Blogcritics Comments on The Many Sides of the Abortion Issue

Comment by Joan

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:52:19 EST

I have to say such respect of anothers opinion are not far from a pro-choice way of thinking if you dig to a deep level of the close resemblance of said respect and the issue at hand. I would say that a pro-choice way of thinking would be to say that you should have the right to your own opinion on the matter and that legislating the issue isn't right, which is different from believing that pursuing legislation would just not be effective as long as people's minds haven't been changed. there are many ramifications to establishing the personhood of fetuses There are many rights that we currently limit or restrict based on a person's age (voting, driving, having sex, making medical decisions, etc.). Recognizing fetuses as having a right to live doesn't mean that we necessarily have to grant them the right to inherit and own property, be counted in the census, or qualify you to ride in the car-pool lane. For a case where a pregnancy is threatening a mother's life, keep in mind that for a non-viable fetus, if the mother dies the baby will die, too. Clearly you would want to save the mom. For a viable fetus, you can "terminate" the pregnancy by delivering the baby. That would leave you with mother and baby both alive, even if the baby has to deal with being a premie. Pregnant women who fail to live up to a perfect standard of self-care would be just the same as all of us parents who fail to feed our children the perfect, healthy diet or fail to provide a 100% child-friendly environment 24/7. Nobody's going to put us all in jail or take our children away unless we do something really gross.

Comment by Steve S

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:38:52 EST

comment 23, to create italics, put i in between the greater than and less than symbols. To end italics put /i in between the same symbols. (with the open part of the symbols going inward, in all cases.) Basically it's shift-comma, i, shift-period. then to end italics it's shift-comma, /i, shift-period. You can also make bold text by putting b inside the symbols. Just remember to end the bold tags with /b inside them.

Comment by Margaret Romao Toigo

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:23:00 EST

A fetus is a living thing (the fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as 4 weeks gestation) whether it would be viable outside of the womb or not. The question we should be asking is whether or not a fetus is a separate person or a living part of its mother. Medical science has established that life behins at conception, but does personhood begin at conception or birth? Now, think carefully about this one because there are many ramifications to establishing the personhood of fetuses. If a tax deduction is allowed for a fetus, would such deductions be later disallowed in the event of pregnancies that result in miscarriages or stillbirths? In cases where complications of pregnancy or other health problems are a potential threat to a woman's life, which person would be sacrificed and who would make that decision? If a fetus is a person, mothers would be held accountable for their habits and behaviors during pregnancy. Of course, the obvious first instinct response usually has something to do with drug/alcohol/nicotine use which are especially unhealthy to both mother and fetus. But what of the less obvious behavioral risks such as excess weight gain, driving without a seatbelt or continuing to work in high stress or hazardous occupations?

Comment by Duraegeru McCrary

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:17:17 EST

Shark's quick take on abortion: As the world population grows exponentially, abortion will not only remain legal, it will be mandatory. .... It already is in some countries.

Comment by Duraegeru McCrary

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:15:11 EST

Mmmm Since I don't know just yet how to quote by italics (Could someone share such knowledge upon my mind? I'd appreciate it) I'll just refer to all of post 8 by Joan... That post is the epitome of the type of system I would like to see in society as a whole. Those comments are parts to the mindframe of Individualism and I respect you greatly for it. I respect also the fact that people are not attacking others for having a different opinion, as I am use to seeing when touching on such issues. Saying that, I have to say such respect of anothers opinion are not far from a pro-choice way of thinking if you dig to a deep level of the close resemblance of said respect and the issue at hand. Yes sometimes I will confuse to the point of making no sense. Ha.

Comment by Steve S

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:11:52 EST

While DNA testing can establish paternity and then the courts can rule for support, it's my understanding that the courts have been lacking in enforcing that support. If I am wrong, then that is great. I heard moreso in the past, but still hear frequently today of women who are owed for years of child support, that the court awarded them, but that the man just doesn't pay. So what good is that court ruling? THAT is what I'm referring to in my comments. If that is changing, then hooray!

Comment by andy marsh

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:03:16 EST

Shark - she's been kicking me ever since too!

