I don't know... I think I do understand that people get very offended if you legislate their actions. And I'm sure that young girls that do decide to have an abortion must go through a horrible amount of guilt that they never really asked for when their boyfriend coerced them into having sex. But what worries me is the people that have an abortion without even blinking (who knows if anybody really is like that), say a woman just didn't care. My moral code tells me that sometimes you have to accept the consequences of your actions, and abortion seems to be cheating, almost. I certainly am not against contraception, or abortion in special cases, when the mother's life is in danger. But just free abortions...no worries, no hassle. No matter how you rationalize it, it still seems like a state-sponsored massacre to me.

Bill, you always need to be careful with 'greater good'-type arguments, but I'm right with you on this one. The teenage daughter of a friend of mine has a four-month-old, and her entire family is enduring misery because she's emotionally incapable of properly raising the baby.

It reminds me of a poster I saw in college: a very unhappy teeny-bopper holding a baby.

The caption said "It's like being grounded for eighteen years."

I think you are right, Bill. i can easily go to other types of marches and counterprotest the Moonbats, but i avoid abortion marches like the plague. both sides appear to be wrong.

i'd like to see abortion limited, but not outlawed. i'd like to see birth control become universal. i'd like to see every 14 year old girl (or boy, if we could figure out how!) chemically padlocked against having children until they go to the doctor and indicate their desire to have children.

i'd like to see laws passed that said, since the default situation is now infertility (due to chemical padlocking) women must get a man to enter a formal contract to have and raise a child, otherwise he would have no financial duty toward her or the child.

no doubt both sides of the debate would like to take turns telling me what a paternalist/sinner i am.

Check out this site: Abortion Is Pro-Life.

Best Premises,

Martin Lindeskog - American in Spirit.
Gothenburg, Sweden (a.k.a. the socialist "paradise").

I wonder what the child of that nineteen-year-old Bill dated would think about the balance of pain.

Good and interesting points made, but to me everything still hinges on whether a zygote/fetus is either a blob of cells or a human being. The thing is, I know a few people in or around their 90th trimester that cause me pain, inconvenience, and consternation, but that isn't a reason to off them. Why should it hold true in offing someone who, frankly, came into being only because of the actions of two people?

I guess I would prefer that young, mentally and financially unprepared women (and men) wouldn't be pursuing activities that result in the conception of a child in the first place. That some will inevitably do so also seems to serves a moral purpose...an object lesson about accepting the consequences of one's actions, perhaps?

Thanks for the good read.

Okay call me crazy:

WHY COULDN'T SHE GIVE THE KID UP FOR ADOPTION?

Thousands of affluent, desperate couples yearn for a child, financially secure but unable to concieve a child of their own to lavish their love apon.

This option never occured to her? More interestingly, given the thoughtful nature of your post, this option never fucking OCCURED TO YOU?

Nah, killing the babies easier, because you see, that human's life would be really, REALLY inconvenient.

a- Don't have sex when you're 16

b- OK fine, fuck like a bunny. Idiot. But WEAR A CONDOM

c- Oh you were too drunk (jesus christ) and now you're pregnant. Fine, so give the kid up for adoption.

d- What's that you say? Can't be bothered with the months of swolen ankles, morning sickness and weight gain? Hey, seems like a good enough reason to kill someone to me!

How's this hypothetical: If you were an abortion doctor, and you got Altzeimers, and your kids really, REALLY couldn't be bothered with all the hassel and expense of nursing care, do you think they would be totaly within their rights to just stick a pillow over your mouth?

Oh? Why not?

Great post, Bill. Your reasoning mirrors mine almost exactly.

Excelent post. I admire you stance on the matter and like Farmer Joe said; it's very colse to my feelings on the matter.

I'm glad you did post it after all.

I had a long post typed but then I realized what I was doing.
Vincent had it wrong. There are three great mistakes.
1 Never get into a land war in Asia.
2 Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
3 Never debate abortion.

Saying that, I agree with your post. This world sucks and sometimes you have to make a suck decision to avoid a suckier one.

Amos

"This option never occured to her? More interestingly, given the thoughtful nature of your post, this option never fucking OCCURED TO YOU?"

Unless I read it wrong Bill only dated the girl... he didn't father the child... I think it would be tough to tell a girl you are dating to put her 3 year old up for adoption... and lay off the F-word... it doesn't add to your arguement.

