Question Political Spectrum

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Well, I don't know about you all, but I certainly don't want to argue over at what point a fetus becomes a "person." We'd go on for hours, and no one will ever agree.

 

[Tome]

I've stayed out of this so far, but this issue always astonishes me. I just cannot comprehend how people can make the distinction between a foetus and a child so absolute. A foetus IS a child. It WILL be a child, 100%, barring any unnatural or outside influence. A foetus is naturally designed to grow into a child, just as a child is naturally designed to grow into an adult. People seem to be able to rationalise putting a woman's convenience over life by saying a foetus isn't alive. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I mean, of course, I get it as a legal fiction. I just don't see how that managed to work as a social norm.

I pretty much agree with what you said. But I still think this is just an opinion. What Zobo, WO and others have said has it's merit too.

I've argued about this multiple times with friends and I always have a hard time to pick a side. Do I even have to, anyway? I think both pro-choice and pro-life have their honorable points. I think that abortion is wrong in the sense that you kill a living thing, weither it's a human yet or not. But... I still think people(in this case women) should be free to make their own choices. Thus, my conclusion on this topic is usually to let the women decide what they wanna do. Weither I - or others - think it's not entirely right isn't the most important thing. What's most important is for them to have the CHOICE.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Human, child, baby- these are not legal terms. Person & personhood are legal terms, & that's what's up for debate. Unfortunately, we can never "prove" when a embryo/fetus becomes a "person". If it's the moment of conception, think of all the legal ramifications of that. Like I said earlier (& no one has addressed) if that is the case, then oral contraceptives & IUDs would have to be outlawed. What about mothers who do drugs? Would they be culpable under the law? What about mothers who smoke? Drink alcohol? Engage in risky behavior (motorcycle riding, sky diving etc)? Take OTC or prescription meds that may injure the fetus? Ingest too much caffeine? Have a poor diet? Refuse a cesarean section or any other intervention they disagree with? Plan a homebirth? Would every miscarriage and stillbirth have to be investigated?

I had a miscarriage at 11 weeks gestation; my good friend delivered a stillborn baby at 6.5 mos gestation. I can tell you that even though I grieved my baby, it was 2 totally different things. I probably grieved more for my friend than for me.

I'm kind of surprised to see Europeans defending a pro-life position, I had always assumed that abortion rights were more accepted in Europe. Is abortion legal in the various UK countries?

The law requires all kind of fictions to operate. It's just the practicalities at work. For the record, I'd say that if a mother negligently (in a legal sense, defined by the law of the country you are in) caused the death of her unborn child, I'd hold her liable. But to whom? That's the problem. It works in theory, but there's no practicality.

With abortion, however, it's much more clear cut. The mother is making an active choice to end the life of the foetus, not acting negligently.

In Europe, the "pro-life" agenda is definitely around, but it's much, much less religiously centred than in America. I would like to say, however, I'd never say I was "pro-life". I think it's a ridiculously patronising term, that implies that a person who is "pro-choice" is "anti-life". That's not only insulting, but it makes the debate a whole lot more emotive than it needs to be. I understand that the term is very widely used in America, but over here you would hear "anti-abortion" an awful lot more often, even from politicians.

For me, and my argument, I'm not so much interested in the legal side. It has sorted itself out, and it's always going to be creating fictions where abortion is legal. I'm far more concerned with the right to life, and the balance of that right against a mother's right to choose. I would personally say that an innocent life should be valued far above a right to choose anything.

---------- Post added 12-02-2010 at 12:03 AM ---------- Previous post was 12-01-2010 at 11:58 PM ----------

I pretty much agree with what you said. But I still think this is just an opinion. What Zobo, WO and others have said has it's merit too.

I've argued about this multiple times with friends and I always have a hard time to pick a side. Do I even have to, anyway? I think both pro-choice and pro-life have their honorable points. I think that abortion is wrong in the sense that you kill a living thing, weither it's a human yet or not. But... I still think people(in this case women) should be free to make their own choices. Thus, my conclusion on this topic is usually to let the women decide what they wanna do. Weither I - or others - think it's not entirely right isn't the most important thing. What's most important is for them to have the CHOICE.

