# For those who want to find common ground...



## SpiralWoman (Jul 2, 2002)

between Pro-choice & Pro-life, I offer this thread. I am completely pro-choice & at the same time I know that I could never have an abortion. I think most women take abortion very seriously & want to avoid having one. I am politically active (as I can be) in the effort to improve the lives of women & families so that more women can find alternatives to abortion, ie: birth control, family planning, economic opportunities, etc.

I wonder how hard it is to put our differences aside & focus on what we share? Can we use this thread to explore what we agree on?

For example:
on the pro-life side:
I agree that abortion stops a beating heart.
I agree that having an abortion can be psychologically scarring for the mom.

on the pro-choice side:
I agree that only a pregnant woman can decide what is best for her & her unborn child.
I agree that even if the woman decides not to have the baby, that is her autonomous right & responsibility to decide.

Is there anybody else like me who thinks it would be a good exercise just to brainstorm this way & see what we can come up with? The lives of women & children might be better off because of it.

thanks, Maria


----------



## Ms.Doula (Apr 3, 2003)

It's a nice thought.... But I don't think I can strattle the fence, myself.









Eddited to say: _I do volunteer at a CPC to help the women/girls that do choose to birth their babies. We offer assistance, help, & many resources for them durring & after their PG. We also do Post-abortive councelling & encourage abstinance. We do not personally offer any other "referals" though..._ So I AM trying to help make a difference in their lives.... And in Prevention as well!


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SpiralWoman*
Is there anybody else like me who thinks it would be a good exercise just to brainstorm this way & see what we can come up with? The lives of women & children might be better off because of it.

thanks, Maria

In theory, I think this is a great idea. I have a feeling it will get ugly fast, though . . .

I'll throw in my two cents, anyway:

I am pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception, and that what a pregnant woman is carrying is a baby -- a smaller, younger human than herself, but a human nonetheless. I don't believe a woman has the right to end the baby's life for any reason except self-defense, i.e. the LIFE (not the health or well-being) of the mother. To me, it's the same as killing any human being -- it's only justifiable when done to prevent your own death.

That's my stand.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I am pro life.

I think you and I would find common ground in that the notion that abortion takes a human life.

I also think we could work together to advocate for more education and the development of more ideal contraceptives.

In theory I agree that a woman shouldn't have children unless she has consciously chosen to have children.

However, reality doesn't always allow for that.

I believe that an unborn baby has the right to live.

I also believe a woman has the right to control her body and her fertility.

These are two rights that conflict with one another.

I want you (pro choice people) to understand that I am not dismissive of your perspective, honestly I am not but I believe that without the right to life we simply cannot enjoy the rest of our rights and privledges.

Debra Baker


----------



## SpiralWoman (Jul 2, 2002)

see??? Now this is going great so far!









now where's the durn quote button...
ok,
"I believe that life begins at conception, and that what a pregnant woman is carrying is a baby -- a smaller, younger human than herself, but a human nonetheless."
I completely agree with this...
and these
"I also think we could work together to advocate for more education and the development of more ideal contraceptives."
"I also believe a woman has the right to control her body and her fertility."

ok, maybe next time I will figure out how to do quotes right.

I am resisting the urge to explain the things we don't agree on. But that isn't what I want this to be about. & I don't think any of us have to straddle the fence. I just want to put aside our differences so we can focus on our similarities & see where that takes us!
An excellent start!

thanks, Maria


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I'm Pro-choice and I can see why some are pro-life or rather anti-abortion. I don't now anyone who isn't "pro-life" or on the other hand anti-life.

I too care deeply about babies and women, just as pro-lifers do.
I do think at conception life is created that which left untouched will develope into a baby.
I also agree that education is very important and birth control should be available for all.
I woud l love to know more similarities but as far as I know this is were anti-abortion and pro-choice part ways. I'm am open though to finding out what else we have in common.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

OP- you might be interested in a group called "Common Ground" I participated in one of their functions in college and it was great!

How can we work together? Good question, moreover, what can we each do as individuals to help prevent the situations which lead to abortion?

Let me tell you what I am doing.

