Discussing Abortion: Is Civility the Best Approach?

[Hume]

It came up on another thread that because abortion and support for abortion is so horrible, there is no need for pro-lifers to remain civil. After all, would we be civil toward somebody supporting the slaughter of an entire ethnicity?

Ethnicity?

Fetuses are not an ethnic group. They’re the unborn members of all different ethnic groups.

I disagree for a number of reasons and maintain that we should remain civil and charitable when trying to reach pro-choicers.

Bravo. No sarcasm.

First, an opponent is more likely to dismiss your perspective if you come at the person with anger or rudeness. This only results in bruised egos and hurt feelings, not in any progress toward convincing the opponent.

This is as proven as social constructs can be. Attacks raise shells and barriers.

Second, while supporters of the genocide of born people act out of anger and malice, pro-choicers genuinely believe that the unborn aren’t human and that they’re truly helping women. You need to meet people where they are in these discussions.

I don’t support choice out of anger and malice. I support it out of concern for the woman involved. Otherwise you’re right.

Any other thoughts?

A woman’s body is hers. Forcing her to do anything with it (such as carrying an unwanted pregnancy) is completely unethical.

The only ethical solution is to keep abortion safe and legal and do our best to convince these women to choose life.

Give mom and baby healthcare. Give mom a year of paid maternity leave. Those are some real pro-life policies that would further reduce abortion numbers lower than they already are.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Sorry, I was writing over the course of about an hour while running round after my three year old and thought I’d addressed it, so sorry about that.

Civility matters, but in what sphere does it not? Simply screaming “murderers” and calling clinics “slaughterhouses”, does really not help your cause. It simply entrenches deeply held beliefs.

Pro-lifers contend that abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. Do you accept or reject this premise?

Honestly? Reject, a foetus has the potential to form into a fully formed human but it isn’t one during gestation, definitely not prior to point of viability, beyond that there is more scope for debate but it’s still reject overall.

 

[blackforest]

Ethnicity?

Fetuses are not an ethnic group. They’re the unborn members of all different ethnic groups.

Context: Somebody was comparing abortion to the Holocaust in the other thread. I should have clarified that.

Bravo.

Sarcasm . . . ?

The is as proven as social constructs can be.

Come again? I don’t understand the sentence.

I don’t support choice out of anger and malice. I support it out of concern for the woman involved.

Yes, to clarify, I was stating the same thing.

A woman’s body is hers. Forcing her to do anything with it (such as carrying an unwanted pregnancy) is completely unethical.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if - if!! - abortion did not unjustly take the life of a defenseless human being.

Give mom and baby healthcare. Give mom a year of paid maternity leave. Those are some real pro-life policies that would further reduce abortion numbers lower than they already are.

I agree wholeheartedly. No “ifs” here.

Civility matters, but in what sphere does it not? Simply screaming “murderers” and calling clinics “slaughterhouses”, does really not help your cause. It simply entrenches deeply held beliefs.

Absolutely.

Reject, a foetus has the potential to form into a fully formed human but it isn’t one during gestation,

The fetus is an organism, and all organisms belong to a species - in this case, human being. A fetus is as fully formed as a human in this phase of development can be. An infant is as fully formed as an infant can be - for example, the skull isn’t yet completely closed in, leaving a “soft spot.” A child is as fully formed as a child can be - e.g. without the traits of an adolescent body. And so on and so forth.

definitely not prior to point of viability,

I am puzzled as to why level of dependency is a criteria for who lives and who dies. It seems rather arbitrary. My husband depends on insulin to stay alive. Is his life worth any less than yours and mine?

 

[Hume]

On the death of “a defenseless human being” two thoughts;

Perhaps you over-personify a fetus. At the stage the overwhelming majority of these take place, “ball of cells” is a pretty decent descriptor. It has no cognition to harm. When it dies, it never knew it lived.

Second thought is the question of what makes you the arbiter of the fetus any more than, say, me? Or that guy over there? Or that girl standing over there?

By lack of limiting principle, maybe we should consider the choice to be the sole dominion of the pregnant woman.

Corrections made above to my previous comment to address your replies on substance. Thanks.

 

[MPat]

Civility does not mean that at all. It means being respectful and keeping calm.

There are different levels of respect.

It would be kinda interesting if we would be explicitly discussing what level of respect is appropriate in one or another case.

The bad cop is already sabotaging their own work.

Well, we are going to have “bad cops” and “good cops” whatever we do. Discussions like this one are unlikely to be that effective.

It is likely to be better to act in the way that makes all of them useful.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It has no cognition to harm. When it dies, it never knew it lived.

Neither would a sleeping person.

By lack of limiting principle, maybe we should consider the choice to be the sole dominion of the pregnant woman.

We could also give it to the fetus.

A woman’s body is hers. Forcing her to do anything with it (such as carrying an unwanted pregnancy) is completely unethical.

The only ethical solution is to keep abortion safe and legal and do our best to convince these women to choose life.

