at odds with their faith.) Since they understandably want to err on the side of caution, they define life as pretty early - much earlier than birth.
Right but it's a hypocritical argument based on 2,000 years of evidence to the contrary.
True, but the argument isn't usually framed in a religious argument, it's usually said that abortion amounts to murder. Where you draw the line as far as when a baby is a baby has roots in science, philosophy, and religion.
Right but I could go on, that's just the preliminary portion of the unconstitutional argument. Moreover, the bulk of the support for anti-abortion policy comes from religious camps and that means that they are exerting their democratic pull in a way that impedes the freedoms of those who do not share their views on the topic.
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
This is another one that works in favor of the permission of abortion, since rights in the United States are, of course, contingent on being born or naturalized in the U.S., which is not something true of a fetus. But it does very clearly provide for the protection of a born individual's right to life and liberty and halting her right to get an abortion is an impedance of those rights.
It's not the staunchest of arguments because of the potential definitions of "life" and "liberty," I'll admit, but there is no valid provision for the denial of a woman the right to an abortion that is not founded in religion.
The reasons for war are very different from rationales for abortion; neither is really good or justified completely.
No, under Christian philosophy, it's very clear that neither should EVER be justified, but since that's very blatantly not been the case over the last two millenia, it's very difficult to associate any kind of integrity with the Christian argument against the ending of a life. I say this without intent to insult the Christian faith, I am merely noting the truth of the statement. I could make similar statements about any number of aspects of pretty much every religion and am in no way trying to impugn Christianity or attack people for their choice of faith. I feel compelled to say this because of the sensitivity of the topic.
I am especially amused by the argument against abortion by Christian groups who (not representing the whole of the faith, I understand that clearly) vandalize, assault and occasionally kill doctors who perform abortions.
But all this gets around the core question: why do women get abortions? The vast majority of the time, it's because they're scared. They believe their lives are over, when the baby is born. If the mother-to-be knew she had access to health care, babysitters, day care, and a supportive community, she wouldn't go through with it.
Access and ability to take advantage of such access are different things; it is not the purview of the government to provide for people in this fashion any more than they already do and it costs money to access private services.
So I am quite sure that abortions would be far, far less common if the Church and its worshipers took all the energy they use picketing abortion clinics and railing against feminists, and devoted it instead to:
- Outreach programs that helped young mothers, giving them a reason to believe they'll have help such as day care, formula, diapers, etc.
- Work to destigmatize single mothers, and simultaneously put pressure back on men in general to be faithful.
Yeah, responsible male figures are certainly an area requiring improvement, though that's something of a philosophical and cultural debate. Since it is not legally required unless the two partners have some kind of established, legally recognized relationship, however, there is no judiciary purview for this.
I understand you are talking about the Church here, but mind that the Church has little ability to influence non-Christians.
I might also point out that the Catholic belief against birth control is a fairly damaging policy that encourages abortion even if it is concordantly disallowed by the faith.
- Educate teens on safe-sex and STDs in addition to abstinence. Kids want info, not holier-than-thou lectures, plus, some teens will go have sex regardless of what you tell them.
Yes, that's true. You will again run into the problems that there is a large body of non-Christian population that has no interest in listening to arguments for abstinence and a similarly large body of the Christian population that is likewise uninterested. These are things that have been tried, though I do agree with you that such efforts are more productive than harassing the abortion angle.
When you make motherhood a good thing, a real, community-supported thing of support and concentrated awesome, women won't think of pregnancy as the end of their lives, but the beginning of a new part of their own lives. In that case, abortion can be reduced to the circumstances that truly justify it: guaranteed death for child and daughter, some rape and trauma cases, and the like.
"Some" rape cases?
Finally, making abortion illegal will not stop it. Older feminists can tell horror stories about wire coat hangers. That being the case, it is best to have it done in the open, where the woman can receive counseling beforehand (hopefully changing her mind), have a safe, professional procedure, and have the counseling she will undoubtedly need afterwards as well. An illegal procedure will be made without proper counseling, supervision, or professional care.
Absolutely.
Anyway, I don't feel there is any judicial purview for denying a woman the right to an abortion if she wants it. Counseling, improved community support, better education on prevention of unwanted birth, those are all noble and critical things without question.
I agree that abortion should be an informed decision but as you've noted here, attempting to outlaw it will only lead to more problems, even leaving aside the legitimacy of an attempt to outlaw the process in the first place.
Yours was one of the tamer and more rational arguments I've seen in debating this issue, though, and that's extremely impressive, because it is such a powerfully emotional issue.