I work for a CPC, we help girls and women in crisis pregnancies, and throughout the parenting years should they choose to keep the baby. We offer post-abortion counseling should they come to us after an abortion. We provide help to women to get the services available to them (ie- WIC, welfare, etc.) We provide diapers, breastfeeding help, formula, clothes, baby gear (car seats etc.), we help the women obtain free or low cost health care whether pregnant or not (although we do NOT refer for abortions). We do not hand out contraception and we have found that the vast majority of girls/women coming to see us have either refused to use contraception (although having it readily available), or had contraception failures which led them to their crisis pregnancy. I know I am not remembering everything else that we do, there are so many people with our group doing so many wonderful things.









I am also raising my children in a caring, loving, respectful way (and when I am teaching- which I currently am not- I do the same for my students), so that my children will have high enough self esteem not to ever feel like they have to have sex to keep a BF or GF, etc.. I will teach my children that sex is wonderful and beautiful and can result in pregnancy- even if they use contraception, so therefore they should reserve sex (at the very least) for a time when they are ready for the possibility of parenthood and with a person who they think would make a good partner in parenthood---this should be a minimum.

I think we can all work on the things mentioned above. We can all provide education to our children, and to the children of our communities. We can all help women in crisis pregnancies so that they know that they will have the resources/support that they need.

I believe our time is better spent preventing unwanted pregnancies than fighting over what should be done once the pregnancy has already begun, and once it has begun, we should do all we can to help the woman and child, help the woman find the resources she needs to move forward and help her to love her child instead of pitting her against her baby.

Good thread- I hope it stays positive.

Let's face it, we can argue until we are blue in the face about the "hard cases" (rape, incest, life of the mother), but those abortions make up such a small percentage---there are so many that truly could be prevented, this is a great place to brainstorm ideas on how.

Can I request we keep this a thread dedicated to that end? People who don't think there is Common Ground to be worked on can start another thread







.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

I COULD find common ground with pro-lifers except for one thing.

They are insisting that I live according to their beliefs. They are trying to make their beliefs into the law of this land... even though many women.. including me.. do not share those beliefs. Particularly when those pro-life beliefs are based on religious dictates.

I could find common ground if they focused on education and advocacy... and tried to prevent abortion through persuasion.. not legislation.

But when they insist that their beliefs are more valid than mine, and that I be FORCED to live according to them.. the issue grows larger than just abortion. It becomes a question of freedom. It becomes a question of one group trying to force its beliefs on another.

And THAT is the battle ground.
And it ultimately destroys any hope of common ground, because it FORCES me to fight for a larger issue.. that is, my freedom to make my own choices about my body and childbearing.

There are larger issues here than even abortion.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

What about the baby?

If it was only *you* and your rights I would agree, live and let live (excuse the pun) but, lets face it, if it wasn't for the presence of the baby there wouldn't be any dissent.

DB


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

OP-

I am sorry you are not finding interest here despite your desire to work together.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

I won't respond to the question above for the sake of keeping the thread peaceful.


----------



## SpiralWoman (Jul 2, 2002)

Quote:

There are larger issues here than even abortion
I completely agree with this. And I think the larger issues about women are where our differences lie.

Quote:

I won't respond ...for the sake of keeping the thread peaceful.
thanks!

Quote:

If it was only *you* and your rights I would agree
Debra, I see how this statement makes your earlier point clearer.

Quote:

I am sorry you are not finding interest here despite your desire to work together.
Well, I never expected it to get this much. I think we are a raging success in that we haven't called any names or hated on each other very much. Jess, do you have any agreement with any of the previous posters, esp. someone on the "other side" as it were?

thanks! Maria


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Thanks for responding to me kindly.

Asherah was articulating the classic pro choice position.

I responded with the classic pro life position.

As I stated before I *do* believe that women have the right to decide what happens to them and I *am* uncomfortible with the notion of legislating or forcing.

I think the inherent conflict between these two interests (one in the Baby's right to life and the other the woman's right to autonomy) is why this issue is so seemingly unresolvable (is that even a word?)

I think the common ground can be found when we work to prevent surprise pregnancies.

DB


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Ok, I think I CAN address that politely.

This issue is a battleground for people who generally have completely different worldviews on life's most important, emotional concepts.. even the concept of life itself.

It is, if you will, a flashpoint for a total clash of overall values.
It is, as I said, bigger than just abortion.

That's why it is pretty much impossible to resolve with any sort of compromise.

