There are far too many things that don’t get talked about. Things that need to be talked about– so that we can know they are happening and fight them; or so that when they happen to you, you don’t feel so isolated and alone; or simply because of the human need to talk about important things. And a lot of these silences involve issues feminists care a lot about. Fortunately, there are a lot of interesting efforts out there to end these silences.
You may have heard, a while ago, about the “I had an abortion” T-shirts. 
Now there are “I was raped” T-shirts.
There is the Document the Silence website, devoted to ending the silence about violence to women of colour. They’re planning an important event on April 30– wear red to show your support. (More details will be posted soon about what else you can do.)
And there’s Exhale, an organisation devoted to providing a safe place where women can talk about their abortion experiences– positive, negative, whatever. (I was interested to learn that it’s not just women who are upset who need this service. It’s also, for example, women who feel relieved but don’t feel that they’re allowed to say that.) They also offer e-cards to send to loved ones having abortions, to help us talk to each other about abortion. Apparently these have been very popular. (I heard about this on Amanda Marcotte’s excellent Reality Check podcast.)
Excellent t-shirts. I think there should be t-shirts that say: “I was raped by a family member”–If we really want to end silences. Also, another bold t-shirt would be “I had an abortion based on sex selection” though liable to arouse strong emotions. An
I had an idea a while back that there could be a ‘rape awareness’ ribbon in a set colour (maybe there is but I don’t know about it if so). Then the wearer could be either concerned about rape, or a victim. No-one would know so it would be more private.
Leading on from that, I also thought about a ‘rape march’ through a capital city, where victims could march in silence, perhaps, wearing ribbons, and keep faces covered if they wished. Horribly, there would be many, many thousands of women, children and men and would draw political and social attention to the horrible prevalence of this crime.
I couldn’t wear the t-shirt, but I’d certainly do the march and wear the ribbon.
Here’s an idea:
Why not place an actual photo of an aborted baby (http://tjic.com/archive/abortion.jpg) under the caption to give a real clear & honest depiction of your liberating pride in action?
You know, put a face to the “Choice”.
Search “Abortion” in Google Images with your filter preferences turned off to get some real nice examples of the results your FREEDOM has created!
“Ending Silences”?! What an oxy-moron!
Feminists should know, the courts didn’t think women or blacks were fully human either!
This is void of mercy, compassion, or the slightest hint of human emotion.
your abortion shirts are propostorous. Nobody wants to advertise that.
RK: actually, the word is “preposterous”.
While I will consult with Jender before taking action, several recent commentators may find their comments removed. We are firmly against abusive comments.
In the meantime, let me stress that several recent commentators seem unaware of the fact that some rational,good-hearted people disagree with them. Terms like “murder” are hardly obviously correctly applied in this context. Certainly, their views are not endorsed or even recognized by the laws of most Western countries.
Finally, rebecca, you need to face the fact that your existence was pretty unlikely and highly contingent. A few minutes here or there in the timing of sex, a different position on your parents’ part, a different dinner that changed the pH, and a different fetus would have gestated. Different chemical signals and you might have been spontaneously aborted, flushed away without anyone being aware. Despite all that, it is abortion opponents who would have liked to display your remains, as they do regularly with other fetuses, thus demonstrating that they actually fail to feel much respect for them.
Hi JJ. No question about it. Those were abusive comments, and they have been removed as is our policy.
Removed appendixes are pretty gross too, when you think about it, yet no doctor would ever present pictures of those to a patient to give a “face” to what they will have removed.
Considering that you might actually clone a person from an appendix cell, is it not actually wrong to remove an appendix, even if leaving it there would for instance threaten the life of the owner, or severely diminish the quality of her or his life?
With current technology, it has pretty much a similar “potential life” status as a foetus, no?
Thanks for removing the abusive comments. I just can’t fathom how people think they can actually convince people to come and see things from their point of view, when it is obviously such a vitriolic stance.
Thanks, Jender.
Saskia: agreed!
The sins of the United States, including abortion, but also including greed and pride will lead to a famine. It’s God’s judgment
it is trully sad that some women out there are using such a sad, tragic issue as abotion to promote their cause of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’. If you trully believe that abortion is ok then that, while sad, is your choice and view. What is unacceptable is that an issue that unquestionably deals with life and death be used to promote causes such as feminism. Abortion is the single biggest stain on humanity today, taking the life of the most defensless in our society. One thing that remains true regardless of arguments and circumstances is that the child is absolutly inocent of everything and should not pay the price. Weather or not you believe that life starts at conception or not does not change the fact that abortion ends life. As mentioned above, to bring a sence of reality and perspective a search of google images of ‘abortion’ will open your eyes. I trully find it hard to believe how one cannot be moved to tears at this utter disreagard for human life. I repeat from above that despite circumstances, the child is completly innocent and defensless, please have mercy.
