Discussing Abortion: Is Civility the Best Approach?

[MamaJewel]

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

Pregnancy isn’t a simple choice. It is a serious choice with life-long consequences in the various aspects of the woman’s life, whether she carries to term, electively aborts, or spontaneously aborts. (And that’s if she survives the pregnancy, labor, delivery, and post-partum stages).

This is the very issue that pro-choicers can not understand about pro-lifers.

I’m totally on-board that a human embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, toddler, young child, adolescent, teen, … are human beings at stages of their humanity.

But like most pro-choice individuals, Hume sees a pregnant woman as a cognizant person who should not be required to provide another human being with direct bodily life support (ie. literally calcium from her bones, iron from her red blood cells, O2, etc) without her expressed consent to do so.

This is the issue pro-lifers must acknowledge if we are ever going to win others to consider the earliest humans as human beings in their initial stages of humanity.

How do we tell a woman that she is mandated to be a body/blood/tissue donor to directly support the life of a new human being growing inside of her when there are laws that protect all other individuals from having to give direct body/blood/tissue donations of any type?

The pro-life community compares the unborn to a dehumanized slave whose humanity has been out-right rejected because it can be aborted.

The pro-choice community compares a woman forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term as a dehumanized slave whose humanity has been rejected because the developing human is given direct use of her body over her own bodily interests if abortion is made illegal.

That is the dilemma of elective abortion.
Balancing the interests of a human being at its earliest stages with the interests of the woman sustaining its life with her very body.

 

[blackforest]

I believe you’ve made identical arguments in other threads, and that I’ve engaged you in those, as well. But I’ll give it another go.

But like most pro-choice individuals, Hume sees a pregnant woman as a cognizant person who should not be required to provide another human being with direct bodily life support (ie. literally calcium from her bones, iron from her red blood cells, O2, etc) without her expressed consent to do so.

Pro-choicers are not a monolith, and Hume actually didn’t make that argument. He does not share your views on the child’s humanity and told me that I was “over-personify[ing]” the fetus.

You are assuming that the right to bodily autonomy is so absolutely sacrosanct that it can include killing another human being. But if we can kill the unborn based on the notion of absolute bodily autonomy, is it OK to injure and permanently disable them, as well?

What would you say to a young woman who ended up pregnant, knew she was pregnant, and continued going to parties, drinking heavily, and smoking pot? In another example, why did we bother banning thalidomide? If a woman wants to continue taking it during pregnancy regardless of the permanent damage to her child’s limbs – by your rationale – why should she be forced to endure nausea to keep another human being intact?

On that note, is autonomy limited to and unique to women? To paraphrase the comedian, Dave Chappelle: “If you can kill that mother@#$%^&, I can at least abandon it. My money, my choice.”

I’m totally on-board that a human embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, toddler, young child, adolescent, teen, … are human beings at stages of their humanity.

Good. We can speak a common language when I make my next point. Suppose I end up pregnant. I consent to the pregnancy, but I do not consent to raising the child. I line up a loving couple to adopt the baby instead.

One night, I find myself stranded in a major blizzard in a mountain cabin. I go into labor unassisted and deliver the baby. There is no formula, and it is uncertain when help can arrive. Am I under any obligation to give up my body to breastfeed with colostrum? (Credit to Scott Klusendorf for this example).

 

[blackforest]

(Continued)

The pro-choice community compares a woman forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term as a dehumanized slave whose humanity has been rejected because the developing human is given direct use of her body over her own bodily interests if abortion is made illegal.

It is fascinatingly the pro-choice community that insists on pitting a woman against her own offspring. Are there any pro-choice non-profits dedicated solely to helping women making the choice to carry to term? Planned Parenthood offers scholarships for women seeking abortion, but no scholarships to help her carry to term and raise the baby. Ironically, in fact, they offer no resources for planning parenthood - breastfeeding and parenting classes, material resources, etc.

It is pro-lifers who work their butts off, usually on a volunteer basis, in assisting women so that they can make a genuinely free choice – not one coerced by socioeconomic factors or unsupportive partners.

The pro-choice community compares a woman forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term as a dehumanized slave

Women don’t want their pregnancies because of outside socioeconomic and other similar obstacles that are surmountable if we as a society work to overcome them. I see those as the real enemy. You and other pro-choicers, by contrast, shift the blame to the unborn offspring. But it is profoundly sexist to compel women to lie down on the abortionist’s exam table in order to accommodate low wages, lack of paid leave and affordable health care, the feminization of poverty, etc.