Common ground.. preventing unwanted pregnancies?
Well, maybe. Except so many pro-lifers also oppose all sorts of contraception.. and many who come from a certain religious point of view consider sex out of marriage a sin... and support abstinance only. Unwanted pregnancies are often talked about as the wages of sin.

There are LOTS of hidden agendas here.
And that's why I think it is pretty hard to find true common ground.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Maria

I am not sure what you mean- to me "finding common ground" is about finding ways we can work together to help women and children, not about necessarily agreeing about abortion with the "other side". I think that unborn babies are human beings who should be afforded equal rights, so anything that goes against that, I cannot support.

So far in this thread, as far as I can see, only one other poster than you was pro-choice, and the only thing offered as possible "common ground" was better access to contraception. I agree that all women should have control over their fertility (so long as that doesn't mean aborting a child). I am in favor of sexually active women using non-hormonal methods of BC should they choose (hormonal methods can act as abortifacients). However, as I mentioned before, the majority of women/girls I see at the center had access to BC and either chose not to use it, or it failed. I would like to be sure that women know that BC *can* prevent pregnancy, but that it truly is not 100% effective, it seems like right now people hear that it's not 100% effective, but don't really seem to realize that they could end up in the failure rate at some point, and then they will have created a child that they will have to either raise, adopt out, or "end it's life in utero". Also- I am greatly concerned about STDs which as we know are not always prevented with BC (certainly not at all with hormonal methods) herpes for example.

I think our only "common ground" in thought is that women deserve better, children deserve better and we all want what is best for both. So, how can we work to improve things? We can educate girls and boys about sex, BC (including the failure rates for pregnancy and STD protection- but pointing out that it is still a necessity if you are going to have sex), fetal development. We can support young families, or families without the resources to raise a baby, and get them the help they need so they don't have to choose between school, food, etc. and their child.

We can work with children to raise their self esteem.

We can teach society that sex is wonderful and beautiful and that it can result in pregnancy- and that maybe just maybe all people should consider that fact whenever they choose to have sex-- I know a lot of people don't like to hear that, they think sex should be able to be just about pleasure, but unless you are already pregnant or castrated (or ovaries removed), when you have sex, you could end up with a baby, I think more people need to recognize that FULLY and take responsibility. I know this is not a popular view here, unless of course we are talking about men paying child support, in which case everyone says "look, he knew that what he was doing could result in a pregnancy"....

I am curious about what pro-choicers are doing to help women and children, beyond providing BC. I am familiar with Planned Parenthood's teaching program- they come into our local high schools to talk about contraception, but that is all they talk about when they come in. The group I am with comes in to explain fetal development, abstinence until one is ready for parenthood, abortion procedures, etc.

I think we could all work to educate about BC, abstinence until ready for parenthood. I think we could all help women in crisis pregnancies to get the help that they need (free/low cost medical, WIC, welfare, clothes, baby clothes, help with rent, diapers, etc.). I think we could all work to take away the stigma of single motherhood, and to put forth a stigma against deadbeat dads. Most importantly, we can raise our children to fully understand these complex issues, so that they never find themselves in a position where they have an "unwanted" pregnancy. Every child should be a wanted child.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

**stepping tenderly**

I don't believe any other pro-choice people have mentioned my viewpoint so I will.

Common ground: I am ethically against abortion. I think abortions after the first trimester (perhaps even starting at 10 weeks gestation) should be banned except for the life or physical health of the mother.

Uncommon ground: I think in 95% of the cases where it is used, that it is the wrong answer. However, if my 12 year old daughter were pregnant, I would counsel her to have an abortion. If my 15 year old daughter were pregnant, I would not. I believe in the cases of rape and incest, abortion is not ethically wrong. Or in the case of a woman's physical health and/or life were in danger.

Where I differ from many pro-lifers, who also see abortion as ethically wrong, is that *I simply do not trust my government, made up mostly of men, to make this decision for myself, my daughters, and other women across the land.*

And I really don't see anything that would allow me to trust my government enough to make such a personal, and life altering decision for me. When we allow the government domain over our decision to bear a child, its just a hop, skip and a jump away from them also being able to mandate who should not bear a child.