Comment by JR

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:56:44 EST

JR - with that logic a newborn shouldn't be considered viable either! I mean, other than being born, what has a newborn experienced? I'm not talking about viability; hell, with technology going the way it is, we'll soon be able make embryos viable outside the womb. I'm talking about personhood. And no, babies aren't exactly people either. In some sense, babies aren't entirely "viable", seeing as how I've never heard of one russling up its own dinner. And to answer one of your other questions, life began about three billion years ago, and it's been selectively pruning itself ever since.

Comment by Margaret Romao Toigo

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:51:13 EST

An important part of addressing the social, economic and spiritual aspect of helping the woman is doing something about that "deadbeat dad mentality." And there has been plenty done about it. Child support is not as easy to avoid as it once was. Nowadays, when paternity can be established through 99.9% accurate DNA testing, a woman can seek -- and in most cases will get -- finacial support from the father of her child (to the extent that he is able to reasonably afford it, of course). However, discussing the economics of child support laws and mens' responsibilities in the reproductive process is a distraction from the anachonistic social mores which can make even well-to-do women feel as if abortion is their only logical choice.

Comment by Shark

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:35:55 EST

Andy: "...At other times when I "talked" to her before she was born, she would kick or punch me!" Very perceptive child you have. Shark's quick take on abortion: As the world population grows exponentially, abortion will not only remain legal, it will be mandatory. ====== "Can you people stop rutting until we get this food, air, and water thing down?!" --Bill Hicks

Comment by andy marsh

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:29:16 EST

JR - with that logic a newborn shouldn't be considered viable either! I mean, other than being born, what has a newborn experienced? I'm not anti-abortion. I don't think I have the right to tell anyone what to do with their own body. I do think I should have a say if I was responsible in the creation of the baby. I'm asking a question here. I have asked it before. This question came up after the Peterson verdict. What makes a fetus viable? I'll tell you this about my oldest daughter. Before she was born, I used to come home every day and say into her mothers belly, "Cutie Pie, Daddy's home". Remember, I did this just about every day. The day I picked her up in the nursery at Memorial Med in Long Beach, I poked my head in the door and said those same words. My daughter and only my daughter lifted her head and turned towards the sound of my voice. Some people will say that it was all in my mind. That she just happened to move at that particular time, but I know how I feel about it and what it tells me about unborn babies, at least THAT unborn baby. At other times when I "talked" to her before she was born, she would kick or punch me! But it always seemed like she was specifically reacting to my voice. So, I ask again, what makes a fetus viable and WHO gets to make that decision?

Comment by Joan

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:01:33 EST

An interesting question is whether this change can occur without support from the nature of that class of "people". Slaves had dreams and aspirations and the ability to express them and the will to fight for them. Fetuses have none of the above. One side effect of technological advancement is that we have been able to see and learn more about intrauterine life. As visual images of the unborn, with their activities and their bodily functions, become more common, some people find that the fetuses win them over without having to say a word. I find it disappointing that people on both sides of the issue continually address the social, economic and spiritual aspect of helping the woman, but do not focus on the main cause most women need abortions. A deadbeat dad mentality. How much is this addressed in other states? Here in California, before a mom can receive government assistance, the state will demand that paternity be established first, including a DNA test if necessary. I'm not sure, though, exactly what lengths they go to to collect the child support after paternity is established. DNA testing is really the modern-day version of the shotgun wedding. The man may not end up married to the woman, but he will be married to his child. Hopefully, it will result in men caring more about preventing pregnancy.

Comment by Steve S

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:22:56 EST

As a pro-choice advocate who believes that the fetus becomes a viable person when it has the ability to survive outside the womb (a personal decision not everyone will agree with), I find it disappointing that people on both sides of the issue continually address the social, economic and spiritual aspect of helping the woman, but do not focus on the main cause most women need abortions. A deadbeat dad mentality. I support social programs to help the poor, however I think social programs for women who cannot afford children would be best in cases where the father is a teenager himself, or other extenuating equivalent circumstances. Hold the man accountable for his children, and the number of abortions would go down (because the number of unwanted pregnancies would go down). Society does not do enough to address this issue, but acknowledges this issue exists.

