Thread: Limiting the Need for Abortion: But Why?

Personally, it's not a moral dilemma, it's merely meeting half way with the pro-life folks in order to find a solution we can both be comfortable with. Keep abortions legal while making a concerted effort to reduce them as much as possible seems like a good middle ground to me. Similar to keeping guns legal, but making a concerted effort to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands. In addition, abortions, like any medical procedure, carry a risk with them and it's just smart to want to lower the amount of procedures performed and thus lowering the number of people that will be exposed to such a risk, even if that risk is minimal.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Personally, it's not a moral dilemma, it's merely meeting half way with the pro-life folks in order to find a solution we can both be comfortable with. Keep abortions legal while making a concerted effort to reduce them as much as possible seems like a good middle ground to me. Similar to keeping guns legal, but making a concerted effort to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands. In addition, abortions, like any medical procedure, carry a risk with them and it's just smart to want to lower the amount of procedures performed and thus lowering the number of people that will be exposed to such a risk, even if that risk is minimal.

A reasonable answer and one I can support.

For me, there is (and I know I'll get nailed for being this honest) a lagging bit of doubt. As an agnostic, there is always a bit of "I don't know" in these discussions - I take the best stance that I can come up with with the information that I have. But, because I still don't know, I would still try to lean towards hedging my bet, and taking a more conservative choice if possible.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Personally, it's not a moral dilemma, it's merely meeting half way with the pro-life folks in order to find a solution we can both be comfortable with. Keep abortions legal while making a concerted effort to reduce them as much as possible seems like a good middle ground to me. Similar to keeping guns legal, but making a concerted effort to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands. In addition, abortions, like any medical procedure, carry a risk with them and it's just smart to want to lower the amount of procedures performed and thus lowering the number of people that will be exposed to such a risk, even if that risk is minimal.

So you are saying that the only desire you have for reducing the number of abortions is as a compromise with pro-life or because medical procedures are unhealthy in general? If this is so then let me rephrase.

W/o any trappings of the current political conflict over abortion why would you not have one personally or want to reduce the number of them?

PS. Also removing the simple unhealthy results from having multiple surgeries.

And back to Speak, specifically, do you feel so inclined no matter the stage in pregnancy as well? From day one to full term abortion is OK with you?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

A reasonable answer and one I can support.

For me, there is (and I know I'll get nailed for being this honest) a lagging bit of doubt. As an agnostic, there is always a bit of "I don't know" in these discussions - I take the best stance that I can come up with with the information that I have. But, because I still don't know, I would still try to lean towards hedging my bet, and taking a more conservative choice if possible.

I'm not going to "nail" you as I wasn't posing this question as a "gotcha" moment. I'm just curious. So....

You do feel something else, then, right? There is this nagging doubt down in there. I'm wondering where that comes from. The subject of being agnostic, I think, touches on it for your case. There very well might be something more out there than just cold, hard, scientific reasoning and calculation. Something that could be categorize as a sould perhaps? This can be in conflict with what your mind tells you?

Regardless, I think you do see the dichotomy that I presented and that is something to think upon, is it not?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I'm not going to "nail" you as I wasn't posing this question as a "gotcha" moment. I'm just curious. So....

You do feel something else, then, right? There is this nagging doubt down in there. I'm wondering where that comes from. The subject of being agnostic, I think, touches on it for your case. There very well might be something more out there than just cold, hard, scientific reasoning and calculation. Something that could be categorize as a sould perhaps? This can be in conflict with what your mind tells you?

Regardless, I think you do see the dichotomy that I presented and that is something to think upon, is it not?

Sorry, I didn't mean that you would nail me. I meant others.

And, yes, of course there's a nagging sense of doubt. This is why I support the position I do - I support a right to choose up to reasonable fetal viability, and I support a drive to minimize the need for abortion by pushing for availability and effectiveness of birth control, and education for usage.

But, as it stands now, for me the balance must stand with the woman until fetal viability.

if humans could only have a limited amount of children then abortion would probably not be used as an option, but since humans can outproduce the current population in a few years, abortion has to be one answer. It is not a good answer, but neither is war or starvation.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

As the abortion topic seems to be circling a decent amount I thought I'd pose a question that doesn't seem to make sense to me. This question is directed at those who are pro-choice but would never do it themselves or want a lot of effort put into reducing the supposed need for them.

My question is, "Why?" Why does it matter that there are so many abortions? Why would it matter if a woman has multiple abortions? Of all the discussions on the topic the pro-choice supporters seem to put the developing baby in the category of a non-person. As a clump of cells that are of no more import than skin cells or such (at least that's my impression). If this is so then the only reason not to have abortions to any degree that people want is that the actual abortion procedure is unhealthy for the mother, especially if it's done multiple times. So where is the consitency?

To me this desire to limit hints of an understanding that the reasons to allow abortion are not so solidly lodged in your thinking. To me it speaks of a nagging moral dilemma that is buried in the subconscious.

I'm interested as to what is the thought process that creates what appears to be a dichotomy. Thanks for any contributions.

Here's how I look at it.

I personally would be ok with a system where most abortion was banned, but only if the appropriate support systems were in place to handle the burden of not having that option.

For me, it's a fiscal/crime issue. With abortion legal, that allows women to make the most fiscally sound choice in the event that they get pregnant and don't want to go through with things.

With it illegal, you inevitably end up with a growing underclass and a lot of women dying from unsafe abortions.