----------



## SpiralWoman (Jul 2, 2002)

a quick reply & apology to Jess. I was reading quickly before with DS on my lap & didn't realize you had already posted a nice long reply before your short reply. Doh! I hadn't skipped your post, it just didn't dawn on me you were the same person, I don't know why. So when I asked you for your views, you had already given them with lots of ideas about what pro-life & pro-choice share! sorry about that. I really appreciate your extra long reply too.


----------



## arnrie_iz (Apr 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SpiralWoman*
I wonder how hard it is to put our differences aside & focus on what we share? Can we use this thread to explore what we agree on?

Oh I think this is wonderful!









I agree education is crucial. Understanding the processes of BC and our bodies. In the possibilities held in that little drop of semen, in what the changes in our bodies signal, in the affects of hormones or chemicals, in others options for BC, in fetal development, in abortion facts, birth, postpartum, etc., etc., etc. I think men and women bear equal responsibility for these things.

I also think we shut each other out too often, as we assume the other "side" is trying to proselytize, and it gets in the way of those goals we do share. Seems if we listen we might find we agree on more than we thought. I really appreciate all the gentle voices who have explained themselves so well. It has already helped me.


----------



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah*
There are LOTS of hidden agendas here.
And that's why I think it is pretty hard to find true common ground.

I agree with asherah that the hidden agendas prevent finding common ground.

When I was preganant I faced a situation where I might have needed an abortion to protect my health (and how could I know for sure that it was not my life?).

Yesterday I read in the newspaper that the same hospital where I was treated has decided never to do any theraputic abortions at all because they are afraid that anti-abortion activists will pressure the state into yanking their state funding. I suppose the anti-abortionists see this as a victory, but to me the issue seems very personal thing that is bound to lead to tragedy. Thanks to anti-abortion hard-liners women like me won't be able to make their own medical decisions and the hospital won't be able to provide us with medical care when something goes wrong.

I'd like to see some common ground that respects the HEALTH (not just life) of the mother because my health is very, very valuable to me. However, I just don't see that kind of respect for women comming from anti-abortion activists.

--AmyB


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

We need to educate women/men about all forms of birth control. Since hormonal bc is better at preventing pregnancy I can't understand why any pro-lifer would not want to educate women about them. I think because they could *possibly* be abortifacients or prevent inplantation should not be seen as a reason to not support them as a good prevention for unwanted pregnancy. I think if you are against this kind of bc and think it should be illegal then you really don't want to see the percent of abortions go down.
I have a real hard time understanding this kind of rationale. Either we want to prevent abortions and give women REAL alternatives or not.
I do think we need to educate our young ones about sex and yes there is a small chance that if you use BC you can become preg. I think we need to be more open as a society about sex in a more healthy way. I think bc should be easily available to all teens/ young adults and no stygma placed on them for getting it.
I do think girls and boys should be well educated on how their bodies work, how a girl gets pregnant , what happens during pregnancy, fetal developement and also very importantly how to best prevent pregnancy. All options and not teaching abstinence as the only or most moral way.


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
We need to educate women/men about all forms of birth control. Since hormonal bc is better at preventing pregnancy I can't understand why any pro-lifer would not want to educate women about them. I think because they could *possibly* be abortifacients or prevent inplantation should not be seen as a reason to not support them as a good prevention for unwanted pregnancy. I think if you are against this kind of bc and think it should be illegal then you really don't want to see the percent of abortions go down.

I agree that there needs to be MUCH more honest education about hormonal BC. People have so many misconceptions (uh, no pun intended) about them.

There are two different types of hormonal BC -- those that allow a woman to ovulate, but prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (these are the abortifacients), and those that prevent ovulation altogether (which means there is no egg dropping to be fertilized). If there were a point where all abortion was outlawed in this country, I would think the first kind of BC would have to be included in the ban, but not the second kind (which is more common anyway).

Unfortunately, the abortifacient pills are lower-dose, and easier on a woman's body long-term. That's why I think you'd encounter a lot of resistance to banning them -- they are frequently prescribed for nursing mothers and other women for whom large amounts of hormones would be a problem. But it's not like a ban on these pills would leave such women without ANY options -- there are always barrier methods like condoms, diaphragms, and the sponge. Less convenient, to be sure, but similarly effective when used correctly. And to me, lack of convenience is worth it to ensure you're not unknowingly ending a created life.