James, arguably the number of spontanous abortions is quite a bit higher than those planned. From your perspective, a lot of innocent little children get flushed away every day, and this phenomenon provids another instance of the problem of evil: How could a good God permit that?
james, eating a carrot ends a life. removing a tumor ends a human life. (really. ask a biologist!) and i’m pretty sure that both carrots and tumors are innocent of…well, *anything*. the idea that *life* in itself is sacred to us as a society, much less actually sacred, is simply a myth perpetuated through ignorance. i bet there are good arguments against abortion. but “it ends a life” isn’t one of them.
jj, is it God who decides to have an abortion?, Is it God who performs an abortion?
lp, What will a carrot develop into?, what will a tumor develop into?, what will a human being develop into?
James, I have no idea about God deciding anything, but nature is designed so that there are tons of spontaneous abortions. Was it God? Evolution? The point is that on your principles, whatever causes it is causing lots of babies to be flushed away. Sounds implausible to me, but apparently not to you. That is, I don’t think they are babies and so I am not worried. You may also not be worried, but that does not fit well with the principles your are announcing here.
Anonymous: you are bringing in a different argument. James’ started with the fact that a fertilized egg is alive. Indeed, it and carrots and many other things are. Nothing follows from that about morality.
The thought that so many people think abortion is right makes me speechless….just as they said above what does a fetus develope into?…an innocent LIVING human being…It disgusts me that our society has come to face abortion so lightly….
NL, if you looked at the post, you would see that that abortion is not taken lightly here.
Further, from the fact that something can in favorable circumstances turn into something valuable, it does not follow that it itself is valuable. That’s true of many things throughout nature: the value of the end result does not automatically attach to the starting point. Just try to sell 6 carrot seeds for the price of a bunch of carrots. Or a dormant rose bush for the price of several bouquets of roses.
Perhaps your religion tells you that the value does attach to the starting point with human beings, but that does not give you the right to sit in judgment on those who disagree.
Saski- Presumably the pro-life argument rests on the fact that a fetus, if left alone, will develop into a human; the same cannot be said about a simple appendix cell. Of course, you can argue about whether this fact implies that fetuses are genuine moral objects, but the fetus-appendix analogy doesn’t cut any ice in any case.
JJ- There are doubtless many arguments to be made against grounding (anti-)abortion popular mores and laws in particular religious beliefs, but simply pointing to the problem of evil as a refutation of James’ conviction that abortion is wrong is totally bizarre.
lp/JJ- I really doubt that when James protests that abortion “ends life,” he meant to include things like carrots or tumors. To suggest that he really meant “life” tout court strikes me as willfully obtuse.
Nero,
I was not trying to refute James. If he doesn’t take flushed away fetuses to be flushed away babies, he is inconsistent. That alone would not show which of his claims is false. This is an elementary logical point.
He said in effect that everyone agrees that it is alive. The sense of “life” which makes that true also allows cells and carrots are alive. Any sense of “life” that might ground his moral conclusions makes his premise contestable.
The English have a great expression “Do not try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.” It is worth thinking about in this context.
My heart truly weeps when i hear human life being compared to carrots and tumors, i understand the point being made but im shattered that even pro abortionists cannot see that there is nothing morally different between the cells of a vegitable and that of a human – they have a soul. The idea of human life being thought of in such a cold, matter of fact, style is chilling. My heart bleeds for every life lost in this culture of convienience society.
Honestly, James, you came here thinking that you had easy arguments to show you are right. When it turns out that it wasn’t so easy, you lapse into emotionally ladened personal attacks that deployed the confused rhetoric of the anti-choice movement. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.
It is not fair to those you judge that you cannot really sustain a rational approach to the issues, and instead insist that those who have reached different conclusions are making you cry.
nero and james: no of course i don’t think that james meant *that sort* of life when he said “ends life”. that’s precisely why i pointed out to him that he mustn’t simply say “ends life” and think that means anything important because life ending isn’t necessarily *morally considerable life* ending.
and no i don’t think that “human life” is like a carrot. tho i do think that some human life is like a tumor: namely, the tumor form of it. tumors are ALIVE and they are HUMAN; thus, more than simply being *like* human life, they in fact *are* human life. what you want to say to me is that ‘not all human life is alike; some human life, like that of people, is special’. fine. but now you’re not appealing simply to “being human”, you’re appealing to *being a person*. and it’s just silly talk to say that a bundle of cells in a woman’s abdomen is a *person*.
anonymous appeals to the fetus’s potential. first, as jj points out, potential value doesn’t imply current value. (i like the carrot seed example, jj!) second, it’s not at all clear that IT (ie, the fetus itself) is the very thing that is later a valuable being. it has a physical/historical continuity with the later person, but it’s not clear that we should call it *the*very*same* entity.
think of it this way: all of the cells in your body are composed of chemical elements that you take in in the form of food. so, all of your cells are made of what you eat. so your gametes are made of what you eat. and your gametes are what go into making the fetus that will later be your child. so, really darling, by your logic carrots ARE morally considerable, because that carrot you eat will, if you procreate, later become (via its chemical components helping to build the embryo that turns into) your child.
so, if you’re not happy to place any weight on the death of a carrot, you can’t really argue that potential to (physically) become a human person is morally significant.