But you don't have the choice to kill a child once it's born, if it's having a negative impact on your life. I don't get why you can claim to have a choice before it's born.

I do get your point though, the debate is usually circuitous. I just want to hear as much as I can from people on the other side of the fence, because there are relatively few issues like this where people really are approaching it from completely different places. And I love that the discussion has been so frank and civil.

 

[Kean]

Can I ask when people believe the legal limit for abortion should be? We have used the word fetus a lot in this discussion and I think it has implied a very short gestation period. But just taking the UK as an example, the legal limit is 24 weeks. By that time there is no way (in my mind) that anyone could call the life the mother is carrying anything other than a baby. The baby weighs just over a pound, they can hear...I won't go on, you get the picture and I don't want to make this any more emotive than it has to be.

Surely, by this stage a line has been crossed?

 

[Harley]

I believe life begins at conception.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[prophecygrrl]

Can we address the issue of the rights of the woman more extensively here? I feel like that's been kinda on the sidelines of this discussion...

I've seen a lot of slut-shaming and misogyny here from the anti-abortion side, as well as rhetoric that holds the mother to a higher standard simply because she is a mother. I believe it's counterintuitive, and frankly illogical to do so- you're putting an enormous amount of responsibility solely and unfairly on the woman (note how rhetoric like "women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want an abortion" completely excludes the responsibility of their male partners in the matter) and at the same time telling her that she does not deserve to make her own choices.

I don't get it. If you believe that a woman deserves such great responsibility and blame when it comes to bearing a child, why does she not also deserve (or receive) an equal level of respect in carrying it or choosing not to carry it? The inherent power structure is flawed, and women are paying the price for it.

Yes, it is a fact that there are biological reasons for women to have greater responsibility. But IMO, defining a woman by her womb and her ability to carry a baby and using that difference as grounds for legal subjugation is misogynistic. Women are not simply baby incubators.

On a related note, when we start talking about punishing women for making bad choices while pregnant, that's also incredibly sexist. It is a reduction in HER rights and HER personhood. Bad choices that affect the fetus like heavy drinking/smoking/doing drugs, etc. while pregnant are definitely medical issues and they should definitely be severely discouraged, but to police it through legal means, wherein a woman is directly punished, is not right to me. It opens up a floodgate of other issues with the idea that in not providing the optimal health conditions for her fetus, the woman should be punished. Fathers, who (shockingly!😱) are also equally responsible in the creation of a life, are not held nearly to the same standard.

 

[zobothehobo]

Can we address the issue of the rights of the woman more extensively here? I feel like that's been kinda on the sidelines of this discussion...

I've seen a lot of slut-shaming and misogyny here from the anti-abortion side, as well as rhetoric that holds the mother to a higher standard simply because she is a mother. I believe it's counterintuitive, and frankly illogical to do so- you're putting an enormous amount of responsibility solely and unfairly on the woman (note how rhetoric like "women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want an abortion" completely excludes the responsibility of their male partners in the matter) and at the same time telling her that she does not deserve to make her own choices.

I don't get it. If you believe that a woman deserves such great responsibility and blame when it comes to bearing a child, why does she not also deserve (or receive) an equal level of respect in carrying it or choosing not to carry it? The inherent power structure is flawed, and women are paying the price for it.

Yes, it is a fact that there are biological reasons for women to have greater responsibility. But IMO, defining a woman by her womb and her ability to carry a baby and using that difference as grounds for legal subjugation is misogynistic. Women are not simply baby incubators.

On a related note, when we start talking about punishing women for making bad choices while pregnant, that's also incredibly sexist. It is a reduction in HER rights and HER personhood. Bad choices that affect the fetus like heavy drinking/smoking/doing drugs, etc. while pregnant are definitely medical issues and they should definitely be severely discouraged, but to police it through legal means, wherein a woman is directly punished, is not right to me. It opens up a floodgate of other issues with the idea that in not providing the optimal health conditions for her fetus, the woman should be punished. Fathers, who (shockingly!😱) are also equally responsible in the creation of a life, are not held nearly to the same standard.

