The Morality of Choosing Abortion

[marmar]

from RH Reality Check:




The Morality of Choosing Abortion

by Ann Anderson Evans
August 17, 2011 - 9:31am


The religious pundits have claimed the moral high ground, claiming that God and History have decreed it immoral to have an abortion. This is a fiction (though I cannot claim that I know what God thinks, and don't think they should either).

Supporters of abortion lose nothing if they accede that abortion belongs in some category of the concept of "killing." It is sad, feels cruel sometimes, and can upset some people for the rest of their lives. It's not a trivial action.

But we kill things all the time. A friend had twins in the ICU, and a few weeks into their treatment, with the twins hanging on for dear life, the insurance company send my friend a notice that coverage had been terminated. That's killing. So is cutting off health care for the ill and vulnerable. So is war, and in a juxtaposition which would challenge any professor of logic, the Christian pundits who claim abortion is murder are often supporters of capital punishment and of our current wars, which are polishing off civilians, including babies, at a diminishing though appalling clip.

Buddhist monks often sweep the path in front of them as they walk, lest they kill any form of life, including insects. Our attitudes regarding the killing of other forms of life on our Earth are careless indeed. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/08/17/morality-choosing-abortion

[hedgehog]

1. Even if you believed that abortion is always, always wrong,

there is no way to enforce a ban with equal justice for all. The rich and smart would find a way to obtain safe abortions, the poor and ignorant would end up getting harmed or killed by underground practitioners.

[DonCoquixote]

2. If people dislike abortion

They could then funnel effort towards making birth control available, which is the proverbial "ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure"

[LWolf]

8. The elephant in the room:

While there seem to be two totally divided camps, both sides are united on one important factor:

Choosing to have kids.

Both sides are fine with having, or not having, kids. One wants more reproductive tools available to keep from having kids, the other side wants limited tools for preventing birth. Both are fine with tools that help families HAVE kids.

NEITHER side will limit the right to have children to begin with: limit it to a sustainable number that doesn't cause harm to the planet, or limit it to those who don't cause significant harm to children.

NEITHER side will act decisively to prevent the damage done to children by ignorance, neglect, and abuse on the part of the parent. While we have social services to supposedly protect children, by the time a parent permanently loses access to a child because of abuse or neglect, the damage has been done; often over and over and over. And those who lose their kids because of abuse and neglect may continue having baby after baby, and doing the same damned thing to them all over again until enough damage is done to remove the child.

Two examples:

1. I taught 8 siblings, all of whom had cognitive and learning disabilities, some with moderate to severe health impairments. They were raised by their grandparents. Their daughter, the drug addict, kept having kids. It usually took about a year for the system to compile enough evidence to remove each new baby and turn it over to the grandparents. In one of the constant IEP meetings for these kids, the exhausted grandmother said to me, "Why can't they just sterilize her? Why do they keep letting her do this to these kids?"

2. A colleague fostered, then adopted, a family group of siblings removed from the home because of extended abuse and neglect. All have learning disabilities, one has a cognitive deficit, all have social-emotional damage. They live in the same community as their mother, but don't see her. They don't know that, within 2 years of their adoption, she's already started a new family, and they have another sibling, with another on the way.

NEITHER side wants to acknowledge the population problem on this planet, one serious enough to put the future of the planet and our species, as well as the rest of the biosphere, at risk. Limiting the number of children would interfere with the right to choose to have children, and that right trumps EVERYTHING.

The abortion wars are a smaller part of a larger reproductive issue.

:popcorn:

[pipi_k]

11. This paragraph...

"NEITHER side will act decisively to prevent the damage done to children by ignorance, neglect, and abuse on the part of the parent. While we have social services to supposedly protect children, by the time a parent permanently loses access to a child because of abuse or neglect, the damage has been done; often over and over and over. And those who lose their kids because of abuse and neglect may continue having baby after baby, and doing the same damned thing to them all over again until enough damage is done to remove the child."


Really strikes a chord with me.

The Anti Choice crowd really do not seem to give a rat's ass about what happens to all those innocent babies once they're born.