You can’t speak until you’ve been 20, pregnant and alone. I had an abortion and it haunts me everyday. You can’t judge people, it’s a personal choice. I’m a Christian, but it was a decision I made on my own. James, your judging JJ and everyone else on this page, shame one you, using God on your side while you sit on your throne judging him. Have you never heard of blasphemy? Stop attacking people, you look ignorant.
Clearly all i can do is pray. And for the record i am not “lapsing into emotional attacks” to make my point, if you carnt understand that killing the most defensless members of society upsets me then i think i know the route of the problem. I do find it heart wrentching and it does chill me to my core. And as for the continued reference to human life as similar to carrots etc, you are proving my point. And k im not quite sure were you came up with me sitting on my throne while both using God and judging him?, then something about looking ignorant…..? I NEVER judged anyone for having an abortion, period. You should relise that you are never alone, especially if you are a Christian as you say. I have studied the Second Vatican Council, and it is quite clear about its stance on influences that degrade the value of human life. Remembering always that the child is innocent i will fight to the death to preserve the innocence of human life regardless of the consequences, however i will never, ever judge. As mentioned above, an abortion will often haunt the poor woman for a long time, it is then that they must be shown love and support, not judgment. I often pity at the culture of convienience that is our society and of those who pay the price. I pray that they will be shown eternal salvation.
I suggest that this present thread be ended.
why
All I have to say is that I worked at Planned Parenthood of Boston for 5 months, a summer in college, and I am planning to return as a full time clinician assistant in the fall of 09 after I graduate. What bothers me most is this talk of saving LIFE – the CHILD’S life. What about the LIFE BEING LIVED; the mother (whatever age she be), who has aspirations, future goals, and isn’t having an abortion because it is not “convenient” but literally because it would end her life. Accidents happen, birth control is 99 percent effective, condoms break, people do dumb things even. I was 14, lost my virginity without a condom, and was LUCKY enough to not get pregnant. But I did take the day after pill. twice. Eventually I learned but just because some learn late and there is an utter LACK of sex education in our nation does not mean we should make it IMPOSSIBLE for them to get safe, legal abortions.
I guess I should have 4 t-shirts. One for each abortion. My abortions were done right after Roe vs Wade back in the 70’s.
I was also married at the time. My husband then believed in an open marriage so abortions were a necessary expense and condition for that kind of lifestyle. He later committed suicide when I wanted out of the relationship. We did have one live birth, a daughter, his daughter.
I actually had one abortion before it became law by my doctor in his back office. He sucked it out and told me to go home and keep my legs together. That’s it. I had three others after that.
I had a second trimester abortion once in Newport Beach. Valium made it real easy. Another one I had a “bleeder” and I was in terrible pain. I had to go back and get the coagulated blood sucked out. There was so much of it.
Planned Parenthood makes you feel so good before the procedure but after an abortion it feels so bad, emotionally
and physically.
Yah get me 4 t-shirts….oh wait I had one more in the 80’s, I almost forget. My boyfriend and I were trying new ways of birth control…oops.
In my late 40’s I began to have tremendous guilt. I went to a Post Abortion group and I got to talk about my experiences.
It had a purging effect and I felt better. I recommend it for anyone. Nothing can bring back the babies you take away.
And a women will live her whole life with those abortions living in the back of her mind with occasional surfacing. It has no positives mentally. It is a continual mark on her soul. It does not feel good over time. And for me at age 57, I still feel ashamed. I am forgiven but I am still ashamed. It is a bitch but you carry on and work with others advising not to do it. It is so messy a situation How do you tell your other children that you are going to give birth to a baby and then give it up for adoption??? Your other kid is 5 years old….
Many abortions are done because women have other children. So abortion is the only way it seems.
Young people want sex more than anything. Sex drive will perpetuate continued abortions, nothing will ever change that.
But it is legal. There is no shame…yah send me 5 t-shirts.
Christine, we human beings often think we can generalize from our experience. In fact, however, our lives and circumstances are so varied that we often can’t tell how others really will react. No doubt other women lead their lives clouded with regret about abortions, but others do not.
Christine– It sounds like you’ve had some really awful experiences. You really may want to check out the services of Exhale:http://www.4exhale.org/services.php. They offer women who have had abortions the opportunity to talk, and they may have a lot to offer you, perhaps in a less judgmental way than other services you have found.
please be aware that religion has nothing to do with abortion. human life is actualized at conception. it is not potentially a human life. It is a human life. The sperm and ovum have the potency to become a human, but once they come together, they are actually a human. Science has known this for a very long time, it has just been censored by groups such as the destructive Planned Parenthood. If you don’t agree with me please tell me when life magically begins and/or what else a fetus can become once it is conceived. If you believe that the murder of a human being is wrong and follow the logic that a fetus is a human being, then abortion is most definitely wrong.
In addition, the problem of evil doesn’t exist. Humans have free will and can therefore, do evil. If you believe in a God, He gave us free will, and can therefore, not tamper with this freedom He provided us with. I do not understand how the problem of evil came into this debate, but i thought i would clear that up.
Also, unfortunately, miscarriages happen. Many are due to women using birth control and having previous abortions, and therefore, the uterus cannot hold onto the fetus. This is simply a sad reality.