Killing a fetus is also unethical so that doesn’t work out.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Theres negative consequences as well, obviously the increase in mortality of those seeking abortions must be considered.

They are doing that to themselves and that’s their fault.

Further to that is the very real risk of criminalising miscarriage, as seen most notably in El Salvador but could quite easily happen in the US.

That’s a slippery slope and El Salvador is very different country.

 

[blackforest]

Perhaps you over-personify a fetus.

A fetus is simply a human being in the fetal phase of development. As a staunch supporter of human rights, I’d say that over-personifying a person in any phase of development simply isn’t possible.

At the stage the overwhelming majority of these take place, “ball of cells” is a pretty decent descriptor.

The fetal phase of development begins after the embryonic phase ends, at about 8 weeks gestation. This is not a “ball” by any means. 8 Weeks Pregnant: Symptoms, Belly Pictures & More | BabyCenter

It has no cognition to harm. When it dies, it never knew it lived.

I would agree with @VanitasVanitatum that unconsciousness or semi-consciousness is is a pretty arbitrary excuse to use for killing somebody.

By lack of limiting principle, maybe we should consider the choice to be the sole dominion of the pregnant woman.

A choice is simply a voluntary action. Pro-lifers cannot understand why pro-choicers consider this an ethically acceptable choice.

Thanks for clarifying your previous comment.

 

[PetraG]

A woman’s body is hers. Forcing her to do anything with it (such as carrying an unwanted pregnancy) is completely unethical.

The only ethical solution is to keep abortion safe and legal and do our best to convince these women to choose life.

Give mom and baby healthcare. Give mom a year of paid maternity leave. Those are some real pro-life policies that would further reduce abortion numbers lower than they already are.

Where did you get the idea that we all have bodily autonomy to the point that we can eliminate someone whose existence is keeping us from doing what we want to do with our bodies? I know people think that way, but why should that presumption go un-examined? That sounds like really extreme individualism to me.

That’s where the rubber meets the road. At what point in our existence (which undeniably starts at conception) do we become persons? To what extent are persons in a society bound to avoid doing things that will directly end the life of another person, a person has done no intentional harm to anyone?

But yes, people should have healthcare, although they ought to contribute according to their means to pay for it. We shouldn’t be pretending that we can’t find a way to help people meet their essential needs.

 

[vz71]

Pro-lifers cannot understand why pro-choicers consider this an ethically acceptable choice.

For that matter, most people in general simply do not even address the ethics of the situation.

 

[Hume]

A fetus is simply a human being in the fetal phase of development. As a staunch supporter of human rights, I’d say that over-personifying a person in any phase of development simply isn’t possible.

You feel that way because of your convictions, but the best we can tell or test, the idea just doesn’t hold water in reality.

Feeling pain requires a developed central nervous system. A fetus lacks that until later in development.
Desiring to live, or any desire for that matter, requires a well developed brain that is cognizant of such desires either innately or through learning. A fetus lacks that until much later in development.

The fetal phase of development begins after the embryonic phase ends, at about 8 weeks gestation. This is not a “ball” by any means.

It’s still a lemon-sized fetus that isn’t cognizant of anything. “Quickening” (moving) typically has not occurred by 13 weeks.

I would agree with @VanitasVanitatum that unconsciousness or semi-consciousness is is a pretty arbitrary excuse to use for killing somebody.

I’d agree too.

The reason the fetus dies is that mom doesn’t want to lend her body. I’m just showing why it’s not as much a “person” as you nor I. As fetuses and coma patients show in spades, they can be and are killed by others for no real legal consequence.

This is a hard reality, but it simply is.

A choice is simply a voluntary action. Pro-lifers cannot understand why pro-choicers consider this an ethically acceptable choice.

And they don’t have to. I don’t understand why people who can’t afford it get pregnant or even have pets, for that matter. Their poverty guarantees suffering for the new entrant to their family.

But their choice is their choice. There’s no inherent reason why I should have a say.

 

[vz71]

. “Quickening” (moving) typically has not occurred by 13 weeks.

Actually, the heartbeat occurs much earlier, and movements such as arching the back have been seen as early as 6 weeks.

Not that it matters. The fact that it is human and alive are what really matters.

 

[blackforest]

You feel that way because of your convictions, but the best we can tell or test, the idea just doesn’t hold water in reality.

I first said:

A fetus is simply a human being in the fetal phase of development.

This is not a feeling, but a fact. Then I stated:

As a staunch supporter of human rights, I’d say that over-personifying a person in any phase of development simply isn’t possible.

This indeed is a conviction, one that I hope any civilized society would take for granted. Basic human rights are something we should be taking seriously.

Feeling pain requires a developed central nervous system. A fetus lacks that until later in development.
Desiring to live, or any desire for that matter, requires a well developed brain that is cognizant of such desires either innately or through learning. A fetus lacks that until much later in development.

It is your opinion that it’s OK to kill those who feel pain, desire to live, etc. I take a position of non-discrimination, by contrast, and argue that even those incapable of knowing the difference between life and death - unborn, infants, unconscious, disabled, some elderly, etc. - should not be killed simply because they are unwanted.