So, the only way to feasibly have a ban in place is to also have systems in place that minimize the need for abortion (since a ban alone won't remove that), and so that the appropriate institutions are properly funded to handle additional burdens that result from a ban.

So for me, it's entirely fiscal and practical in nature.

Because I'm not a woman, I don't have a large amount of passion for allowing abortion, but at the same time, I can't support a political side that doesn't have a coherent plan for dealing with the repercussions of a ban.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

So you are saying that the only desire you have for reducing the number of abortions is as a compromise with pro-life or because medical procedures are unhealthy in general? If this is so then let me rephrase.

W/o any trappings of the current political conflict over abortion why would you not have one personally or want to reduce the number of them?

PS. Also removing the simple unhealthy results from having multiple surgeries.

Well, there's also the fact that the decision to abort or not is not made lightly for the vast majority of people. I know women who have had abortions and it certainly was no fun for them and so it seems like the less people who have to grapple with this dilemma, the better. No matter if you're pro-choice or pro-life, getting an abortion is not fun.

And back to Speak, specifically, do you feel so inclined no matter the stage in pregnancy as well? From day one to full term abortion is OK with you?

No abortion is "OK", it's a mentally and physically trying event for the pregnant woman and her mate (depending on if he bothers to be involved, of course). Even outside of the "am I killing a human life" debate, it involves a lot of hard questions such as "Can I support a child?", "Would giving birth and putting it up for adoption be feasible?", "Will my family/friends support me?", "Will this lead to any medical complications down the line?", "Who do I even tell, if anyone?"

And placing a limit on late term abortions sounds reasonable to me, as well. Late term abortions carry a much higher risk and the fetus has a much higher chance of surviving outside of the womb, so giving birth and then putting the child up for adoption seems like the most reasonable way to go here.

EDIT: to get more to the point on that last question, yes, I think there is more of a moral gray area when it comes to late term abortions.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Personally, it's not a moral dilemma, it's merely meeting half way with the pro-life folks in order to find a solution we can both be comfortable with. Keep abortions legal while making a concerted effort to reduce them as much as possible seems like a good middle ground to me. Similar to keeping guns legal, but making a concerted effort to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands. In addition, abortions, like any medical procedure, carry a risk with them and it's just smart to want to lower the amount of procedures performed and thus lowering the number of people that will be exposed to such a risk, even if that risk is minimal.

I wanted to answer. . .but you did it for me! I totally agree with all the points you make. I would also include the fact that the choice of having an abortion is a very difficult choice to make. I do not believe 99% of the women make that choice lightly. And it does bring in many emotions and grief for most women who feels they must put an end to an unwanted pregnancy.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I'm not going to "nail" you as I wasn't posing this question as a "gotcha" moment. I'm just curious. So....

You do feel something else, then, right? There is this nagging doubt down in there. I'm wondering where that comes from. The subject of being agnostic, I think, touches on it for your case. There very well might be something more out there than just cold, hard, scientific reasoning and calculation. Something that could be categorize as a sould perhaps? This can be in conflict with what your mind tells you?

Regardless, I think you do see the dichotomy that I presented and that is something to think upon, is it not?

You're not necessarily bringing up anything new, though. Pro-choice is just that: supporting the ability for a woman to make a choice. Someone can believe abortion is wrong, yet still believe that the choice and responsibility should rest on the woman.

You'll notice that nobody in the debate is "pro-abortion".

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Here's how I look at it.

I personally would be ok with a system where most abortion was banned, but only if the appropriate support systems were in place to handle the burden of not having that option.

For me, it's a fiscal/crime issue. With abortion legal, that allows women to make the most fiscally sound choice in the event that they get pregnant and don't want to go through with things.

With it illegal, you inevitably end up with a growing underclass and a lot of women dying from unsafe abortions.

So, the only way to feasibly have a ban in place is to also have systems in place that minimize the need for abortion (since a ban alone won't remove that), and so that the appropriate institutions are properly funded to handle additional burdens that result from a ban.

So for me, it's entirely fiscal and practical in nature.

Because I'm not a woman, I don't have a large amount of passion for allowing abortion, but at the same time, I can't support a political side that doesn't have a coherent plan for dealing with the repercussions of a ban.

Right, but all of this is really talking around what I'm trying to get at. Why do you, Mr. Razor, want to reduce/heavily regulate abortion? What is it that causes you to want this to happen while at the same time still want it to be a legal option? If the unborn child is just a fetus and a clump of cells that are not quite a person then why limit it? If the clump of cells or fetus is considered a person to you, then why allow it?

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

You're not necessarily bringing up anything new, though. Pro-choice is just that: supporting the ability for a woman to make a choice. Someone can believe abortion is wrong, yet still believe that the choice and responsibility should rest on the woman.

You'll notice that nobody in the debate is "pro-abortion".

Interesting. Do you know of any other examples that there is a large number of people who believe something is wrong but still want it to be a legal option? I'm not able to think of anything off the top of my head. Wait! Maybe drug use/abuse? That's the only one I can think of.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Right, but all of this is really talking around what I'm trying to get at. Why do you, Mr. Razor, want to reduce/heavily regulate abortion? What is it that causes you to want this to happen while at the same time still want it to be a legal option? If the unborn child is just a fetus and a clump of cells that are not quite a person then why limit it? If the clump of cells or fetus is considered a person to you, then why allow it?

I think I might have misinterpreted your question. I was providing what I would want in place with a ban being present.

I'm not interested in preventing legal abortions. I'm interested in preventing illegal ones. Illegal abortions usually result in the death of a lot of women.