Comment by Margaret Romao Toigo

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:47:46 EST

Thank you all so much for sharing your thoughts. Feedback is always a Good Thing. I agree wholeheartedly with Bill Clinton's wish that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." According to just about every poll I've ever read, the vast majority of the American people are pro-choice. Sure, there are many right-wing politicians who are well-known for their panderering to the pro-life voting bloc, but they are mostly paying lip service to the utopian fantasies of the naive faithful and those wrathful judges of everyone else's sins. Of course, both the liberal and conservative politicians who appear to be trying to please everyone is what has created these gray areas on each side of the abortion issue. To garner a maximun number of votes, moderate politicians (yes, moderates can be either Democrats or Republicans or even something else) will propose compromises by either supporting exceptions to a ban or restrictions on the right to choose. I understand that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would not result in a federal ban on abortion (though there are some pro-lifers who have been duped into believing this) but that the regulation of abortion would become a matter of state law. However, if this happened, access to safe abortion services would become unavailable to a large number of poor women who lack the means to travel, which would have the same effects as a national ban. It is refreshing to read comments from so many people who can see an issue in terms other than simple black and white. It was especially heartening to read comments from people who understand that the most effective means of reducing abortion -- keeping them safe, legal and rare -- is not to outlaw the procedure, but to provide social, economic and moral support for women so that they do not have to make such an awful choice.

Comment by JR

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:33:29 EST

How can you have dreams if you haven't experienced anything to dream about?

Comment by andy marsh

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:26:04 EST

JR - How do you know what dreams and aspirations fetuses have? When do they start to have dreams and aspirations? I think that's the jest of the argument. When does life begin?

Comment by JR

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:11:25 EST

If our society reaches the point that a large enough majority of us acknowledge the human rights of the fetus, then anti-abortion laws would be passed with overwhelming support...Some pro-choicers get tired of hearing analogies between abortion and slavery, but it is an example of an issue that required a change in the national mindset to embrace the personhood of a class of people. An interesting question is whether this change can occur without support from the nature of that class of "people". Slaves had dreams and aspirations and the ability to express them and the will to fight for them. Fetuses have none of the above.

Comment by Joan

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:50:12 EST

I just have to keep spreading the message and hope and pray that people see the light. If our society reaches the point that a large enough majority of us acknowledge the human rights of the fetus, then anti-abortion laws would be passed with overwhelming support. I believe that working toward a society that values everyone's intrinsic worth (even the poor, the sick, the disabled, and people with different skin colors and religions) will bring about a cultural mindset that cherishes life more, and people will get a new attitude about the unborn. They will also stop shaming and blaming women who have unplanned pregnancies. Some pro-choicers get tired of hearing analogies between abortion and slavery, but it is an example of an issue that required a change in the national mindset to embrace the personhood of a class of people. Nowadays, there is still a small minority of people who think blacks are sub-human, but they have to respect the human rights of blacks because it's the law.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:15:55 EST

Joan, that seems like a very reasonable approach, but how do you deal with someone who does not agree that a non-viable fetus is a person?

Comment by Joan

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 03:30:18 EST

For those who believe in the personhood of the unborn, abortion is not just a religious/moral question, it's a human rights issue. There are moral values that I believe in (e.g., "thou shalt not steal") that I do think the government should impose on everyone because violating that principle also violates the human rights of another person. On the other hand, if people violate some of my other beliefs (e.g., "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain") they are not really hurting me or anybody else. I should not try to force everyone to obey that religious principle. If I believe that the fetus is a person, then I believe I have a right to get in someone else's business and tell them that they shouldn't take that person's life. Having said that, I don't think pursuing legislation is the best way to stop abortions. If abortion were criminalized nationwide, but the majority of people still believed that abortion was OK, the abortions would not stop. I'm more interested in reaching people's hearts and minds with the pro-life message, and providing support for women so that no woman would need to consider an abortion solely because of fear, shame, isolation, or economic need.

Comment by Steve S

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:38:29 EST

the 'start looking for truth from our Creator' line should have been italicized, as it was a quote from the previous comment. Not my own.