And the Pro Choice crowd...or many of them, anyway... seem to be so caught up in freedom of choice that they go ballistic at the suggestion that sometimes it's NOT so good to give people a choice.

There are people in this world who should be forcibly sterilized before they can kill or maim one of their own children. Unfortunately, it's not easy to tell who is likely to do that. Certainly, if someone is found guilty of gross child abuse, that person should also be sterilized so it never happens with another innocent child.

Choice involves responsibility. If people can't exercise their freedom to have children in a relatively responsible way, then they shouldn't be allowed to inflict their issues onto defenseless children.

[loyalsister]

20. We tried forced sterilization

It's an ugly slippery slope. There is no reason to believe that the idea of a superior race\pedigree is not embedded in the consciousness of American elite.

"Harry Hamilton Laughlin (March 11, 1880 – January 26, 1943) was a leading American eugenicist in the first half of the 20th century. He was the director of the Eugenics Record Office from its inception in 1910 to its closing in 1939, and was among the most active individuals in influencing American eugenics policy, especially compulsory sterilization legislation. He is generally considered to be "among the most racist and anti-Semitic of early twentieth-century eugenicists."

"Laughlin drafted a "model law" for compulsory sterilization which would satisfy these difficulties, and published them in his 1922 study of American sterilization policy, Eugenical Sterilization in the United States. It included as subjects for eugenic sterilization: the feeble minded, the insane, criminals, epileptics, alcoholics, blind persons, deaf persons, deformed persons, and indigent persons.
An additional 18 states passed laws based on Laughlin's model, including Virginia in 1924. The first person ordered sterilized in Virginia under the new law was Carrie Buck, on the grounds that she was the "probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring". A lawsuit ensued and Laughlin, who had never met Buck, gave a deposition endorsing her suitability for sterilization, calling the family members of “the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South”."

>I as well as many of my friends fit in to those categories. The statutes have been repealed, but the constitutionality of forced sterilization (as long as a person is informed) has not be overturned.<

"Laughlin was awarded an honorary degree by the University of Heidelberg in 1936 for his work behalf of the “science of racial cleansing.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_H._Laughlin

[DonCoquixote]

12. 3 things

1) Making birth control more accessible would limit the population considerably, which would go a long way towards avoiding the population bomb you describe.

2) While I do not disagree with your point about choice, the problem is, who would you give that authority to. Yes, China is experimenting with it, with the result that you have a society of sons and fewer daughters. This might be great for population control schemes, but a disaster in almost all other areas (do we want a culture where women are outnumbered dramatically.)

Let's not even factor in race or religion: To be blunt, if some dictator in the Middle East tried to limit births, Islam would come down on them like a hammer. as it would be a scheme to reduce the amount of Muslims, and probably be seen as some European or Zionist plot to keep Muslims under control. There is a politically incorrect fact: whether people are Muslim, Mormon, Catholic or Baptist, large families are encouraged because they are a political weapon: they give more power and more disposable ammo.

3) and the stickiest: Good parenting does NOT equal Good kids. You can have a kid who was raised by the best parents, never knew want, and that kid becomes the serial killer. You can have broken homes, kids molested by their relatives, drug use, and somehow, that kid grows up to be the hero. As a matter of fact, take a look at some of the people who have become heroes, and you will read about their childhood and get pale. On the other hand, well, you can have folks who were raised in dreamy situations, who became crumbs.

[LWolf]

14. Good points.

I'll address them as best I can.

1. Agreed. I'd love to see free birth control to anyone on the planet who wants it.

2. That's the danger, isn't it? The China experiment has not been successful. My 72 yo liberal mother proposes this: All males entering puberty undergo a vasectomy. When they have completed their education, job training, gotten and held a job, supporting themselves for 5 years, they can have it reversed.

She would suggest the same thing for females, pending a less intrusive, reversible sterilization procedure. She points out that we could probably find safe, non-intrusive, reversible sterilization methods if that's where we focused research and development. Her point...that sterilization means we aren't trying to control their sexual choices, or parenting styles, just ensure that they have some minimal preparation for parenthood by making sure they grow up and establish their own lives first. Birth control SHOULD do that. In reality, way too many teen pregnancies happen when everyone had access to birth control, and chose not to use it. Ask me about two of my former students, now in high school, who gave birth this year.