Anyway, *honest* (no scare tactics!) and comprehensive education on different methods of preventing conception is key, IMO. And part of that, as mentioned upthread, is education on failure rates, as well.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Hmmm, I thought barrier methods were not as effective as the pill. Does anyone have stats on that? I was concieved while my mom was using a diaphragm, btw.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Stats on various BC methods and effectiveness rates.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/bcfacts2.html


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

According to those two sources barrier methods are NOT as effective as the pill.


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

I won't click on the link to Planned Parenthood, but the FDA site surprises me. I could have sworn that the last stats I saw said the sponge was 99% effective when used correctly. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I saw that, so I'll have to go look for it. I'm not looking to argue about this, though -- this is supposed to be the common ground thread. I'm all for knowing failure rates, so if the FDA said in 1997 that barrier methods are less effective, then I'm willing to concede that for now. Are there any more recent FDA stats?


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

The one from planned parenthood was updated March, 2004. On this updated version barrier methods are still less effective.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

a quiz about which method may be best for someone.
http://www.arhp.org/patienteducation...dex.cfm?ID=275


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

Well I have sworn off all abortion threads on MDC before, since it just turns into a debate, but since the point of this one is the find common ground, I guess I can add my point.

I think everyone should be taught to respect their bodies and their sexuality, espeically the power of that sexuality. Two sexual beings have the power to create new life, or to destroy a life (I am not refering to abortion here, but to STD's which can be transmited and destroy a person's life or at least hurt their health). I don't know of any other activity which can both create life and destroy it.

I think people need to be very well informed on birth control, effectiveness rates, side-effects and things which render it unaffective. I HAVE seen sex education put out by Planned Parenthood, and I have seen them mention effectiveness rates of birth control, but I have NEVER seen anyone mention the side effects or other medicatons or things which can make certain hormonal birth control less effectie (ie. antibiotics). The pill has a common side effect of causing acne breakout and weight gain in girls. It is VERY common for girls to see this happen and stop taking the pills, especially young girls. They think pregnancy wont' happen to them anyway (that whole invincible attitude) , and gaining weight and having their face breakout is (in their minds) is one of the worst things than can happen (nevermind that pregnancy itself can cause those two things to happen).

I think people need to be education on the risks of abortion (as any surgery) and of birth control. Especially hormonal birth control. There are always risks and side-effects to those things and people need to know about it.

The worst thing we can do for our young people is to have them say "I didn't know" I didn't know you could get pregnant the first time... I didn't know antiobitics can make the pill uneffective....I didn't know that abortion can cause scarring of the uturus.....I didn't know that I could get an STD.....I didn't know that the cervical cancer I have now is caused by getting HPV at the age of 16.... I didn't know it was going to hurt so bad....I didn't know that condoms can break.... I didn't know he didn't have a condom.....I didn't know she wasn't on the pill.....

I also wanted to add that I have worked in a CPC before and how many girls would come in for a pregnancy test and they would already be 8,10, 12, 16 weeks along. Many girls don't know their own bodies, their own cycles. I just couldn't believe people would wait that long to take a test.

You get the point, People need to know. Sex is powerful. It is wonderful but very powerful. We need to make sure that people know..

I also wanted to say it is always going to be hard to find common ground on this issue because abortion is so tied up in sexuality and sexuality is powerful and arouses powerful feelings, opinions, etc., in people.

I also personally don't see how the view that the unborn child is human and alive can be reconciled with the view that a woman has the right to destroy that life. They seem totally opposite to me. IMO if someone is human, they deserve life and deserve to have their rights protected, whethere they live in a house or in someone's womb.


----------



## Ms.Doula (Apr 3, 2003)

jess7396- I couldnt have written that better myself!









*AWESOME, MAMA!!*

(I almost could have written it though...-it states everything Id have written!)


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

thanks


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah*
I COULD find common ground with pro-lifers except for one thing.

They are insisting that I live according to their beliefs. They are trying to make their beliefs into the law of this land... even though many women.. including me.. do not share those beliefs. Particularly when those pro-life beliefs are based on religious dictates.

I could find common ground if they focused on education and advocacy... and tried to prevent abortion through persuasion.. not legislation.

But when they insist that their beliefs are more valid than mine, and that I be FORCED to live according to them.. the issue grows larger than just abortion. It becomes a question of freedom. It becomes a question of one group trying to force its beliefs on another.

And THAT is the battle ground.
And it ultimately destroys any hope of common ground, because it FORCES me to fight for a larger issue.. that is, my freedom to make my own choices about my body and childbearing.

There are larger issues here than even abortion.


What Asherah said. I see no common ground when it comes to the government dictating what I can and cannot do with my body. We all know the very next step is to deny women other choices regarding their bodies. It wouldn't take ACOG and insurance companies much effort to get VBAC outlawed, for example, were abortion made illegal.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stafl*
What Asherah said. I see no common ground when it comes to the government dictating what I can and cannot do with my body.

But the government dictates what people can and cannot do with their bodies all the time, if those choices would injure or kill another human being. I don't have the legal right to, say, take my hands and place them firmly over my newborn's mouth and nose and hold them there until she smothers. IMO, my rights to control my body end when I'm injuring another person.

I agree with ameliabedelia -if you believe that the embryo or fetus or unborn child is fully alive and fully human - not just potentially human - then there's no way abortion can be morally acceptable, any more than infanticide can be acceptable. If you don't believe this, well, then it can be, in certain situations.

I do think focusing on educating women is the common ground, and on supporting them when they are pregant and not wanting to be a parent to the child.

Dar, generally a liberal atheist...


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
...if you believe that the embryo or fetus or unborn child is fully alive and fully human...

but not everyone believes that, and it isn't the government's job to dictate such beliefs.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

People are free to believe whatever they want - our (US) government doesn't dictate morality, it dictates legality. So, it's perfectly legal to belong to NAMBLA and think man-boy love is a great thing, but it's illegal for an adult to have sexual relations with a child. A government's job is to create laws that reflect the moral beliefs of the majority of its citizens, and the price of living in a society is that everyone is expected to obey the same set of laws, and society can punish citizens who don't follow them.

The other option is anarchy...

And just think for a moment, what would you want to happen if you did believe that the unborn child was fully alive and fully human. Hypothetically, with that as a given, how would the issue change for you? I think that's a key in seeing both sides...

Dar


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
And just think for a moment, what would you want to happen if you did believe that the unborn child was fully alive and fully human. Hypothetically, with that as a given, how would the issue change for you? I think that's a key in seeing both sides...

Dar

Dar, there was a thread a while back, something like "pro-choice but believe it's a baby?", I would search for you but I'm nak, anywho- there are a surprising number of people who feel that way, I think the underlying idea was that, "yes, it's a baby, but it's living as a parasite of sorts and the mother should not be forced to support it against her will".


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

If one truly believes that, then posit a pair of conjoined twins where one of the twins is a "parasite" on the other - twin #1 could live if they were separated, but twin #2 definitely could not. Maybe twin #2's heart is only minimally functioning and most of the blood is being oxgenated by twin #1's heart, or something - it doesn't really matter. By your logic, twin #1 could, at any point, ask that twin #2 be killed and separated. Picture them as intelligant your women in their twenties, even... I'm pretty sure that's not how it actually works.

And if it was clear that in fewer than 9 months, twin #2 could be separated and survive, there's no way twin #1 would be allowed to request separation and death for twin #2.

If the fetus/unborn child is truly human, then she has all the rights that other humans have.

Dar


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

You wanna hear something cool? Almost everything ameliabedelia said... I learned in high school. In a class, at a Catholic high school no less. (I don't recall anything about anti-biotics, but I'm not sure they knew that yet.) Word in the corridor was that the nuns had struggled with the course content but none of them was willing to teach it and the most qualified lay teacher insisted that if she teach it, the course would be all inclusive. She did make sure she mentioned as she went which methods were approved by the Church and which weren't. Man, she rocked.

The problem is this class was part of the core curriculum and required at the senior level. HELLO!!! By the time we took that class several of my classmates were already starting the babies they carried to graduation and down the aisle at their weddings! And how many more had just dodged that fate by dumb luck?


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Dar-

I hear you, when talking this through with me, you are preaching to the choir







, but I do appreciate you analogy, that's one I have not used before. Maybe you could read the thread I was talking about to get an idea of where the people I mentioned (pro-choice but believe it's a baby) are coming from.
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...ro-choice+baby


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

I'm posting this in response to the conjoined twins analogy. That is not the only way to look at it.