To call a woman a “slave” is disempowering to women and insulting to actual slaves, women who spend their lives trafficked for their bodies and children forced to climb into African mica mines.

Balancing the interests of a human being at its earliest stages with the interests of the woman sustaining its life with her very body.

How is there a “balance?” When you can be killed at any time, precisely what advantages are filling your side of the scale?

 

[EndTimes]

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.

Never negatively - rather, calm - matter of factly

Abortion is murder of the babe in the womb - very very Selfish

 

[Leek]

My feeling is that arguments from both sides end up dehumanizing women. The prolife side seems to place the life of the woman as secondary sometimes even to the point of being required to die WITH their baby, and the pro choice side that devalues the fetus also devalues the sacrifices and the work woman do to bring every last person into this world.

I spent a couple weeks in a hospital fighting for my little one and there were a lot of other women /teens who were in no way prepared for a child and who were suffering and risking their lives (all high risk) They each had enough support to make that possible for them (there was no abortion law to force them). Saying “it’s your choice” is like saying “its your choice” to join the army and defend my country while I stay here and don’t worry about it. I think the prolife side would be better served focusing on creating a pregnancy friendly environment, and work on respecting women’s autonomy and their service to society. Undermine the pro abortion arguments by removing them.

 

[Lion_IRC]

An unborn baby is a living human being. Now…

Which side of the abortion debate is doing the dehumanizing ?

 

[EndTimes]

My feeling is that arguments from both sides end up dehumanizing women

women and men who support Abortion
are already dehumanizing in the most extreme manner

 

[Lea101]

An unborn baby is a living human being. Now…

Which side of the abortion debate is doing the dehumanizing ?

If you read the whole post, you would know you’re misframing the point. Prolifers do have a tendency to dehumanise the woman in favour of the unborn child, by dismissing the women’s reasons/lack of empathy etc. I’m saying this as a prolifer as well

Catholic women who are working on the front lines of this are good at avoiding this trap in general (eg Lila Rose, Leah Darrow, etc), as well as the other women who are actively creating a positive environment for the woman, but people who are focused on the apologist side of things tend to fall into this trap (eg politicians, pundits)

 

[blackforest]

I’m a member of Feminists for Life and totally espouse a woman-centered approach. That said, it’s one thing to get tunnel-visioned and avoid assisting woman or considering their needs. But it’s a LOT more dehumanizing to say that someone isn’t a “person,” therefore it’s OK to kill them. At least nobody is saying that about grown women!

Overall, however, it takes a truly sick society to conjure up a way to pit women against their own offspring. But sadly, ours has managed to do it.

 

[MamaJewel]

I believe you’ve made identical arguments in other threads, and that I’ve engaged you in those, as well. But I’ll give it another go.

This is the issue pro-lifers must acknowledge if we are ever going to win others to consider the earliest humans as human beings in their initial stages of humanity.

Btw, can you argue the pro-choice side?
If you can argue for the pro-choice perspective, it will help you to establish a framework for a solid pro-life rebuttal that leads the pro-choicer to acknowledge that a human embryo/fetus is a human being worth human protection. Like, get into the pro-choice head-space to develop your pro-life argument in a language/ perspective the pro-choicer will understand.

It’s not enough to say, “That’s a baby” or “Because God says so” because people will say it’s just an embryo or fetus or that they don’t believe in God.

We have to show the humanity of the human embryo or human fetus and use that as the starting point for discourse while respecting the dignity and humanity of the woman whose body is being used by the developing human inside of her.

After all, it is the pregnant woman who is making sacrifices with her body by giving the developing human being the time and space in her uterus so it can (hopefully) become a viable human being capable of living outside of her body.

I spent a couple weeks in a hospital fighting for my little one…

I think the prolife side would be better served focusing on creating a pregnancy friendly environment, and work on respecting women’s autonomy and their service to society. Undermine the pro abortion arguments by removing them.

I’m sorry you went through that difficult pregnancy Leek. I agree, it seems like the pro-life community dismisses the direct sacrifices a woman makes of her body to bring a pregnancy to the point of a viable human being capable of surviving outside of her body.

 

[MamaJewel]

How is there a “balance?” When you can be killed at any time, precisely what advantages are filling your side of the scale?

Are you referring to my pregnancies where doctors were concerned about my body’s ability to survive pregnancy/labor/delivery/ and post-partum recovery period?

I severely hemorrhaged with pregnancy #4, suffered periodic “mini-hemorrhages” after pregnancy #8, severe hemorrhage with pregnancy #9, and severe bleeding after pregnancy #10 so, …
after #4 I did have more medical appointments than the average multi para to make sure things proceeded as expected.