And finally, to the girl that said she wants to continue to work with Planned Parenthood, i urge to please not. This is not a sympathy plead… its just a fact. Please realize you are killing and promoting the murders of many innocent children. None of you can tell me you would have been happy to have been aborted by your own mothers.
Anon: you may want to call the single cell that exists at conception human life, but without even a smidgen of a brain, body, etc, it is hardly an alive human being. As such, what its moral status is can be debated.
The idea that the facts of conception have been hidden by another other than abstinence only programs (or sheer ignorance) sounds wrong; scientists, however, may be fairly careful about their rhetoric. Calling a single cell a human baby, for example, clearly goes beyond the scientific facts.
it may sound wrong, but in fact it is true. before the sexual revolution, all biology textbooks said that human life begins at conception. yes it may not look like a human but that is because it is in the developing stages. it is very much alive. if it is not alive because you can not see the brain or its body, in other words its form, you are disregarding the fact that its essence is still that of a human being. Yes, a human’s form changes over time. It grows and changes even after it is born. But this is simply our body. Our existence and our essence do not change, they still are there when we are conceived, when we are born, when we are 2, 17, 25, 50, 68, 105, etc.. A brain or a body does not make a human being. Its essence, its substance, makes a human being; not its matter. the fetus may not have a formed brain yet, but he/she will develop his/her brain. It takes time. Similarly, a one year old may not have any teeth yet. But, over time his/her teeth will develop, grow, and appear. Just because the body parts are not visible, does not mean they will not develop.
and i am not ignorant. in fact i have educated myself very well on the issue of abortion and after extensive research i have established that a fetus (even as simply a single cell) is very much a human being. since murder of a human is wrong, abortion (the murder of an unborn human) is wrong. Everything must start from a single cell. that is how we are developed. it can be debated but anything can be debated. if you are going to have sex realize that part of the purpose of sex is to procreate. so if you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. It is a simple concept. It is the same as if you do not want to get fat, you do not eat a chocolate bar even if you are tempted to.
please inform me of when you consider that the fetus becomes a human life?
Anon, let me just note your use of the metaphysics of substance vs. matter; that philosophical view was, of course, brought into medieval European thought by Thomas Aquinas and has been appealed to by the Roman Catholic Church to substantiate some of its moral claims. However, Aquinas did not think that the fertilized egg does have a human soul or substantial form. Nor does modern science concern itself with questions about substantial forms.
I understand you believe that, but it doesn’t really give you an argument that others need find convincing. I note you are also appealing to arguments about development, which seem to be outside the idea that the fertilized egg is really a human and not just potentially so.
This discussion might be picked up by another member of this blog, but it isn’t the sort of thing I am working on right now, at this very busy time, with classes starting, etc.
Oh, i am sorry i bothered you. I am also very busy with exams this week and projects, and such, but i am trying to save the lives of innocent children.
Anyways, I did not ever say i agreed with everything Aquinas thought. If we just took the ideas of others and never tried, tested and added to them, our society would never progress. Thank you for ignoring my question of when you believe life begins. By this statement, it seems you are saying you believe that the soul magically enters the body after a baby’s first breath outside the womb, or are you a materialist and therefore, believe that humans have no soul?
If you are a materialist, i would like to know what colours ideas are? Or do ideas not exist either… seeing as it is obvious that ideas, which are not physical, are in the mind, which is metaphysical. So therefore, I do have an arguement because I do not only believe it, I know it. It is truth, not an opinion.
And of course science does not concern itself with questions about substantial forms because it cannot answer them. Substantial forms are metaphysical and science only deals with the physical.
And yes I am saying that the fertilized egg is developing and therefore actually a human and not just a potential human. The sperm and egg are potentially human and at conception they become an actual human. Again, if you do not agree with me, inform me when it magically transforms into a human being? This single cell, as you repeatedly say, will not become a dog, a tree, or a watermelon. It is a human. It is not anything else. It will not be anything else.
O no! Apologies are totally unnecessary. Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks for reading the rest of the post. Good to know that you don’t care about truth or human life. What I said makes perfect sense. If you care about what is right and true you will read what i said. Otherwise, I hope you gain the wisdom to realize you must seek truth. And i hope that you do not cause the murder of any babies in the future because they are innocent and you are responsible for their deaths.
I thought I introduced this distinction into this thread months ago, but evidently not:
We need to distinguish between `human’, a strictly biological concept, and `person’, an ethical concept. There are various ways to define human — in terms of DNA, perhaps. But any definition of human that includes a fertilized egg must also include things like individual hair follicles. But hair follicles aren’t persons — they don’t have the kind of moral standing that you and I do. So this means there’s a logical gap between being human and being a person. That is, not everything that is a human is a person. Or, to borrow some of your words, the question when it comes to abortion is not `When does life begin?’, but rather `When does personhood begin?’
So, Anon, you can’t point to the simple fact that a fertilized egg is a human in order to show that it’s also a person. You need to point to some other facts — natural or supernatural — in order to support that claim. You might think, for example, that a foetus is a person because it has a soul (a supernatural property). But then, of course, you need to give reasons to believe that it has a soul, and not reasons to believe that it’s a human.