I'm not saying that's the answer. It's worth thinking about, anyway. No ambiguity; no one gets pregnant without meeting some minimal standard. Of course, you'd have to make sure that we had universal free public education, pre-school through college or trade school, to level the playing field.

As far as the religious issues...I believe people should be able to practice their faith...as long as it harms no one. When faith causes harm to anyone other than the individual adult choosing to practice that faith, then religious rights should not be protected. If over-reproduction causes harm, I don't mind limiting it. It's not a bad thing, from my view, to limit the power of organized religion.

What do you think?

3. While that can be the case, the reality is that damaged kids grow up to be damaged people. On a continuum, many damaged, dysfunctional people manage to lead relatively decent lives, but that damage DOES create obstacles and limits to their opportunities. Some people are more resilient than others, but that doesn't mean it's okay to allow the powerless (children) to be neglected or abused, or to allow abusers more opportunities after they've demonstrated their propensities. Parents don't need to be perfect, but they do need to meet SOME minimal standards for decency.

[DonCoquixote]

17. Thoughtful, and worth a response

1) we both agree on Birth Control. I am surprised that even the conservatives cannot get on board..but point 2 will adress why not.

2) Religion and civil rights.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that as long as religion harms no one, it should be free. However, the brutal truth is, that is NOT religion. However, removing religious or cultural bias is never easy.

Just to let you know where I am coming from. I am Hispanic. A lot of people dislike Hispanics for having large families, even though many of us do support each other quite well. It is one thing to say "OK, let's get population under control", but I will guarantee, the people who such measures will be directed at will NOT be the blue eyed blonds, but brown people that are accused of "breeding." Even people like Margaret Sanger, who was a true hero of reproductive rights, could not resist dipping into Eugenics, saying she could stop the breeding of "human garbage" which is what she referred to Jews and Italians as. Now, we are all products of our times, her misdeeds do not take away from her status as heroine of reproductive rights one inch. But it does show that even the best people are all too human. And as far as Islam, a lot of Muslims may understand population control, but they also see a bunch of frightened Europeans who have made no small amount of nasty comments like oriana Falacci's comments about them "breeding like rats", or Israeli commentators afraid that large arab families will overgrow the Jewish population. There is also the raw, ugly fact that natures rewards breeders: India and China are set to take the world because they have the huge numbers, and even small, persecuted groups like Jews and Mormons have risen to positions of wealth because of they make large families (albeit they also make an effort to educate and support them.)

3. I understand you, and I will say that if we had a real social safety net, one that allows a child protection from a messed up home, it would be less of an issue. The problem comes in trying to pick "good parents." Honestly, I have seen many home that should have been good ones turn out vermin; and I will not even have to use W. or the House of Windsor as an example. The danger comes in when they try to set a "good parent" standard, one laden with bias, that may not have any valdity, of course, abuse is easy to define, but good parenting, maybe not.

[LWolf]

18. Your 2 and 3 strike a chord with me.

There is no great solution. Yet relying on individual responsibility isn't working. My mom's solution at least doesn't limit numbers, or dictate behaviors outside of demonstrating some minimum competencies.

I've experienced so many kinds of parents in my almost 3 decades in public education. There have been some parents that I could wish would have MORE, while others I have wished were not allowed to parent, period. All based on the social-emotional health of their children. Many parents with troubled kids have done everything possible to help their children overcome those troubles. Many parents don't know what to do, and contribute to their child's dysfunctions, but they still love them and WANT to raise them well; they just don't know what to do when their child doesn't fit what they know.

I don't want to create an authoritarian system that dictates to parents. Authoritarianism simply doesn't have productive outcomes. That's the real conundrum; what are some minimal competencies that parents should have, and where is the line between civil rights and causing harm? It will take more than a few of us to wrestle with these questions.

