The Unborn Paradox

[Bubba_Switzler]

I was gobsmacked this morning by what I read in the NYT:

nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The American entertainment industry has never been comfortable with the act of abortion. Film or television characters might consider the procedure, but even on the most libertine programs (a “Mad Men,” a “Sex and the City”), they’re more likely to have a change of heart than actually go through with it. Reality TV thrives on shocking scenes and subjects — extreme pregnancies and surgeries, suburban polygamists and the gay housewives of New York — but abortion remains a little too controversial, and a little bit too real.

While the editorial ever so gently contrasts the problems of infertility and abortion it manages to make several good points which, unsurprisingly draws some hysterical responses:

community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03douthat.html

While we can never have too many threads on the subject of abortion, I think it’s interesting to consider the implications of the NYT running this editorial given the (anti-)sacramental nature of abortion in their dogma.

While one might have a serious debate about whether or not abortion should be criminalized, it seems quite clear that it has not yet been socially legitimized as homosexuality has.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

I suppose I can understand what you are saying. i have to admit, I didn’t read the article you posted. Yeah, I’m too lazy. Sorry.

I am torn on the issue of abortion, and I wonder if others have the same mindset as myself and may be too uncomfortable to discuss it?
Personally, I would never abort a embryo/fetus, but I don’t feel compelled to tell someone else to do likewise.
However, it does bother me…granted, what runs through my mind is this…what kind of life is this person destined to have…considering it was unwanted/unplanned to begin with…and what of the life of the person carrying the child?
This person’s life will be interrupted…chances are-not for the better.
Then again…the other side…the persons who conceived the child were-yep-irresponsible, and they have to account for their actions…a embryo is not something you just toss away and say…whoops…but, see…my mindset?
It’s not my business, one. And two…unwanted children are bound to have a life filled with pain, suffering and anguish, so would it be better if they were not born at all?

Hum. Yep. So, while I would NEVER abort a fetus…who am I to tell someone else they are wrong? They have to live with the decision, not me…but-well, there’s that voice that tells me-it’s murder, no matter how you slice it…

 

[scylla]

I too know deep inside that it is murder, but if you say this to those who are pro-choice, they usually wont listen. First we need to get people to see the baby in the mother as a human, which is very difficult as that is what people block out.

When someone is not seen as human it becomes easier to kill. This is why serial killers usually dehumanize their victims, why Jews were designated as less than human, why developing babies are regarded as tissue.

Then you need to get past the anger and irrational emotion behind the radical pro-choicers. Those who see women in competition with men, as if men want to keep them down.

So it just takes being supportive of the good, and trying to be a consolation to those hurt by abortion, the mothers who made the choice and the fathers who have also lost a child.

Abortion is a terrible thing that our society has made commonplace, and we need more to help those mothers who feel like there is no help. We need to help young women with education, and seek to better society. It is all about helping the smallest, weakest, and those who need help, among us. I can afford another child and would not mind adopting one if I encountered a person in need. As it is I am currently looking at a future of taking in a foster child if possible as I am sure there are many kids who would like to have a nice home.

Scylla

I read many comments and it is kinda sad there is so much anger and I am not sure commenting at the NYT website would help. I

 

[phoenixrrt62]

Yeah, I can understand you, see-I can understand the other side of it, also. So…DK if that would make me pro-choice-I suppose yes, because I think it’s not my place to tell someone else what to do…but, see, I’d never do it, and personally, I think it’s wrong.

However, I think a lot of things are wrong…or I may not believe in things others might…it’s not my place to tell others what they should believe, say or do, KWIM?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

All laws are of this nature, though penalties vary. It’s certainly possible to find an act to be immoral but to choose not to force others to avoid the immoral act. In the most general case, that’s anarchism. Assuming that you are not an anarchist, by what criteria do you decide which immoral acts should be illegal?

It’s interesting, though, that some people are willing to ban Happy Meals but not abortion.

 

[Chesterton18]

All laws are of this nature, though penalties vary. It’s certainly possible to find an act to be immoral but to choose not to force others to avoid the immoral act. In the most general case, that’s anarchism. Assuming that you are not an anarchist, by what criteria do you decide which immoral acts should be illegal?

It’s interesting, though, that some people are willing to ban Happy Meals but not abortion.

This is an excellent point. The “anti-abortion but pro-choice” position is simply a confusion. As a matter of fact government frequently restricts individual action. Outside of protecting individual liberties, this is all government does. And ideally the two functions are intertwined (i.e, individual action is restricted to protect other individual liberties, as in the case of homicide and theft laws). A person who says that they oppose making abortion illegal because “it’s not their place to control someone else’s decision” can’t possibly mean that. What they mean, rather, is that they don’t think abortion is wrong enough to justify restricting a woman’s right to control her body. Or that they’re squeamish about abortion and would rather not think about it too much. And it’s no real help to say that women who have abortions “know not what they do”. It may well be true. No doubt it is in most cases. But that’s not an argument against abortion laws anymore than the existence of insane people is an argument against traditional homicide laws; rather it’s an argument for nuanced abortion sentencing. We have managed to make sense of other types of homicide- coming up with legal tiers differentiating between them; it is only with abortion that we continually fall into an uncomfortable silence, generally broken by muddled murmurings and desperate demurrals. No one denies that unplanned pregnancy are hard on everyone involved but the matter is too grave for punting.

I’d rather the "anti-abortion but pro-choice"ers were honest and admitted that they don’t really think that ending the life of fetus is quite as a bad as ending the life of a man- a sin, sure, but on par with, say, kicking puppies or denying orphans a crust of bread. Serious, but not too too serious. The problem is that some of them are quite in earnest and don’t realize that they’ve made this sort of mental separation.