Since you’re so interested in what other people’s views on humanity and personhood are, I’ll share mine, very briefly. I think that the defining characteristic of personhood is being able to engage in certain kinds of interactions with other persons. And I think these abilities depend on having certain cognitive abilities, which in turn depend on having certain brain structures, such as a working neocortex (at least, in every example of persons we know about so far). Then, since a developing foetus doesn’t have these brain structures until sometime after 18 weeks (unfortunately, I can’t remember exactly when off the top of my head), and almost all abortions in this country are performed before 18 weeks of development, it’s not a person in almost all cases of abortion.
Anon, your second statement comes close to violating our policies that insist on civil discourse. Nothing I said licenses your conclusion.
It is clear that you believe what you are saying; however, in a philosophical context, conviction that one is right does not pass as a reason for anyone else to agree. I have tried to point out some of the problems in your statements. Let me suggest you read Noumena’s remarks above and try to understand the point of view from which they seem right. It really is useless to engage in argument with people when, as seems to be the case with you, you cannot imagine why they think they are right.
I ask that you do not continue commenting until you have tried harder to understand the views you do not share.
You should turn that request on yourself.
But of course I have. In fact, I occupied that other position through most of my 14 years in Roman Catholic schools and colleges.
More generally, I think that good philosophy depends importantly on trying to occupy perspectives temporally one does not really share. I’m sorry you have gotten a different impression from the blog. It is inaccurate, I assure you.
okay i am sorry but if you want to show that you are proud to have killed a innocent little baby then you are a self centered person. Abortion is 100% wrong. the baby didnt do anything to you for you to kill them. you choose to have sex and that is the conciquence. i am 16 years old and had an abortion because i was going to be kicked out of my house. There is no other s\reason to why i had it other than the baby daddy was a prick and was not going to help. I could not have done it on my own. but i am makin up for it. i have a beautiful baby girl that lives with her father and step mom and i see her as much as i can. she was a accident child. but you think i was going to kill her? Hell NO!!!! i think if you are going to show that you are proud to kill a child than you have no hope for a good life. i hope you know god does not accept it. Sorry to be blunt but i hate the fact that people will go as far as kill a baby when there is adoption. why kill a child? ask yourself this next time you think about it
Kaitlyn, 16 years old and two pregnancies? Both, as far as one can tell, by men who would not be fit fathers and at a time when you could not provide mothering. You really might consider whether you can avoid a third any time soon. There are extremely serious moral issues involved in your actions.
It is also the case that it is debatable whether a fertilized egg is a child. The idea that it is seems against common sense. We don’t think seeds are plants, for example. Nor are bulbs flowers.
again with the comparing of human life and plants, jj. A fertillised egg IS HUMAN LIFE. It does not magically one second go from being a dispensible object of no value to a human being the next second, it is growing – as a human- from the moment of conception. I can not describe how sick it makes me feel when i keep reading this reference of plants and humans. Always remember, the child is innocent of everything http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c
James, it is clear that you feel there is a big difference between the relationship (1) of a bulb or seed to a plant and (2) a fertilized egg to an infant after birth. In a philosophical discussion it is important that one try to describe the difference, and to do so in a way that supports the moral implications claimed for the second. This blog is not about people coming on simply to announce their feelings, and chastise those who do not share them. For that reason I am, as before, ending this discussion. My remarks here are really for those others reading the comments on this post.
plants are innocent of everything too.
(feel free to remove that comment. my impulse-control is only so strong.)
Nought wrong with it.
i think this folk view that one’s moral considerability is somehow pegged to one’s blameworthiness or blamelessness is so odd! it must be a religious thing, right? eye for an eye, that sort of thing. i’m baffled and intrigued by it.
Anonymous (posting on 2.20.09): we do not allow abusive comments to remain up. Some people think that a fertilized egg has the moral worth of a new born baby; many, many people do not.
James, I have removed your last post. You don’t seem interested in providing reasons for your beliefs, and your quite emotional comments distract from the discussion of issues. I strongly urge you to give up.
Fetus advocates are welcome as long as they are willing to provide reasons for their position. Nothing in this post is pro-abortion, though it is strongly pro-choice. The emphasis is on the choices and health of a pregnant woman.
reasons for my belief, jj?????????? Try the Second Vatican Council dear
correct, because the choice of having an abortion is as easy as choosing between a café latte or a cappuccino.
its typical male chauvinism, thinking that men know everything best and women do not therefore they simply don’t deserve the right and freedom of choice. by using the example of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the rcc, you just supported the thought.
explain to me why an entirely male council has any substantial right to tell rightfully empowered and emancipated women to do what they are told to?
aw, now the posts have been deleted and my comment appears totally out of context…
Sorry, cmdshiftesc.
I didn’t see your comments. So the one about the VC is back. It’s hardly giving a reason that we – or indeed Thomas Aquinas – would count as a good reason. Appeals to authority are not explanations of why people should share oone’s beliefs.
Kay, you are welcome to express your objections here, but you must avoid the condescending and insulting language you have used so far.
Further, the child in question was not allowed to wait to have sex. She was repeatedly raped. At 9 years old, continuing the pregnancy meant they would all die.