I agree with all of this except that women who drink/smoke/do drugs while pregnant should not face the consequences. If the woman makes the decision to carry the baby to term, I believe they also make the choice to take care of it while it's in the womb. Babies can become permanently disfigured and disabled from their mothers drinking/smoking/doing drugs while they're in the womb. Once you decide to carry that baby to term, you choose to treat it as you would a living being because you intend to make it a living being. Choosing to carry a pregnancy to term AND choosing to do something that is well known as a pregnancy "no-no" is abuse in my book. That's consciously choosing to hurt the baby.... and by that I mean you intend that baby to live with the consequences of your actions after you give birth to it. In my opinion, you should too. You've permanently damaged another life (and it's a life because you've chosen to make it such by choosing to carry it to term)

 

[Spikefan31]

I'm not 18 and don't have to vote yet, so I'm undecided on which political party I support. My family support the Liberal Party, which is towards the right, but I'm more open to other ideas. Also, in Australia, I think the parties are getting closer and closer together on the spectrum and their policies are not as different as they once were. I won't have to vote, though, until the next election in 3 years, so for now I'm happy. Just going to be a good school student and focus on my studies.

 

[Litheran]

My view on abortion is a pretty clear cut one; seeing as how I don't have a womb and am therefore not privy to what it means to be a woman; I should have no say in what they do with their body. I might have an opinion on what they should do; but I am not deserved a say in the matter.

Would be different if it was my child since I would then be partly responsible for the creation of that life; but even then I would not have the ultimate "vote". I don't want women suddenly deciding what I do with my parts; so I'm more than happy to leave theirs alone thank you.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Can we address the issue of the rights of the woman more extensively here? I feel like that's been kinda on the sidelines of this discussion...

I've seen a lot of slut-shaming and misogyny here from the anti-abortion side, as well as rhetoric that holds the mother to a higher standard simply because she is a mother. I believe it's counterintuitive, and frankly illogical to do so- you're putting an enormous amount of responsibility solely and unfairly on the woman (note how rhetoric like "women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want an abortion" completely excludes the responsibility of their male partners in the matter) and at the same time telling her that she does not deserve to make her own choices.

I don't get it. If you believe that a woman deserves such great responsibility and blame when it comes to bearing a child, why does she not also deserve (or receive) an equal level of respect in carrying it or choosing not to carry it? The inherent power structure is flawed, and women are paying the price for it.

Yes, it is a fact that there are biological reasons for women to have greater responsibility. But IMO, defining a woman by her womb and her ability to carry a baby and using that difference as grounds for legal subjugation is misogynistic. Women are not simply baby incubators.

On a related note, when we start talking about punishing women for making bad choices while pregnant, that's also incredibly sexist. It is a reduction in HER rights and HER personhood. Bad choices that affect the fetus like heavy drinking/smoking/doing drugs, etc. while pregnant are definitely medical issues and they should definitely be severely discouraged, but to police it through legal means, wherein a woman is directly punished, is not right to me. It opens up a floodgate of other issues with the idea that in not providing the optimal health conditions for her fetus, the woman should be punished. Fathers, who (shockingly!😱) are also equally responsible in the creation of a life, are not held nearly to the same standard.

The discussion has been fairly skewed towards women so far, but that's merely because it's difficult to talk about a foetus in the context of a man! Men should not have sex if they are not prepared to face the consequences either, of course. And while abortion is a legal thing, it's of course going to be the woman's choice. It would be nice if there was a way to make it a joint choice between the parents, but that's obviously not going to work in many, many cases. In the end, the woman carries the baby and so it's up to her to make that choice.

Men should definitely be required to do everything they can to look after a child they bring into the world. But it is a biological fact that they do not have to carry the baby in their womb for 9 months prior to it being born. It just is. Nobody here has defined a woman by her womb.

If it were possible for me to get pregnant, for example, I would take that very seriously. And if I were to become pregnant, I'd put that innocent life above my own standard of living for nine months. I see life as more important than that. Perhaps it's unfair that women are the only gender with the potential for pregnancy, but - to me - that isn't a good enough reason to end the life of an innocent. I don't see at all how that is a misogynist view.