Comment by Steve S

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:37:01 EST

Whenever there is a debate about anything, it frustrates me...why? Because it shows we all have the ability to think and come up with different rationale? Would it be better if we were all Stepford Wives? start looking for the truth from our creator. Everybody who reads the BIble comes up with different interpretations. Some people, *gasp* don't even believe in the Bible. Since the topic here is abortion, I am assuming that is your main thought here. Should the government make a decision about whether abortion is right or wrong, based on the 'truth from our Creator'? (psst. Should be capitalized). Works for me, as long as you let ME be the one to do the interpretation.

Comment by Benjamin J Perry

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:10:45 EST

Whenever there is a debate about anything, it frustrates me...why? Well first of all, most people are so narrow minded that they only see a detail on the picture rather than the whole thing. As soon as you call something an "issue", you narrow in on the problem. I will never forget the important lesson that was taught in the movie 'Patch Adams', the solution comes not from focusing on the problem, but looking past it by focusing on the whole picture. Secondly, the "issue" is usually much more complcated than any side will make it. Each point will be so simplified that it will usually only hold partial truth, and you don't have to be a genious to figure out that, if all the points are simplified to partial truth, the debate will continue because the other sides of the debate will latch onto the part that isn't true. Isn't truth what we are all searching for? Lastly, the more an "issue" is debated, the more it becomes an "issue". I have rarely seen debating come up with a best solution, if it even comes up with one. All it seems to do is make blood boil, tempers rise, fighting, and in extreme cases murder. Even the peaceful debates you leave with dissatisfaction, even if you felt like you got the better of the other side or sides. So where does that leave us? Even though I may seem like a passivist, I am quite the contrary. I myself as much as anyone want a solution and want to act on it. Here is my suggestion, how about we all get over our prideful selves, stop thinking we actually have an idea of what is right and wrong, and start looking for the truth from our creator. As I remember it, Adam and Eve brought sin into the world because in their pride they thought they could understand for themselves what was right and wrong, and didn't need God. Let us not set our pride in America, but in who can give us salvation. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Then let us see if there are any more "issues" that need to be dealt with. Focus not on what is seen, but what is unseen...

Comment by Harry Forbes

Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:30:54 EST

A couple of comments on points made by the author: 1) "For example, pro-choicers disagree about whether the right to choose should be unlimited or restricted (by trimester)" People feel this way I am sure, but I don't know of elected officials who speak this way. Some may well disagree, but the Democratic party has squeezed this viewpoint completely out of its mainstream through dogged support for the legality of late-term abortion, in spite of a strong aversion to the procedure among the general public. 2) "...people who assert, in their efforts to see Roe v. Wade overturned, that they are championing for the unborn." Overturning Roe v. Wade would not outlaw abortion. Rather, it would give state legislatures much wider leeway when making law pertaining to abortion. This was the condition of law before the decision in 1973. Some states (notably NY) had very permissive abortion laws before Roe v Wade while others outlawed abortion in nearly all cases. Abortion was a controversial issue at the time, but the focus was on disputes over state law. The distinction is that before the Roe v Wade decision it was elected legislatures who decided these limits rather than the judiciary.

Comment by Duraegeru McCrary

Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:04:28 EST

This is exactly why I do not label myself. Just as people assume I am atheist, or agnostic... I say neither one. I don't label what I am because there is not one that describes every single detail about who I am or what I think. I am who I am, nothing more, nothing less. Anyway, I would have to go with abortion being completely legal without restrictions. For the fact that only the Individual should be able to make the choice of what they desire to do with, or in, their own body and mind. I would be very disgusted with a person who would do it after like 7 months or whatever, but it's still within their body unborn... and no matter my moral stance I would have to support what I consider the ways of Individualism... which means complete freedom of choice as long as it does not affect another Individual in a negative fashion. A unborn child, to me, is not yet an Individual, but still only a part of the Individual carrying it. But that is only my opinion... based upon the fact that no one ever remembers being inside the womb anyway, for one. What it comes down to is freedom of choice, every Individuals right, and to take such a right away just because of the majorities opinion is going to destroy this type of society anyway.