It’s a terrible, tragic situation, but not at all the one you describe. Further, it is not at all clear that the moral course is to allow all three to die slow, painful deaths.
People who are wondering why their posts have been removed (1) have either been abusive or condescending or (2) [they] have failed to get that this blog requires reasoning about moral matters and not simply condemning others and/or citing their church’s teaching. Or all of the above.
Nikki, we really welcome reasoned disagreement. But not the sort of comment you have presented.
A couple of thoughts I have had when reading through this:
Firstly, the idea of being ‘innocent’. This seems a bit funny to me because I don’t really think something can be considered innocent if it has not yet had a chance to do anything to negate the innocence. I am not saying that a fetus is evil – just that continuously applying the notion of innocence seems somewhat inappropriate in this case.
Secondly, the supposed reasons for women choosing to have an abortion. Kaitlyn was quick to tell people off for ‘murdering’ potential children, but justified her own choice. In the huge majority of cases women are put into situations where they realise that having the baby will be detrimental to both the parent/s as well as the potnetial child. If a child is raised in a dangerous environment, an environment in which they cannot be supported, in which the mother feels resentment towards the child because the pregnancy was unwanted, then I do wonder which choice does more harm.
On another point quickly, I think it is ignorant to say that sex is purely procreation. It IS a pleasurable experience that people experience natural urges for (and most people are very responsible with contraception and realise the consequences of sex – when they have had the luxury of comprehensive sex ed. – but as pointed out before, accidents do happen.)
If one is a Christian, he would believe that when an egg is fertilized, God gives it a soul. God made man for his own pleasure. He gave man a soul and free will. If one destroys a soul, he has destroyed God’s creation.
Sorry, Brittany, even revered Christian saints, such as Thomas Aquinas, have not believed that. Why should anyone believe it? Maybe the soul is infused at implantation. Or perhaps a bit later, after the possibility of a spontaneous split into twins is over. It would seem pretty difficult if God put in one soul only to find suddenly there’s a second claimant because there’s been a split into twins. Maybe instead of rushing about infusing a second soul, God just waits a while?
And let me add another possibility: that the matter of the fertilized egg is special enough that just natural development gives rise to the traits many tend to attribute to the soul: thought, empathy, etc.
Um ok i have a few questions:
1. There are lengthly waiting lists of families waiting for babies because they can’ thave any of their own. If you think the child will not have a good life, why not give it to someone who will give them a loving family capable of supporting them? Really, its not that you didn’t love them so you gave them away, it is a matter of you loved them so much you gave them something better.
2. Conception is where the DNA that dictates everything about you is decided, whether you have blue eyes or red hair, whether you will be strong academically or physically. is that not a part of personhood? Where does personhood begin really? It’s an ongoing process of change and development untill you die. Is it really a thing that can be pinned down?
Frankie and others: It seems easy to suggest that a woman just continue with a pregnancy she doesn’t want and then give the baby away. After all, what is 6-9 months of a woman’s life? Maybe, even if young, she’ll get preeclampsia or diabetes or who knows what else, but hey, why not?
If that reasoning sounds good to you, you might read the this:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/lord_saletan_asks_how_would_you_ladies_like_it_if_someone_could_abort_your_/
It makes it pretty clear that behind such thoughts is a thorough devaluation of women’s work. If you are a female reader, that includes you too.
aboriton is a serious…and it is stupid to advertise such a controversial subject….look at the google images. Most women with any emotion are not happy with having the abortion. noone has the right to take away a life. Any baby would chose life!!!!!
Nicole, this is not a forum for expressing opinions; rather, we stress reasoned out arguments with backup references for supposed facts. There are many problems with your statements. Among them is the fact that fetuses completely lack any ability to make choices. Further, life is often full of choices we are not happy having to make, but we can still recognize that the alternative was worse. Finally, I doubt we know how most women feel, especially if we consider countries where abortions are or have been the only effective form of fertility control.
David, your comment and the advertisement you posted havebeen removed. That ad was rejected by some major networks; it is not appropriate for this site.
why is that jj?
It certainly appears that any comment that makes a good point against your arguments is removed
David, I’m sure it must be a comforting thought that we remove all the good argument against our position. That’s not true, however. We are always interested in good arguments, and what you see displayed above are the best ones our readers have come up with. Considering they include just about all the standard arguments, I’m surprised that you haven’t recognized that.
Let me note, of course, that we are such a diverse group that it is risky to talk about “our position.” But I think we are all pro-choice; if anyone who posts here isn’t, please let us all know.
ok, a fetus is a human or person or whatever, what about women?
just because aristotle’s views are still held in many subjects i highly doubt that his theory that women are something in between animals and humans is still believed.
im not ‘pro-choice’ at all. they bring it on them selves mabey women who cant possibly practis safe sex and then have abortions through choice should actualy gro-up and use contraception or deal with what they have brought apon themselves (exeption of rape) and prevent all this imaturity. everyone should leave this insanity and deal with the real problem and prevent the need to make the ‘choice’ in the 1st place or its going to go around in circles forever.. mabey give out the pill or injections in high-schools
Yes, it *is* stunning how these women become pregnant *all by themselves*, isn’t it?
my fav sorts of moral judgments are the ones that appeal to the concept “grownup”. so far as i can tell, “grownup” just means “any adult or adult-like person, so long as they are as set in their ways and puritanical as i am, and don’t make any decisions (esp mistaken decisions) i wouldn’t; and no one else”.
call me peter pan. if your moral reasoning has to be that rigid and simple in order to be “grown up”, i don’t want to grow up.