You mention a touchy subject, re: Hispanics and population control. I have, of course, experienced exactly what you refer to. As a matter of fact, almost 2 decades ago I was having this same conversation about population control with a principal. She pointed out that if "we" limit our numbers, and "they" don't, "they" will be a majority over "us." Now, to be fair, she didn't equate "we" with white, but with educated, or "they" with brown, but with under-educated. Then and now, though, who has a larger % of under-educated? Hispanic and AA. Stereotyping anyone is simply not ethical.

I have to admit that, as a teacher, I have loved teaching large families. It's always a sad day when I say goodbye to the last child in a family, knowing that no more will be coming up.

I think you'll find that most people who work or have worked in the public sector with others' children will lean towards more comprehensive protection for children; for some clearer line between the civil rights of the parent and the safety and well-being of the children. When we've been too often in a position of having to watch kids suffer without having any recourse, we want to act.

[EFerrari]

21. When women are educated, the birth rate drops.

There's no need for any draconian measure when the solution is to educate women.

[LWolf]

24. That's another whole conversation, isn't it?

And a good point. Solve problems by addressing root causes, rather than symptoms.

It's a valid point for the population issue.

It's also a valid point for the current mess public education finds itself in. TPTB don't want to address the root cause/s of poor academic achievement, either.

[WinkyDink]

3. Sts. Augustine and Jerome beg to differ with the above, as to the "quickening" of the soul.

[dembotoz]

4. we must continue to fight for choice

no compromise

no obama--all options on the table bullshit

no compromise

[socialindependocrat]

5. Pro-Life is Dictatorship

The pro-choice people allow everyone to choose based on their own beliefs.

The pro-lifers dictate - My way or the highway!

We don't live in a dictatorship! We live in a Democracy where there is freedom of choice!

Pro-choice is a balance, is a compromise.

Your choice - it allows for each person to follow their own convictions.

It's time to end the debate.

GOP wants smaller government except when they want to dictate.

What else are they hoping to dictate
No alcohol? No sugar? No anything that isn't in the bible?

No improvements to our current lives?
No, no, that would be stupid? Where do you draw the line when you control other people's lives?

Get out of my face!

[ljm2002]

7. It's not "pro-life", it's "forced-birth"...

...if it was pro-life, it would be anti-war and anti-death penalty, for one thing. If being pro-life was the only issue, they would not object to contraception. Also, they don't care if the fetus is viable or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or might kill the mother. No, their basic position is that once conception has occurred, the woman must carry it to term and give birth.

Yes it is dictatorial, that is certainly true.

[LeftinOH]

6. "Pro-lifers" also have abortions, except they call them DNCs, and they always

have a perfectly valid "excuse".

[OneGrassRoot]

10. To avoid confusion, it's "D&C"

I'm never one to correct things, but someone may think you're using sarcasm in some way and get confused by saying DNC -- Democratic National Committee...lol -- when the correct term is D&C, Dilation (or dilatation) and curettage.

:hi:

[LeftinOH]

13. Oops, I knew that.. What a difference an ampersand makes! :-)

[Ohio Joe]

9. Morality has nothing to do with it

This is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, no one else's morality should have anything at all to do with it.

[hamsterjill]

15. +1

Completely agree.

[loyalsister]

22. +1

Exactly

[ellenfl]

16. kick for later. eom

[Lyric]

19. Am I the only one who read some of the responses to this thread and felt sick?!

Jesus. If the day ever comes that "being liberal" means "forcing surgery on poor people and not letting them breed anymore", then count me out.

And yes, it DOES only apply to poor people. The well-off can leave the country and preserve their childrens' fertility. Only the poor children will face the government knife with no recourse.

Who the hell ARE you people?!

:puke:

[Hepburn]

23. Abortion is a PRIVATE matter.

If one does not like, agree with and/or find abortion to be killing and evil, then feel free to NOT have one. No one is forcing anyone to have such a medical procedure. And...if someone believes differently and decides under her circumstances that such a procedure is the best choice...then...

FUCKING BUTT OUT! IT'S SIMPLY NO ONE'S CONCERN BUT THE WOMAN AND HER MEDICAL PROVIDER.

:patriot: