Over 1 million abortions each year in the US

[Loren Booda]

If one believes that abortion is murder, it seems logical that it is premeditated by both performing doctor and consensual patient as well. The religious wrong (which tends to support the death penalty) when confronted with such an argument would hopefully change their stance than oppose abortion through misogynous lynching. Abortions need to be discouraged, but through education and social supports and not through damnation under threat of retaliation upon over 1,000,000 women each year in the US.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't have any moral objections to abortions. I don't see what the big fus is about. They should use all those fetuses for stem cell research and do some good with it. This thread is going to get ballisitic, I can feel it in my bones.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If one believes that abortion is murder, it seems logical that it is premeditated by both performing doctor and consensual patient as well. The religious wrong (which tends to support the death penalty) when confronted with such an argument would hopefully change their stance than oppose abortion through misogynous lynching. Abortions need to be discouraged, but through education and social supports and not through damnation under threat of retaliation upon over 1,000,000 women each year in the US.

On the other hand, if one does not believe abortions are murder, one wonders why you think they need to be discouraged. Isn't that a matter for the individual women and their doctors?

 

[Sprinter]

Abortion is genocide.

 

[ShawnD]

Abortion is genocide.

That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

genocide - Systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

 

[Astronuc]

On the other hand, if one does not believe abortions are murder, one wonders why you think they need to be discouraged. Isn't that a matter for the individual women and their doctors?

I think perhaps Loren meant that 'unwanted' pregnancies should be discouraged, i.e. encourage more social responsibility.

For all those women who had abortions, there are an equal number of men who got them pregnant.

That number also fails to distinguish whether or not such a procedure was performed because the fetus was not viable or the woman's life was in danger.

It is ultimately up to the woman and her doctor.

 

[Anttech]

For all those women who had abortions, there are an equal number of men who got them pregnant.

Lol and that is a Fact! :-)

 

[Zlex]

On the other hand, if one does not believe abortions are murder, one wonders why you think they need to be discouraged. Isn't that a matter for the individual women and their doctors?

Abortion is not an individual right, it is a mob right.

The Jungle's strongest of the strong--the mob/group/tribe, gets to run roughshod over the Jungle's weakest of the weak--any one of us. Eaons ago, for survival. Then...for the slightly more vaporous 'general welfare.' Then...for the even more vague 'well being' of the mob/tribe. Then...'lifestyle.' And fianlly, in the context of the present debate, 'No mere individual--not even, the quintessential weakest of the Jungle's weak---shall threaten the 'convenience' of the Jungle's strong--the mob already enjoying its group rights at Nature's Table.


Not even, if the weak was explicitely invited to take it's longshot seat by the direct, wreckless actions of those in the mob.

There is a fundamental moment of truth waiting to be discovered in these issues, and that truth is hidden in our plain sight. In a Universe made almost entirely of Hydrogen, with precious little coalesced stardust to be found, and precious little of that exhibiting what we call 'life,' does _this_ longshot species value life, or does it take that longshot condition in this Universe for granted?

The cold, logical accounting fact is, only some of that rare coalesced stardust ever became animated, and only a yet smaller, almost infinitesimal fraction of that merely animated coalesced stardust has become self-aware.

My opionion/personal views on abortion have changed over the years. Here is my basis for my present view, and it is personal, and it is totally based on temporal bias.

My wife and I had our 2nd child a little later in life. So, with full intentions of acting on the knowledge so obtained, my wife and I agreed that she would undergo a CVS procedure early on, to test for genetic defects. My wifes biggest fear her whole life was someday having to 'deal' with what she thought must be the 'heartache' of a special needs child. I'm not sure anybody runs willingly to embrace such a challenge or heartache. Certainly not me.

Then my son was born, with Williams Syndrome. A rare genetic deletion. 1:20000 or 1:40000 births, depending on what you read. Low enough on the radar not to be generally tested in a basic CVS screening. So, he was developmentally delayed, and then diagnosed with a life sentence at age 18 months. Bang, sitting in CHOP down in Philly, and literally, there was this moment when I figuratively watched an axe come down on my child's neck, served up by some experts.

Flash ahead in time. My sons--including Eric--are the absolute joys of my life. Sure, he has health issues. So do we all, when we are stumbling around here for our brief few moments in the Sun. But...and you have to know someone with WIlliams Syndrome to really know what I am saying--this child is the Sun. The ultimate love monkey. Everything else pales in comparison. He can't add to save his life, but what is important, he has tons of. OTOH, he loves words and music and language and most of all, people. Plus, most of the crap that the experts said he would never be able to do, he has already done.

So, I look at him every day, and I'm grateful, and I have to tell myself that I only accidentally didn't murder my son, this incredible gift, this lesson. Now, folks can say, well sure, now that some time has passed, and you know and love your son, of course you would not murder him, no matter how dinged up his genes are. But, I would have, then, that was the intent, and it was only a thenfailure of science which prevented me from aborting him; why else do folks have CVS procedures?

So clearly, the difference between my not murdering him then and my not murdering him now is, a temporal bias; the simple passage of time and inevitablilty. It is only a temporal bias that would have permitted us to abort him then. A temporal bias that would allow us to pretend that Eric was never going to eventually happen. Well, he did eventually happened.

My wife laughs at her earlier fears, now. Purposeful or not, Eric was a Hell of a lesson.

Sometimes lessons are too perfect, and you start to wonder. For all I know, this was one of those personal conversations with God. Or, it still could be that **** just happens. But, that is still amazing.

It is only temporal bias which doesn't allow you to see the life that isn't here, yet. Sometimes that is good, or at least, kind, in that it protects us, for example, all from realizing the full horror of The Holocaust; the future generations of unfolding DNA/life that were in the process of unraveling and mixing and unfolding, and that were all lost.

So, I bring up temporal bias in the context of the abortion debate, and ask why it is we can see and imagine and cherish future generations, but not actual individual members of those future generations.

I see one clearly, every day, who narrowly and only accidentally made it past the gauntlet.

The concept 'individual rights' is a very recent one in the history of the species, and the ancient wiring remains; the herd/tribe must survive at all costs, even if it is necessary to sacrifice a few individuals to make that happen. Sometimes, the 'need' to make that happen is based on implementation of the pet theories of an elitist few, not unlike the tribal voodoo priests of time past. No matter; the morality of that concept applied in any given situation is not relevant to determining the outcome, because the mob/tribe/herd is the de facto strongest of the Jungle's strong, when compared against any individual. It is the brute power of Marx's eminent domain that allows the tribe to do what it will, not any moral code. It is the ultimate might makes right; the ultimate will of the Jungle's Strong--the mob/tribe-- over the Jungle's Weak--any one of us.

It is only with the advent of modern civilization that attempts have been made to place reasonable limits on that always irresistable brute force. America and its constitutionally limited democratic republic is one of the latest, modern experiments pulling man from the jungle and declaring that in this tribe, we join together to defend the concept that the power of the tribe, although great, is not absolute. An idea very unlike the totalitarian extremes of scientific statism that have lurched across the rest of the world in the last century.

An idea so great that, it has left a long trail of individuals willing to sacrifice all to defend a tribe dedicated to that idea, so that it might exist somewhere on Earth. When you examine the true meaning of freedom, you find that it means freedom from the absolute dominance of the Jungle's tribe.

So, if I really believe that, then how can I possibly argue against 'free' Choice? Because, respect for individual rights must begin with respect for individual life. A modern tribe that does not defend the quintessential innocent individual life is well on its way back into the Jungle. The 'conflict' of rights in this instance is not one initiated by the weakest member in this conflict.

Any tribe, including a modern one, can enforce its will in any way it chooses; it is the ultimate irresistable force. And yet, I cannot bring myself to argue that our tribal government should use that force to ban abortion. I am encouraged, however, when our tribal elders/leaders use their voices and their positions to educate and press the case for life, so that more of the tribe can evolve out of the Jungle on its own.

 

[Smurf]

That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
genocide - Systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

Genocide is the systematic killing of a particular group. It's not necessarily race or culture.

 

[BobG]

If one believes that abortion is murder, it seems logical that it is premeditated by both performing doctor and consensual patient as well. The religious wrong (which tends to support the death penalty) when confronted with such an argument would hopefully change their stance than oppose abortion through misogynous lynching. Abortions need to be discouraged, but through education and social supports and not through damnation under threat of retaliation upon over 1,000,000 women each year in the US.

Education and social supports seem to have some effect. Teen pregnancies and teen abortions have been declining (as has the overall abortion rate). Over half of women getting abortions are 25 or younger, with 19% being teenagers. About 8% of abortions are by women who have never used contraception.

Only about 6% of abortions are because of fetal health or the woman's health.

The most significant factor seems to be marital status and income level.

I wouldn't count on more lenient attitudes towards abortion, though. From 1996 to 2001, the number of people identifying themselves as pro-life went from 33% to 43%. The number of people identifying themselves as pro-choice went from 56% to 48%.

The statistics are from http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm and are compiled from the Alan Gutmacher Institute and Gallup polls. I don't particularly like about.com and some of the statistics are old, but it's hard to sort through the pro-choice and pro-life websites to find a neutral site with neutral statistics.

 

[Entropy]

Abortion is wrong because it's promotes irresponsiblity. Giving people the option to have abortions anytime they want discourages sexual disipline.

 

[ShawnD]

Genocide is the systematic killing of a particular group. It's not necessarily race or culture.

I pulled that definition directly from Wordweb, verbatim. Dictionary.com says "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group". Basically the same as wordweb.

I'm pro abortion. If you make a mistake, you should be able to fix it. Oops condom broke, should my entire life be destroyed for this? I'm having enough problems feeding myself; any kid brought into the equation would be malnurished, uneducated, and doomed to a life of peasantry. I would rather hold off on having kids until I'm capable (on paper) of taking care of kids.

 

[Entropy]

I'm having enough problems feeding myself; any kid brought into the equation would be malnurished, uneducated, and doomed to a life of peasantry

So why don't you do the smart thing and not have sex, or atleast take more than one procaution. Like use a condom + birthcontrol + not when she is ovulating.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm pro abortion. If you make a mistake, you should be able to fix it. Oops condom broke, should my entire life be destroyed for this? I'm having enough problems feeding myself; any kid brought into the equation would be malnurished, uneducated, and doomed to a life of peasantry. I would rather hold off on having kids until I'm capable (on paper) of taking care of kids.

And what of adoption?

While I am Pro-Abortion I do think that there are merits to some of the Pro-Life arguments (ie adoption). An extremely small percentage of women with unwanted pregnancies opt for adoption.

 

[ShawnD]

So why don't you do the smart thing and not have sex, or atleast take more than one procaution. Like use a condom + birthcontrol + not when she is ovulating.

Are you honestly suggesting that a significant portion, including all students and lower class people, should not have sex ever? I wish you luck on your endeavor since the Christians have had such awesome luck giving that same message to Africa. I mean there was this huge problem with AIDS and starvation, but due to their teachings of abstinence those problems are long gone and Africa is the new California. Oh hold on a second, that never happened. Telling people to not have sex doesn't work.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here is my basis for my present view...

I'm very happy for you. I personally fell in love once with an amazing woman that would not have existed had her mother taken the advice of her doctor.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'm pro-choice, and I have no moral qualms with abortion. Even if someone objects to it morally, I find it troubling that they would ban it.

 

[Evo]

I'm pro-choice, and I have no moral qualms with abortion. Even if someone objects to it morally, I find it troubling that they would ban it.

Ditto.

If people are against it and they get pregnant, they don't have to have an abortion. They do not have the right to tell other people what to do.

 

[Astronuc]

From 1996 to 2001, the number of people identifying themselves as pro-life went from 33% to 43%. The number of people identifying themselves as pro-choice went from 56% to 48%.

The statistics are from http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm and are compiled from the Alan Gutmacher Institute and Gallup polls. I don't particularly like about.com and some of the statistics are old, but it's hard to sort through the pro-choice and pro-life websites to find a neutral site with neutral statistics.

I believe there is a larger proportion that is self-described as pro-choice, pro-life - that is, they are for the freedom to choose, while promoting sexual responsibility, and if a pregnancy does occur, they encourage the adoption. OK, as long as it is not imposed!

 

[Loren Booda]

There has been a resurgence of the belief that human life begins at fertilization. This argument has been used to deny women the morning-after pill (emergency contraception) due to the diminishing probability that it would act as an "abortifactant."

 

[Loren Booda]

Women under the USSR averaged 7 abortions each, mostly as "birth control." I estimate their total number of abortions during that regime to have been upwards of 2 billion. What is the present worldwide figure?

Fiscal and social conservatives in the US conflict whether to raise the poor's quality of life enough to reduce the occurence of abortion. Some African American leaders consider abortion to be genocide.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Religious beliefs aside there is a practical matter here. One of the reasons that abortion was made legal was the so called "dark alley" or "back room" abortion. Young girls in trouble, but older women as well will seek help from illegal, often untrained, black market operators who endanger the girl's [or woman's] life and often cause serious harm.

They were also commonly known as "clothes hanger" abortions.

I think abortion is wrong, but legal or not, abortions will continue. And in spite of my own beliefs I finally did come to the conclusion that as with euthanasia, this is a personal choice. Since there is no proof of a soul, the government has no business sticking their nose in the middle of it. We can't legislate faith.

 

[SOS2008]

Personally I believe life begins when there is a wholly formed being that can live separate from the mother's body. Anything before that is "developing" or "potential" life, so I don't consider abortion to be murder if conducted prior to that time.

In follow up to earlier discussions on this topic, BobG addresses the problems with income and marital status. We already have too many single, struggling mothers out there. Until our society does a better job in regard to women's well being, as well as men's responsibility in the matter (thank you Astronuc) it is very hypocritical to impose further hardship on women by making abortions illegal. BTW, no birth control is 100% effective.

Fundamentalists are pushing for parental consent for everything including birth control. Most of the medical community is fighting this very hard, because this will result in more irresponsible sex, which will result in increased abortions. Those who believe people (including teens) will abstain have apparently forgotten that the instinct for survival of a species includes a very strong sex drive. Get real.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't have any moral objections to abortions. I don't see what the big fus is about. They should use all those fetuses for stem cell research and do some good with it.

Is it possible to use a shredded fetus for research? Do enough cells remain intact?

 

[selfAdjoint]

ANd if some husband thinks it's important to convince his wife not to abort a fetus with deficits, that's his right to try and her right to decide. Meanwhile someone else with different values and beliefs might make a different decision in the same circumstances, and that's her right too.

The point is that it shouldn't be up to the government to make these decisiions and enforce them on the people.

 

[Zlex]

Personally I believe life begins when there is a wholly formed being that can live separate from the mother's body. Anything before that is "developing" or "potential" life, so I don't consider abortion to be murder if conducted prior to that time.

Fair enough. But, the question is does potentual life have rights?

I mean, it's OK that we 'care' about future generations, and are concerned for them, and all of that, but when it comes to legislation and rights and judicial matters and so on, there is no basis for 'rights' that must consider future generations, because they have not been born, and thus, have no rights.

I'm going to dispose of my nuclear waste using a mechanism that will absolutely last about 200 years, and then most probably completely fall apart. It's either that, or spend ten times as much today to deal with the problem.

Likewise, I'm also going to consume natural resources at a rate that will guarantee that they are all consumed in about 200 years. It's either that, or spend ten times as much today to deal with the problem.

Is there any legal problem with any of that, or is there any basis for legislative action, and if so, whose rights would I be violating if I were to behave that way? On whose behalf am I incurring additional cost today if I must consider their rights in the future?


Or, is it just some general 'consideration' that I owe future generations, unlike the consideration that is not owed members of same who are merely conceived?

It is precisely a continuum; there is no way to transist from the yet-to-be-born to the already-born without becoming a member of the merely conceived.

There is an ordering of membership in these classes, and in every instance, that membership processed along these lines:

A] Yet-to-be-born
B] Merely conceived
C] already born

There is not even an anecdotal counter-example.

Group C] has rights.

Group B] has no rights whatsoever.

Group A] has rights?

Where did the rights temporarily go?

 

[SOS2008]

I mean, it's OK that we 'care' about future generations, and are concerned for them, and all of that, but when it comes to legislation and rights and judicial matters and so on, there is no basis for 'rights' that must consider future generations, because they have not been born, and thus, have no rights.

Good food for thought.

I understand college students have organized to put pressure on Bush and Congress regarding their future, and what kind of world they will be left with from generations before. I understand this pressure is having an affect, and find it pleasing to think their practice of citizen rights may be working, as democracy should.

In regard to abortion, I do not feel it should it should be viewed as birth control, but rather as an option when birth control fails. At the same time I do not care for the spin of referring to it as "murder" especially when done as early in pregnancy as possible.

What will the right to choose mean for future generations? Hopefully less unwanted pregnancies/children brought into the world to be raised in poverty, neglected, or even abused. Hopefully preservation of individual rights despite current trends toward radical fundamentalism and government intervention in our private lives.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Group C] has rights.

Group B] has no rights whatsoever.

Group A] has rights?

Where did the rights temporarily go?

It's more complicated than this actually.
To begin with Group C, it will actually exist even if there are abortions. There will in the future be a group of fully grown adults (barring some major fall out) that will have rights and responsabilities that we should protect. These people don't have rights now but rather it has been decided that we as a society have a responsability to the future of our society.
Group B like Group C does not possesses rights (in the present). Yet again it is a matter of responsibility to this group that forms the laws in regards to it, it's not really a matter of rights. Parents have a responsibility and the laws shape what decisions they are legally allowed to make in regards to that responsibility. After the third trimester abortion is no longer a viable decision according to the law but that doesn't necessarily mean that the fetus has rights. One thing that makes the law in regards to the unborn somewhat contradictory is that it is not considered to be a person with the "right" to live until the third trimester yet if a person kills a pregnant women, even before the third trimester I believe, it is considered a double homocide.
Group A isn't quite as homogenous as you make it out to be. Once a child is born it doesn't exactly have rights per se. The "rights" of the child sort of develope as the the child becomes developed enough to excersize them. For the most part the laws regarding a child up until the age of adulthood are probably better described as regarding the responsibility of the parents rather than the child's rights.
On a side note in regards to this I have to say that I don't think it is right that an under age girl should be able to get an abortion without parental consent. If the girl has parents who are so abusive as to hurt her or throw her out or do terrible things to her because she tells them she is pregnant then she shouldn't be in that home to begin with. Letting her go get an abortion on her own without her parents there and then sending her home to deal with this on her own afterwards in such an abusive environment is a terribly disgusting and irresponsable thing to do in my opinion. Once done if she were to go to her parents, or they somehow found out, the fact that she didn't tell them would likely raise their ire even more than going to them in the first place if they are in fact the sort of people that would have forebade her from having an abortion and abused her for getting pregnant. It's just a bad idea all around in my opinion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ditto.
If people are against it and they get pregnant, they don't have to have an abortion. They do not have the right to tell other people what to do.

Though I am pro-choice, I have always felt this to be the weakest argument in the pro-choice stance.

The pro-choice stance presumes that the people getting pregnant get to decide for themselves in a vacuum what they will do about it. There is no consideration that getting pregnant (whether intentional or not) is an act of commitment that one has made to the developing life, and that it is no longer one's personal choice whether or not to follow through on it.

The pro-life argument has always reacted with 'it's not that we are telling you what you can and can't do - it's that, by creating a new life, you have given up your own freedom of choice to not follow through with that commitment'.

Just something I continue to struggle with.

 

[SOS2008]

Potential life cannot preempt life that already exists. There should be a commitment to proper care of existing life and population control. Believe me, humans are not a species on the verge of extinction.

No matter what rights women have gained, women are not free unless they have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and their lives. The most liberating event for women was the invention of birth control (very recently in the ‘60s). It was the first time in human history that women could escape the chain of constant pregnancy.

Since men do not carry this burden, pro-life men are particularly annoying to me. I suspect many would like women to remain second class citizens. Pro-life women have been brain washed by male dominated religion. I don't care what they choose for themselves, but I don’t want their foolishness to affect my life.

 

[DaveC426913]

... but I don’t want their foolishness to affect my life.

My point is though, that the act of sex - in that it potentially leads to new life - is an act of waiving your claim to complete control of the remainder of your life. It is an act of commitment. It is not someone else's foolishness that affects your life, it is an act of your own.


(Again, just for clarification: I am still Pro choice, I just think this 'my life - my decision' thing is a weak stance.)

 

[Zlex]

It's more complicated than this actually.
To begin with Group C, it will actually exist even if there are abortions. There will in the future be a group of fully grown adults (barring some major fall out) that will have rights and responsabilities that we should protect. These people don't have rights now but rather it has been decided that we as a society have a responsability to the future of our society.

We have decided that.

The big question is why?

If you believe, as I do, that we in fact must actually consider the rights of future generations, even as a trust, then why?

Why must we consider the rights of future unborn generations, even if we considere them only in the sense of maintianing a trust that they can only actually access after their birth?

Does it really come down to something as crass as rooting for 'our' football team--the 'future' of homo sapiens? Individually, and in aggregate, collectively, we generally acknowledge that some consideration must be given for 'future generations to come' which are not here today. But...why? Is it an emotional or logical motivation?

If it is not important that anyone of us are around in the future, then why is it important for the sum of all of us, Group C, to be around in the future?

Coldly, devoid of morality, this species could survive long term if it selectively practiced abortion; abortion is no obvious threat to the species as a whole, Group C.

Ditto, selective murder, or the experiments that Hitler imagined to build what he thought was a better species.

Ditto, selective dumping of garbage or nuclear waste.

So, is there a reason beyond the cold calculus of what we can and cannot get away with which governs what this species, on the whole, is wired to do and not do? Because, it still sounds like, even when regarding this as simply a DNA experiment, that there is an importance placed on future survival of the sum of all unwinding human DNA, while simultaneously, zero importance placed on the survival of any particular instance unwinding DNA. Or, it could be that the importance of the survival of any particular instance of DNA is infitely small but non-zero, yet still too small to be deemed important enough to consider. ie, to the tribe and to each of us in the tribe, anyone of is expendable without a second thought.

The more I examine the contradiction between 'survival of future generations' and 'survival of this instance of a future generation,' the more it looks like simply the mob vs. the individual.

The tribe must survive; species, uber alles. So, the justification to snuff any particular strand of already unwinding DNA can be based on mere convenience without impacting the survival of the tribe.

Group B like Group C does not possesses rights (in the present). Yet again it is a matter of responsibility to this group that forms the laws in regards to it, it's not really a matter of rights. Parents have a responsibility and the laws shape what decisions they are legally allowed to make in regards to that responsibility. After the third trimester abortion is no longer a viable decision according to the law but that doesn't necessarily mean that the fetus has rights. One thing that makes the law in regards to the unborn somewhat contradictory is that it is not considered to be a person with the "right" to live until the third trimester yet if a person kills a pregnant women, even before the third trimester I believe, it is considered a double homocide.

So, the unborn have no rights...maybe. I'd have to concede that, because it is obviously the case. But, I'd have to quote something in a different context, because it applies:

At the banquet table of Nature, there are no reserved seats. You get what you can take. You keep what you can hold.

Labor leader A. Philip Randolph

Pure Law of the Jungle. In Nature, the strong rule with impunity. In our case, applied temporally; the current generations are sitting at the banquet table, the unborn/future generations are not.

So, the unborn have no legal rights. They have only what we deem are fluid 'moral/ethical' obligations/responsibilities to consider.

That is, the fluidity is directly proportional to how sufficiently convenient it is to be magnanimous. As in, the costs are paid by some vague others for our caring about future generations. When the costs and inconveniences are immediate and personal, 'moral/ethical' issues immediately give way to the Temporal Rule of The Jungle. That couldn't be more clear, and we shouldn't dress it up as some Holy thing. As in, The Individual Holy Right of Abortion.

I asked my son this question last night because of this topic, and posed it this way:

Suppose our nation had toxic/nuclear waste to render safe, and had two basic options. Option A would last about 200 years. Option B would last 50,000 years, but would inconveniently cost 20 us times as much. Which option should we choose?

He thought B. Most of us, I think, would think that B is the option that we should choose. So, I asked him to think about the 'why' of that; where does that come from?

This is not a 'legal' question, because 'the unborn have no rights.' No, it is a 'moral/ethical' question, and that is how he identified it. I said, "But we and everyone we love will be long gone. The only folks around will be that subset of hypothetical future generations that have actually been conceived and have made it past their own personal family gauntlet to get here, to the Banquet Table. Why should we accept the inconvenience of addition immediate burden on their behalf? What is the source of that moral/ethical obligation to merely potential future life?

It's not a question with a firm answer, because we clearly answer it differently depending, as far as I can see, only on the selfish proximity of the inconvenience/costs involved with the moral/ethical caring.

Because...

We want what we want; carte blanche to treat our sexual selves as recreational beings only, as we wish and when we wish, governed only by our Holy intentions. And, uncomfortable confrontatons with the conflict between the consequences of our actions and the personal inconvenience of dealing with those consequences immediately cause us to squirm and wiggle and rationalize while it is suddenly OK to punt on moral/ethical concern for factual instances of those potential future generations we once cared deeply about, when the costs and inconveniences were far removed/safely over the horizon...

There is yet not even one anecdotal contradiction to the fact that every single possible instance of members of those future generations we claim to have moral/ethical concerns for get here by way of the state of being merely conceived, and yet in that state, we have no consensus ethical/moral concern for them whatsoever.

Instead, at best. incantations about 'group rights as opposed to individual rights,' as if we were all still dressed in skins and dancing around the tribal fire at some volcano.

So, it comes down to this. If, once explicitely invited, factual instances of future generations can survive the scalpal wielding gauntlet governed only by our convenience, they are welcome to fight for a seat at Nature's Banquet table.


We want what we want, and are willing to dance every dance imaginable until we get it; a Holy wink and nod from the rest of the tribe when we individually flush an anctual member of the potential future generations down some **** hole, in the name of our convenience.

 

[SOS2008]

My point is though, that the act of sex - in that it potentially leads to new life - is an act of waiving your claim to complete control of the remainder of your life. It is an act of commitment. It is not someone else's foolishness that affects your life, it is an act of your own.
(Again, just for clarification: I am still Pro choice, I just think this 'my life - my decision' thing is a weak stance.)

I see your point (and have noted you are pro-choice). And I agree that when people have sex, they do so knowing the risks, including STDs.

When we drive we know the risk. Would you waive away an ambulance if you get into an accident, or are you glad technological advancement has given you this option? (And at least this analogy applies to people regardless of gender. Men have sex too, yet they don’t suffer the consequences if they don’t choose to be responsible.)

I don't feel having sex, especially responsible sex, locks anyone into a commitment to waive away options that are available. I would hope, however, that people are trying to be responsible just like I hope people are not driving recklessly. I suggested once that people seeking more than one abortion be allowed the abortion IF they agree to be fixed at the same time.

In any event, taking away options, such as the morning after pill and especially birth control pills is ludicrous, and so is blocking stem-cell research that would save existing lives. It is ignorant, and frightening that such a large percentage of the population holds these views.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

My point is though, that the act of sex - in that it potentially leads to new life - is an act of waiving your claim to complete control of the remainder of your life. It is an act of commitment. It is not someone else's foolishness that affects your life, it is an act of your own.
(Again, just for clarification: I am still Pro choice, I just think this 'my life - my decision' thing is a weak stance.)

Sex isn't an act of commitment. If one believes abortion is not wrong, and a perfectly acceptable method of birth control, why should they care? Sex is about pleasure - not commitment.

 

[Evo]

Though I am pro-choice, I have always felt this to be the weakest argument in the pro-choice stance.

I don't feel it's part of the argument, they truly have no right to tell others what to do, IMHO.

Also, I am sick of people that are against abortion pretending that they are somehow "better" than people that are pro-choice. They don't argue facts, instead they rant on about "well, "I" could have had an abortion, but I didn't, now I am a saint, look at how wonderful I am".