Also, I'd like to clarify what I was saying before about pre-natal negligence. I'm not talking about having a glass of wine, or continuing to go to work, or anything legal like that. It's the things that - if the child were to be born - would equate to abuse that a woman should (theoretically) be held responsible for. Taking illegal drugs or getting absolutely drunk fairly often being the most obvious (accounting perhaps for diminished responsibility where severe addiction is the main cause, of course). You wouldn't inject a child with heroin, you wouldn't give a baby alcohol. That's what the issue is.

 

[Harley]

Kristine agrees: go back a few posts and read the question i adressed to you pls

Sorry - I can't view or give karma on my phone...

Just out of interest, what do you think of abortion for other reasons? To give a few examples:
1. safety of the mother (wouldn't survive the birth)

I don't know all that much about medical things but my hope would be that the doctor would do everything they can to save both lives. After that it's in God's hands (whom, I acknowledge, you do not believe exists...I can't give you an answer other than that)

2. mother got impregnated against her will (e.g. rape)

The mother doesnt have to raise the baby but its wrong to kill it just because it wasnt wanted.

3. it is clear that the unborn child will be severely disabled, a normal life will under no circumstances be possible

People raise children under these circumstances all the time. I had a customer where I worked who had her son this way. He lives off a breathing machine and feeding tubes. The doctors said he wasnt going to live past his 6 mo birthday. He requires 100% constant care. He's almost 1 1/2 years now. There's chance that he might die every minute he is alive. His mother doesn't think he worthless and or that he should have been aborted.

I guess most people would agree with you that abortion for such selfish reasons you named is wrong (if you don't want to get pregnant, just make sure you don't get pregnant and use contraceptions), but those things I listed are the real issues imo.

These "real issues" make up less than 1% of abortions. Less. The "real issues" are the thousands and thousands of other lives that are ended because people aren't willing to take responsibility for their decisions.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

These "real issues" make up less than 1% of abortions. Less. The "real issues" are the thousands and thousands of other lives that are ended because people aren't willing to take responsibility for their decisions.

Yeah, I was just looking at the UK (well, England and Wales) statistics, and 98% of all abortions in 2008 were carried out for the statutory reason of:

the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman

What you have to bear in mind is that less than half a percent of those were to prevent physical harm. And that there are other provisions to cover emergency abortions where the risk to the mother's life is immediate. Less than 1% were for genetic abnormality.

These issues are very real, but it's important to see that they are statistically tiny when compared to the vast amount of "regular" abortions. That means in England and Wales alone there were around 194,000 abortions in 2008 that didn't fall into any of these extreme categories.

Of course, if you have to choose between the life of the mother and the child, I'd never judge. That must be the hardest decision you could ever make. But I agree with EntertainUs on the other two points. I can see an argument for terminating a foetus with genetic abnormality if it means it is going to be entirely brain-dead, but I think that's very difficult ground, and I don't really think everyone would ever agree on that and it's limits, much like where the time limit should lie.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Can we address the issue of the rights of the woman more extensively here? I feel like that's been kinda on the sidelines of this discussion...

I've seen a lot of slut-shaming and misogyny here from the anti-abortion side, as well as rhetoric that holds the mother to a higher standard simply because she is a mother. I believe it's counterintuitive, and frankly illogical to do so- you're putting an enormous amount of responsibility solely and unfairly on the woman (note how rhetoric like "women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want an abortion" completely excludes the responsibility of their male partners in the matter) and at the same time telling her that she does not deserve to make her own choices.

I don't get it. If you believe that a woman deserves such great responsibility and blame when it comes to bearing a child, why does she not also deserve (or receive) an equal level of respect in carrying it or choosing not to carry it? The inherent power structure is flawed, and women are paying the price for it.

Yes, it is a fact that there are biological reasons for women to have greater responsibility. But IMO, defining a woman by her womb and her ability to carry a baby and using that difference as grounds for legal subjugation is misogynistic. Women are not simply baby incubators.

On a related note, when we start talking about punishing women for making bad choices while pregnant, that's also incredibly sexist. It is a reduction in HER rights and HER personhood. Bad choices that affect the fetus like heavy drinking/smoking/doing drugs, etc. while pregnant are definitely medical issues and they should definitely be severely discouraged, but to police it through legal means, wherein a woman is directly punished, is not right to me. It opens up a floodgate of other issues with the idea that in not providing the optimal health conditions for her fetus, the woman should be punished. Fathers, who (shockingly!😱) are also equally responsible in the creation of a life, are not held nearly to the same standard.

Since I'm on my mobile I can't adequately reply o your post, but I just wanted to applaud you for everything you have said. I agree.

Also, an honest question for the pro-lifers: for you, is abortion "wrong" in all instances? What if the child is severely deformed? Or the mother was raped?
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Harley]

Since I'm on my mobile I can't adequately reply o your post, but I just wanted to applaud you for everything you have said. I agree.

Also, an honest question for the pro-lifers: for you, is abortion "wrong" in all instances? What if the child is severely deformed? Or the mother was raped?
Posted via Mobile Device

Lindsey and I actually addressed that in the previous two posts 🙂

 

[Zeppo]

The mother doesnt have to raise the baby but its wrong to kill it just because it wasnt wanted.

People raise children under these circumstances all the time. I had a customer where I worked who had her son this way. He lives off a breathing machine and feeding tubes. The doctors said he wasnt going to live past his 6 mo birthday. He requires 100% constant care. He's almost 1 1/2 years now. There's chance that he might die every minute he is alive. His mother doesn't think he worthless and or that he should have been aborted.

These "real issues" make up less than 1% of abortions. Less. The "real issues" are the thousands and thousands of other lives that are ended because people aren't willing to take responsibility for their decisions.

I love what your points are and in a perfect world full of love and understanding and committment I would totally agree with you. Unfortunately, not everyone is like your lovely costumer. I've grown up around (incestual) colonies - not naming names - where there are rumors of them either killing their handicapped babies or quarenteening them from outside their whole life. I've also heard of people in other countries - and it's naive to believe it doesn't happen in North America - that will kill their deformed children and try for another. I don't have any internet evidence on this, sorry but it is entirely believable.

I also know a disabled person that has been cared for all her life to the point of where she can't even take care of herself at 50 and now her mother, her caretaker, is too old to take care of her daughter. Now the other sister has tried to take care of her handicapped sibling but she's already had a life of 45 years and it's just too much so she had the hard decision of putting her into a home for the rest of her life. It's a safe life but to me it isn't much of one.

The mother doesn't have to raise the child, you are right. But as someone who has known people who have gone from Foster home to Foster home it's not a great life. Also, I dunno about you, but it would be a struggle to live knowing I was the result of a rape (The mother would also have to care enough about the result of her rape after 9 months to even have a proper birth and take the time to put the kid into an adoption center). Chances are the mother wouldn't want to meet me as I would remind her of what had happened to her as well as the guilt of passing me off the the system. The child could also be adopted by a loving family straight away who raises them to be a president, never looking back. From what I gather it's a chance you think is worth taking for an unwanted fetus? Maybe it is, I however am not sure myself.

I guess my point is, because it's not a black and white issue, what's the lesser of the two evils here: taking care of it as an unwanted fetus versus having it be killed after birth, living a splendid life or a horrible one? I feel like your points are based on good morals and I love you for it but the world we call home isn't founded on good morals.

 

[Revolver]

I'm not going to get heavily into the abortion debate, because moreso than most other issues, this one is not in any way black or white. there's no easy answer, and people shouldn't pretend there is. I wouldn't say that I'm pro-abortion but I do think it should be the woman's right to choose.

I would say I'm a liberal but I hesitate to place myself squarely in one camp because no one should base their opinions entrely on what one "team" is supposed to think. Still, there's not currently a viable Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential elections that I would ever consider voting for.....so I basically am on one team.

Since gun control was a major topic of conversation for awhile, I'll briefly touch on that and say, quite honestly, that I don't care. I don't own a gun. I don't want a gun. Take them away....or don't. There are just so many more important things in the world to worry about.