I am far from a regular poster here, but this thread sparked a number of thoughts for me I thought might be worth sharing. Questions have been raised (unsurprisingly) regarding when a fetus becomes a person and therefore a victim of murder. The question of human vs. person was raised, and one poster repeatedly cited abortion as being victimization of the most innocent and helpless members of society. This last is a little insensible I think, since an unborn child is _not_ a part of society. It makes no contribution, and requires no resources in and of itself. The mother may require more resources due to her pregnancy, but a sick person or an old person or an injured person may also take up more resources without society attributing the drain to another individual. Until the child is born, it does not have an autonomous role in the social world. For me, this is the point at which a person becomes a person – when society as a whole includes that person as an autonomous member, individually regarded and responsible. This doesn’t, of course, take into account the concept of a soul, but how is a soul defined? What do we accept as evidence that a person has a soul? Is it a sense of morality? Fetuses certainly don’t display any understanding or regard for moral behavior. Nor do infants, and toddlers only grudgingly will define something as ‘wrong’. Is it a sense of empathy? My cat definitely knows when something is bothering me. When I’m upset or angry she’s very solicitous. Sometimes, she’ll bring her toys to me and drop them in my lap if I’m particularly fuming. This seems to me to be empathic behavior – does that mean that my cat has a soul? Wouldn’t that imply that all cats have souls, and if one is neglected or killed that the person responsible should be tried and punished accordingly? I don’t bring this up to argue for more stringent animal rights legislation, only to show that definitions of soulfulness are difficult to pin down and apply universally.
All of this is only really relevant though in terms of defining the legalization of choice. Does a government have the right to make choosing to abort a fetus illegal and punishable? I’m an American, and I firmly believe in the rights afforded to Americans by the constitution, one of which is the separation of church and state. The American government is explicitly forbidden from using religious grounds as a reason to make something illegal. All of the standing arguments against allowing an individual to choose to abort a fetus boil down to religious ones, and are therefore inapplicable (at least where I live). I certainly think that a person or group of people has the right to argue morality and to try to influence an individual’s choice, but that choice must be recognized as just that – a choice, and one that each individual has the right to make on their own. The ethical argument isn’t between choice and life, it’s between choice-to-abort and choice-not-to-abort. The existence of the choice isn’t up for debate, not matter how much any person may want it to be.
On another note, there have been a few comments implying or outright stating that woman who wears the “I had an abortion” shirt is proclaiming her pride in having that abortion. I think that to be a very narrow and confining viewpoint. Also in the original post is a t-shirt reading “I was raped” (which is an amazing design by the way). Is a woman wearing that shirt proclaiming her pride in being a rape victim? Far more reasonable is the purpose stated in the OP – that despite their painful or shameful nature, these things MUST be acknowledged and discussed, so that the persistence of victimization can be stopped. Perhaps a woman wearing an “I had an abortion” shirt is just inviting discussion and thought. Did she HAVE to have that abortion, or could effective birth control have prevented an unwanted pregnancy? Could she have made other, easier choices earlier to have prevented the very, very difficult choice of whether or not to abort a pregnancy? If keep abortions (and rape) silent, we allow people to continue not thinking about the issues involved. By staying silent, we are inviting policy makers to argue that the incidence is small and unavoidable. Only by being honest and open about how often these things happen, and how difficult and painful they are for the people involved can we insist that prevention is necessary, education is necessary, the availability of other choices is necessary. This is longer than I thought it would be, but I hope will be valuable to the discussion.
This blog is not a forum for really bad arguments. We’ve responded to a number of bad arguments already, and now it seems pointless, since the same bad arguments just get repeated. Hence, I’m simply deleting them.
If you find a really good argument that we haven’t considered above, please do post. Otherwise, your effort will probably be wasted.
Anon XY: thanks for this thoughtful post. The connection between autonomy in a social world and being an ensouled person is important.
I wish some cat would bring me presents! Lucky you.
…deleted…
2. how many ppl would rather be poor or live in an orphanage as opposed to NOT EXISTING?? i know I would. im sure everyone reading this, whether pro abortion or not, will agree with me on this. id rather have a “crappier quality of life” then have no life at all.
…deleted…
“im sure everyone reading this, whether pro abortion or not, will agree with me on this.”
I’m not totally sure about what “this” refers to, but for me, “not existing” doesn’t look bad at all. I don’t expect you to understand my point of view, so I won’t elaborate. Just know that what is obviously true to you isn’t to others, which takes a lot of strength out of the self-evidence argument.
Maybe you would have a better chance of putting your point across if you just read the comments more carefully and refrained from using fallacies that drown out any point you wish to make. You won’t be very convincing if you basically assume people already agree with you.