I had a lot of children at home, so my doctors and secular society expected my life to come first. Me, I believed that the church held it was my responsibility to see a pregnancy to term even if it cost me my life.

Looking back after my separation and divorce, I wonder about when other people in my inner circles told me that they thought my ex was trying to do me in with pregnancies. I’d be there in the ER with paramedics that refused to leave my side until the doctor arrived at my gurney and my ex would be off at the cafeteria getting a sandwich.

 

[Leek]

I’ve seen some of their stuff and it looks really good.

The thing that made me rethink my “I’m pro life I repeated all the talking points didn’t I…” position was I reached my breaking point. I was bleeding horribly for years and got to the point I could barely walk. And for some reason it popped in my head that I might be pregnant, and I knew I couldn’t do it. Four units of blood later and my thinking changed I felt strong enough to fight (not that I was actually pregnant). That’s why I think in some cases we just need to help remove the enough of the obstacles to let a woman see herself as a Mom.

I remember seeing 16/17 year old kids in the NICU waiting to see their 2 pound baby, and then I see grown men with signs that call women murders and I ask myself who’s the prolife one?

 

[blackforest]

Btw, can you argue the pro-choice side?

I just spent a rather detailed post rebutting your position in full. Are you still concerned that I don’t understand your pro-choice position? If I misrepresented it, please let me know.

It’s not enough to say, “That’s a baby” or “Because God says so” because people will say it’s just an embryo or fetus or that they don’t believe in God.

I’d suggest you spend some time reading this thread, as those are not my arguments.

You’ll find that many discussions on CAF are indeed spent discussing the humanity of the unborn because there are many pro-choicers here who deny it. I was just explaining to @Leek that I espouse non-violent, woman-centered solutions to unplanned pregnancies, so it wouldn’t be completely fair to accuse me and other pro-lifers of “forgetting about the woman.”

I severely hemorrhaged with pregnancy #4, suffered periodic “mini-hemorrhages” after pregnancy #8, severe hemorrhage with pregnancy #9, and severe bleeding after pregnancy #10 so, …
after #4 I did have more medical appointments than the average multi para to make sure things proceeded as expected.

I’m sorry you had difficult pregnancies! That your ex was so unsupportive is infuriating. I agree that medical complications make it more difficult. Up to this point, we’ve discussing psychosocial complications, which everybody - pro-life and pro-choice - should be helping women surmount.

I hemorrhaged after my first, (four hours of pushing! ) and struggled with post-partum depression after my first and second. (I also had one at home and two at a freestanding birthing center, so we have that in common). Most medical literature discusses the best way to see both people through the delivery.

That’s why I think in some cases we just need to help remove the enough of the obstacles to let a woman see herself as a Mom.

I fully agree.

I wear two pro-life hats. I have no problem discussing/debating abortion on CAF. I also know that women facing difficult pregnancies aren’t thinking about Judith Jarvis Thompson or philosophies on fetal sentience. I do see the pro-life movement changing for the better, especially with fabulous groups like Feminists for Life, Feminists for Non-Violent Choices, and New Wave Feminists. And where men used to take the helm, women are finally stepping up front-and-center as leaders.

 

[Patjoe]

I was reading the obituary of a “gentleman” who spent his entire adult lifetime teaching and working for the precepts of population control. He wrote the law for the first State to have abortion and continued to spread his evil throughout the world. He was and has always been praised by many for his idealism and for the value they saw in what he professed. At the same time, he also worked for causes associated with the Holocaust, raising awareness concerning the depravity that underlay that horror.

It hit me, seeing these two passions in one man’s obituary, that his life was an incongruity and that there must be an awful blind spot in such a mind not to understand that the taking of millions of lives through abortion is on the same scale as the murder of the millions of Jews and others by the Nazis.

Perhaps I am naive to a fault, but that seems to be what is going on today, regarding abortion, but also regarding all of the social justice issues that are so prevalent. Some of those working for justice for minorities who are targeted by the police do not seem to be able to understand that killing/injuring police officers and innocent civilians in the pursuit of their cause is equally as unjust in the eyes of God. Some of those seeking to improve the lives of the poor in other countries are blind to the fact that illegally helping them does harm to the poor of this country, by taking jobs from them and by using taxpayer dollars that could otherwise go toward improving and even saving lives of the poor who are legally in this country.

Do rationality and discernment have tunnel vision? It would appear to be so.