Gay marriage should absolutely be legal, and I've yet to hear an argument against it that hasn't sounded something like, "I'm a bigot, I'm a bigot, I'm a bigot!" in my lifetime. I've no interest in playing nicely to the opposition on this one. It's an equal rights issue, and there's a definite right and a definite wrong. Oh, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong? Fine, keep them out of your Churches all you want and keep your Churches out of my law. Church and State are seperated for good reason.

I find that what people really mean when they say they want "less government involvement" in their lives is that they want less government involvement in a few specific areas and more in others. It's funny that some people in the U.S. call for less government involvement in their lives while at the same time arguing we should outlaw all abortion and gay marriage. They do realize that's more government involvement in their lives, right?

As for fiscal responsibility, I can buy into the argument that we should be more conscious about how much money our government spends but realistically, do we expect our newly elected Republican majorities in Congress to actually do anything about this? A lot is said about ending wasteful spending, but I can' help but see this as empty rhetoric. What programs are we all going to agree are wasteful and why do they exist in the first place if they don't have a large number of people who benefit from them and support them? And you can bet elected officials aren't going to actually eliminate programs and piss off chunks of their constituency when they could just promise to end "wasteful spending" without specifying anything or actually doing anything.

The best way for our government to pay off it's massive debt is the unpopular one: raise taxes. Let's be realistic. It's going to happen eventually. It needs to happen. If we don't pay now, we'll pay more later. I'm not a rich man, and I would gladly do my part and pay a little more. Eliminating the spectacular failure that was the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is a start, but it's not enough. I realize our economy is in pretty rough shape right now, but Democrats aren't even going as far as I am. They're only talking about letting tax cuts for the wealthiest portion of Americans expire (which they were supposed to.....by design). Does anyone really buy into trickledown economics anyway? It didn't work in the 80's. It certainly didn't work under President Bush.

Anyway, I could go on and on.....but I should stop now.

 

[Kean]

The best way for our government to pay off it's massive debt is the unpopular one: raise taxes. Let's be realistic. It's going to happen eventually. It needs to happen. If we don't pay now, we'll pay more later. I'm not a rich man, and I would gladly do my part and pay a little more. Eliminating the spectacular failure that was the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is a start, but it's not enough. I realize our economy is in pretty rough shape right now, but Democrats aren't even going as far as I am. They're only talking about letting tax cuts for the wealthiest portion of Americans expire (which they were supposed to.....by design). Does anyone really buy into trickledown economics anyway? It didn't work in the 80's. It certainly didn't work under President Bush.

I agree. I would like to add though that tax should be divided up in proportion to what you can afford to pay. In Ireland we have basically just economically imploded. We owe billions and have to introduce austerity measures that no country has seen expect during war time. These measures include a 12% cut on the minimum wage, 10% on public sector jobs, pensions cuts and and huge cuts to social welfare. Nowhere are the truly wealthy hit. The eejits running the country certainly won't have to pay anything. It's all the average, working class people who are feeling the recession the worst.

 

[Harley]

Is there any country that doesnt owe excessively more than what they can pay? If not, then we should just void all debt. *sigh* Yeah, I know...

 

[Kean]

Is there any country that doesnt owe excessively more than what they can pay? If not, then we should just void all debt. *sigh* Yeah, I know...

Bono did major work in getting Africa's debt cancelled.

Wonder will be so lucky with his own country.

 

[Himiko]

I tend to describe myself as politically moderate, but I certainly lean towards the left on many issues.

I believe gay marriage should be legalised- agree with Revolver's earlier point that I've yet to hear an argument against it that I'd consider valid. I believe that religion and state should be separate, though in here Britain it's certainly not so much of an issue as it is in other parts of the world. I believe abortion should be legal, before a certain point in the pregnancy, but I know that this is an emotive issue, and both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" sides offer compelling arguments.

I've voted for the Liberal Democrats (third largest party in UK politics) in all elections since becoming eligible to vote. I am, however, seriously reconsidering this stance, as, I'm sure, are many of my fellow students who voted Lib Dem in the last General Election.