Long ago, in a galaxy far away, while I was in college I took an Ethics class. We discussed abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and the like. But we didn't discuss it based on our opinions, but rather by using different ethical constructs provided by philosophers in the past.

One dilemma given to us was as follows: A girl wants to go for a walk in the woods. Her parents tell her, "No, that's dangerous. Bad things happens to girls who go walking in the woods." The girl decides to walk in the woods anyway.

La-di-da, she's walking along and BAM. Something hits her over her head and she passes out.

She wakes up in a bed. It appears to be a hospital bed, but the room she's in doesn't look like a hospital. Her body is covered up completely by the sheets/blankets and she can't see anything but some tubes coming out of her body and going under a divider curtain next to her.

She's understandably quite upset and confused. A man comes in and although frightened she questions him. This is what he tells her.

There is a wonderful man, Mr Jones. He is a world famous pianist. He plays and writes beautiful music. But Mr. Jones fell gravely ill. He went to all the best doctors and hospitals in the world, but no one could cure him. Finally, he did find one person to tell him how he might live through this, but it wasn't something a hospital could provide.

You see, what Mr Jones needed was for someone else's body to provide his own with all the functions. The thing is, he only needed it done for 9 months, and after that, the disease would run its course. If Mr. Jones was alive at that time, then he could then live a normal life and the other person could then go on their way. At this point the man drew back the divider curtain, and the girl sees Mr. Jones laying next to her, with the tubes that are running out of her body, entering his. She begins to scream and struggle and the man gives her some sort of drug so she has to calm down.

Then our teacher began the questions: Was it ethical for the girl to try and esape? Even knowing that Mr. Jones would die? After all, her parents DID warn her that bad things happen to girls who go walking in the woods.. discuss.

Now, this was long ago, 16 years ago or so, so the story might be a bit rusty, but I've remembered it pretty well since then. I wish I still had my Ethics book, but its lost in a move along my life's way. You can certainly argue that the girl has an ethical obligation to remain at Mr. Jones side for 9 months. Or you can argue that she doesn't. My point is simply, its another way to look at it.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

As I ponder that question (and sorry to continue the off topic subject here







), I wonder, did the girl's parents tell her that by design walking in the woods is meant to result in you ending up hooked up to a man who needs your body to support his for nine months?

Was Mr. Jones an innocent man who played no role in the scenario, or was he "in on it?"


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Unfortunately, like I said, it was 16 years ago, and I don't recall all the details. I do remember that the dire warnings the girl received might not have been just from her parents but others in the community. She was well warned but it might just have been she'll disappear or something.

And I honestly don't recall at all if Mr. Jones was in on it or not. He may have been unconscious.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Without those details I don't think I could answer to the story. Certainly if Mr. Jones had been "in on it" that would make a huge difference to me.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

Well the point isn't what the answers are but how different things in the scenario might change your ethcial position (I don't mean opinion, I mean ethical position).

So answer those questions for yourself and then answer the dilemma. Doesn't matter what my professor told me long ago







.

It IS another way of looking at it though.


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

I don't think the Mr. Jones analogy works at all. First of all, like a PP said, we need to know of Mr. Jones is an innocent and unknowing participant or if he was "in on it." Secondly, whether the warning not to walk in the woods was vague or explicit DOES make a difference. The vast, vast majority of people know that sex makes babies. It doesn't sound like the girl in the story knew that walking in the woods could result in being hooked up to Mr. Jones in a hospital bed for 9 months. "Bam," out-cold and waking up strapped to another person is not similar to the way more than 99% of people in this country get pregnant. The only vaguely similar scenario I could think of would be someone knocked out while jogging in the park, raped and waking up pregnant. And even then, it's not like she would be strapped down to a bed with tubes and wires for nine months a la the Mr. Jones scenario. Pregnancy is inconvenient, to be sure, and certainly emotionally traumatic if it's the result of a rape, but you are still more or less free to live your life while the baby grows.

Anyway, I think the Mr. Jones analogy sucks. (I feel okay saying that since it's not YOUR analogy -- just something you heard in Ethics class.) The siamese twin analogy is a little better, but still lacks the dimension of the mother's original choice to have sex (which, again, is a key factor in the vast majority of U.S. pregnancies).


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

I think whether you can at least buy into enough to use it as a starting point for an ethical debate probably depends on your level of anti-abortion sentiment. After all, the professoer DID teach an ethics class for a living. We also addressed many other things in that class and I sure wish I could tell the analogy exactly right. But I've even searched on the internet on the off chance that its a "standard" ethics class dilemma but had no luck.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HoneymoonBaby*
you are still more or less free to live your life while the baby grows.

That's not true for all of us.
I was friends with a girl in highschool who would have had to spend most of her pregnancy in bed, if she ever became pregnant. I don't remember her medical condition. I do remember that she was strongly pro-choice because of it.

During both of my pregnancies, I lost my mind. I aborted the first one because I was constantly suicidal. I was psychotic throughout the second one. I even set the living room on fire during one of my psychotic episodes. I considered an abortion during that one, too, and that was a planned pregnancy.
My life was no longer mine when I was pregnant. I was at the point of requiring psychiatric hospitalization and strong sedatives. Thankfully, my DH stuck by me and got me through with few injuries to myself.

There are numerous other cases where a woman is not free to live her life during a pregnancy.


----------



## gethane (Dec 30, 2003)

A hah! It is a famous thing:

Quote:

Farfetched analogies abound: abortion is like the Holocaust, or slavery; denial of abortion is like forcing a person to spend nine months intravenously hooked up to a medically endangered stranger who happens to be a famous violinist. It sometimes seems that the further abortion is removed from the actual lives and circumstances of real girls and women, the more interesting it becomes to talk about. The famous-violinist scenario, the invention of the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson, has probably inspired as much commentary as any philosophical metaphor since Plato's cave.
Like it or hate it, it IS a standard philosophical examination of abortion, and postulating that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a human being. Well, read on if you'd like. I tried to include several links, not all necessarily agreeing with my viewpoint. The part I came up with about walking in the forest must've been something my professor tacked on.

http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/abortion.htm

http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/ckaczor/thomson.htm

http://eworld.ericrichardson.com/verbal/thomson/

http://faculty.washington.edu/himma/phil241/trans5.htm

http://users.telerama.com/~jdehullu/...n/absjtho1.htm


----------



## shine (Nov 20, 2001)

wow, gethane

that first link was interesting. the scenario and the discussion are fascinating if only because one incredibly important element in the issue has been removed: the image of the cute, innocent baby. Without that image overriding the issue, the focus changes. We are, I believe, programmed to "protect the baby" as in protect the future of the species. But in order to see the essential elements of the issue, perhaps we do need to remove the instinct toward species preservation and consider the two individuals involved as individuals, not archetypes. It changes the discussion. Hmm.

I don't know that it will solve anything, but it certainly presents the problem in a new light.

Maria, I do think the primary difficulty is that abortion questions are essentially a difference in spiritual beliefs, having to do with the nature of human life, the existence or non-existence of a soul, etc. and less to do with any true issues of legal or medical issues. Common ground would then, I think, have to revolve around education toward responsible, mindful action on the part of sexually active people (whatever form that took -- contraception, abstinence, whatever works for the individual), but there will always be those folks who get pregnant anyway despite the best of intentions. And then we're back to the violinist thing, I guess.

Research gives evidence that young people who make pledges to remain abstinent are several times more likely to get pregnant and contract STDs than young people who made no such pledge. Abstinence education isn't working. People are spontaneous and naive and hopeful and fallible and somehow we have to still deal with that fact in the end, which puts us back at square one.

Unfortunately we also forgot the risks of pregnancy in these discussions. I'm working in L&D right now in my clinical rotation and I am steeping in the risks: thrombosis, pulmonary emboli, hemorrhage, preeclampsia, eclampsia, permanent loss of bowel or urinary control, fistulas, hematomas and more. Not all women are healthy when they become pregnant. Not all women are well-educated, health-conscious people and they are the ones with the highest frequency of serious health problems as a result of pregnancy. Pregnancy is hard on any body, but for some there are life-long (and even life-threatening) considerations.

I know that for myself, I cannot ever make the decision for another woman to continue or discontinue a pregnancy. There are too many individual variables.

sandi


----------