I further argue that this non-discrimination should be the default in our cultural and policy-making practices.

It’s still a lemon-sized fetus that isn’t cognizant of anything. “Quickening” (moving) typically has not occurred by 13 weeks.

“Quickening” isn’t movement. It’s a pregnant woman feeling movement.

Again, it is your opinion that it is OK to kill a human because s/he is small. But it would be a pretty difficult opinion to defend. How big is “big enough” for you so that somebody’s life should be spared?

(Continued next post).

 

[blackforest]

The reason the fetus dies is that mom doesn’t want to lend her body.

The fetus does more than die. That would be a passive process, a miscarriage. With elective, induced abortion, the fetus is deliberately killed.

As to your core point, it’s interesting that you bring this up because I’m simultaneously tied up in a CAF debate over single-payer health care, something I favor.

Somebody in the thread is posing the argument that nobody “owes” anybody their labor, so therefore there is no fundamental right to health care. Somebody else could say that if they happened upon a major car accident and help had not arrived, they’re under no obligation to stop their car, get out, risk their life to pull living people out of the wreckage, call 9-1-1, etc. After all, why should accident victims have any fundamental right to someone else’s sacrifice? So where do you draw the line? When does altruism become a moral obligation?

If you look at the actual reasons why women have abortions, it’s not because they don’t want somebody “using” their bodies. It’s because they have financial and social hurdles preventing them from carrying to term and raising a child. This is something that a society concerned with overthrowing sexism should address.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Peaceful, loving discussion is the only way. These woman have had pain in their lives. They think sex is love & get left by the men. The world sold the story, they own their bodies & can remove a baby if unwanted. The baby is a parasite. God grace me w Your love for these ppl, b/c I think of slapping them. I’m not a Saint in my mind. Praying for the heart of Jesus is easy. Having Him change my heart to His heart is questionable. My heart is surrounded by flesh.
Jesus was mocked & persecuted. No matter what is said to us— Love them.

Ever heard the abortion-on-demand lobby argue that …if you want to be peaceful and loving and tolerant and harmonious, then MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS !!! ?

They accuse Pro-Lifers of being unloving misogynists, haters, fascists, theocrats…and they do everything they can to asymmetrically censor and ban free speech so that their ‘politically correct’ worldview is the only allowable worldview.

No. I won’t be letting them dictate to me, nor will I let them define the meaning of the word “civility” in order to muzzle my free speech.

 

[OKComputer]

I’m not sure discussing abortion really helps. It’s hard to change the mind of others.

 

[blackforest]

I’m really not sure where some pro-lifers are getting the idea that civility = being a doormat. I’m fiercely pro-life but will try my hardest to defend my position with a level head and polite demeanor. (At least I hope I’ve demonstrated that in this thread . . . . )

 

[NevermoreLenore]

I agree. I tried to open up discussion and, notably, no one even commented on my attempts to show why a woman might seek abortion and how to address those issues. Civil discourse has everything to do with the issue–no one wants to listen to anyone talking with distain toward them whilst not having their issues addressed. It is shocking how hateful and condescending prolifers can be, completely unwilling to address the actual issues, and that will forever be ineffective.

Edited to add: I am sorrowful regarding abortion, but I do not embrace the prolife moniker because pro choice people automatically are defensive and know they will not be listened to and will be told ‘it’s wrong’.

 

[vz71]

I do not embrace the prolife moniker because pro choice people automatically are defensive and know they will not be listened to and will be told ‘it’s wrong’.

What does that mean?

 

[Hume]

Somebody in the thread is posing the argument that nobody “owes” anybody their labor, so therefore there is no fundamental right to health care. Somebody else could say that if they happened upon a major car accident and help had not arrived, they’re under no obligation to stop their car, get out, risk their life to pull living people out of the wreckage, call 9-1-1, etc. After all, why should accident victims have any fundamental right to someone else’s sacrifice? So where do you draw the line? When does altruism become a moral obligation?

That’s an excellent point, but you’re talking to someone who also rejects the concept of natural rights.

We don’t have a “right” to roads, cops, schools, national defense, courts, ect. that I can observe.

We assemble those things as a collective because they seem to be good ideas on their own merit. The same goes for single-payer healthcare. It seems to be the only real way to administer it from where I sit.

If you look at the actual reasons why women have abortions, it’s not because they don’t want somebody “using” their bodies. It’s because they have financial and social hurdles preventing them from carrying to term and raising a child. This is something that a society concerned with overthrowing sexism should address.

Regardless their reasoning, they can remove an unwanted visitor from their body if they so choose. But this brings up one of my favorite taglines on these discussions.

If someone really wants to be pro-life in a free society, the answer isn’t the enslavement of the woman. The answer lies in the destruction of those reasons driving it. Give mom and baby heathcare. Give mom a year of maternity leave. Create public pre-schools than run from 1yo to kindergarten.

Expensive? Sure! But it usually separates the wheat from the chaff when they’re asked to actually put their money where their mouths are.