Vanessa, you really haven’t taken the time to read through the earlier comments. We talked quite a bit about why other kinds of living things were mentioned. It is certainly not ridiculous.
We are not providing a forum for people to come on and simply announce their views while making fun of those who do not hold them. Your demeaning attitude toward those who disagree with you is inappropriate for this blog.
If you had much sympathetic acquaintance with people who hold other views, you might see why “close your legs” is not a solution available to every woman.
Fred, I’m sorry that I’m removing what gave your comment point.
Fred, I take it back. No reason not to save the part you commented on.
No offense, jj, you could have removed what’s left of her comment and mine as well. I jumped in because I didn’t want to leave it unanswered, for all I know you could have been busy with some cat emergency. You’ve been tempting fate by opening the official Sunday Cat slot to other species, so some retaliation to ascertain the cats’ hold on Sundays could be in the cards. On second thought, I’m not sure they’d settle for a mere single day.
Well, they were happy to have a reference to them in a comment on the iphone as sex toy.
I agree, though. They may be plotting to take over Sundays.
I saw your address as I was removing comments; welcome back! It was nice to see your name. And thank you for stepping in. I was relieved to see someone did.
id rather have a “crappier quality of life” then have no life at all.
Vanessa might be interested in reading David Benatar’s Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence(Oxford, 2006) to appreciate why someone, on serious reflection, might feel that it would be better never to have been brought into existence than to have any life at all (which, to clarify, is not the same as feeling that, existing, it would be better that one’s life end as promptly as possible).
never having existed seems to be a difficult one for people to think through. i wonder is it because most of the people in question are working with judeo-christian notions about an afterlife? (so, on that picture, once a human ‘exists’ bodily, it can’t not exist: it goes to heaven or whatever.) but then it still doesn’t make sense:
if i (lp) am right about what happens when an embryo or fetus is aborted, then the would-be person never exists. if they (the anti-choice christian) are right, then the already-person whose soul is attached to the embryo/fetus goes to heaven, surely.
so, what’s the problem? if you don’t exist, you don’t exist; there’s no *you* to be hard-done by anything. if you do exist you go straight to an existence that’s by definition desirable and perfect. so, why would some sort of pity for what the fetus could’ve had make any sense? isn’t it sort of core to the idea of heaven that being in heaven is better than being on earth? wouldn’t we then–if the fetus is in fact already a person, who will not simply cease to exist if it’s aborted–be doing the fetus a favour?
i posted before and find it pretty aggrivating that you couldnt even allow my posts to be seen. you are supporting a decision to take a life but you cant answer or deal with repeat questions? bull shit. in my eyes, any woman who has consensual sex and has a abortion is a murderer and doesnt deserve to ever have children. sit and spin on that bitches
i hope my comment isnt ignored. i have a simple question. why not instead of supporting or opposing abortion do ppl just push the idea of abstenice? wouldnt hat be better then having to make to decision to end a possible life or deal with the problem when you realize you may not be capable of supporting and caring a baby. would that not be better?
and if someone would rather not be abstenent then why not practice safe sex? condoms, oral contraceptives, injections, or even surgical methods to pospone reproduction.
former embryo, this site is not a forum for anti-choice slogans, rants, etc, even if they are just called “repeat objections.”
mrs brown, it turns out that promoting abstinence does not result in decreasing unwanted pregnancies.
im sorry but im against abortion. r u serious. who would want to MURDER a baby? i mean come on. if you know for sure that the kid will be so mentally retarded that it will never function then maybe abortion is ok? but plz save a baby- how would u like it if i stabbed you in the back of the head with scissors and vacuumed out ur brains?? id be arrested!! but appearently A BABY THAT DEPENDS ON YOU BEING MURDERED DOESNT HAVE RIGHTS SO NOONE WILL BE ARRESTED- WE TALK ABOUT WOMENS RIGHTS- WHERE ARE THE BABYS RIGHTS???
got a problem? im a 13 year old girl that would never get an abortion unless my baby would have a disease that would kill it very early, but even then prolly not. what are you going to say to your future children? oh dont worry sandy, you would of had an older brother or sister, but mommy didnt want a kid ruining my life so i got it killed? plz explain how any of this is right?
email me: please read the comments above. The view that all abortions constitute murdering babies is not shared by the writers on this blog. We do look at the arguments to support your claims; we do not accept them.
Given you think that abortion is murder, let me urge you to rethink the case of potentially disabled fetuses. The non-disabled are NOT worth more than the disabled.
I feel somewhat confused by the anti-choice arguments that are based on religious belief.
I was born a Catholic, and could not be baptized for a period of time, because until I could demonstrate the ability to live independently of my mother, I was not deemed to have a soul.
Another issue I have is that the ones who are anti-choice, also tend to be the same people who fight against social services for poor families.
I’ve been reading all these posts and it occured to me that women who get abortions are just plain selfish. To them, a baby interferes with school, work or their personal life. Seems to me that they should have thought about that before they had unprotected sex. Adoption is a wonderful and selfless act on the part of the mother. To give such a gift to a couple. It’s a beautiful thing.