Amos, You've skirted the line and I've deleted one of your comments before with your racist, nasty spiel - now you've crossed it. I SAID KEEP THE COMMENTS CIVIL. WHAT PART OF "CIVIL" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

First of all, I wasn't the father of the kid. Second, I mention that adoption wasn't a valid option because of the coercion of her family and the attachment that develops during the course of a pregnancy. All of these are more difficult choices than you may understand in your wonderfully simplistic world.

As for your other little apoplectic shits about personal responsibility, sorry, man, sometimes life isn't quite as neat as you may like. Sometimes people get raped, or birth control fails, or good people make a mistake that they shouldn't have to pay for for the rest of their life. And a pregnancy has a much greater immpact on the human body than a bit of "swollen ankles" and "weight gain."

Sorry Amos, but unless you happen to sprout a vagina or obtain a fellowship in obstetrics, I'd have to say that you don't KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Take the bile somewhere else.

PS - Alzheimer's? Yes, actually. In the absence of cures or treatment for horrible illnesses, I DO believe in euthansia. How about them apples?

bill, nice post. i agree with a lot of what you have said, but came to the opposite conclusion.

in your lesser of two eveils (essentially) i think you have failed to include the feelings of the fetus/person. you seem to weigh the immpact on prosepctice mom, and family, but not on new jr..

however. one thing i have noticed, that is almost universal, pro-choicers will almost without fail, absolutely refuse to acknowledge that a fetus even 'might' be a person.

it is the crux of the argument for me. aftre all, if a fetus is not a person, who cares what she does. but if the fetus is, then abortion is tantamount to murder, and should be stopped.

in conclusion. the weighing of the greater good still forces me to think that abortion should remain legal. especially for the extreme cases. like rape, incest, and late term.

morally, i have to continue to argue pro life.

Some people are horrified to read how in ancient Palestine people would sacrifice infants to the god Baal. Whether it was for protection of their crops and livestock or fertility, I don't know, but they felt it necessary enough that at times they would sacrifice their own young.

Others speak with disgust of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, of the killing, rape, forced labor and innumerable evils committed. Yet many of these same people will gloss over the same atrocities committed by Communists on a global scale. Back then we needed to communists to help us defeat fascism. While today we need them (at least the Chinese), to provide us with cheap consumer goods and titillate us with the promise that they will open their markets to our businesses.

Since the early 1970's roughly half of my generation and the one after that have been exterminated. What for? The "right" to pleasure, education and freedom from responsibility? Convenience, it is a hungry god.

I would point out that there is a difference between "convenience" and being trapped in a lifelong spiral of dysfunction and poverty.

Mlah, you made some really good comments and for the record, while I argue for the pro-choice side of this I do recognize the life inside a woman is, well, a life. But until it can survive on its own (i.e. like until the eigth month or so,) it is inextractably intertwined with the body, and subsequently the life, and subsequently the will, of the mother. That's why I am against late-term abortions, but support the legality and accessability of early ones. As long as the survival of the child (embryo, fetus) is exclusively dependent on its intake of blood and the nutrients from the mother's own body I just don't get that it can be anybody's decision but hers. Of course I will argue that this choice affects the father intimately, and one would hope that if a woman is sleeping with someone she'd actually trust him enough to, ya know, share the process with him. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Still, it's a shitty choice to have to make. At this point I'd never choose that; I have an amazing partner and am now in a position emotionally, psychologicall and financially to support a child the way I want to. But how can I juxtapose my decision on another woman who might be in a completely different point in her life? It's a very difficult decision and I'm glad people are so spirited about it. That says a lot about our attitude toward the sanctity of life.

I have no doubt this conversation could continue ad infinitum; it's so multifaceted. What about minors, should the parents know? What about the feelings of the father? What about rape, incest? What about multiple abortions, or women using abortions as a form of 'birth control'? It goes on. Thanks for posting this, Bill.

Morgan, what in the hell are you trying to say??

Are you seriously trying to equate ancient people killing developed, breathing born children because they thought that would make the crops grow to modern day women who abort undeveloped and immature life forms still inside them because they've decided they cannot or aren't ready to rear a child?

Good grief.

Sean wrote:

"But what worries me is the people that have an abortion without even blinking (who knows if anybody really is like that), say a woman just didn't care. My moral code tells me that sometimes you have to accept the consequences of your actions, and abortion seems to be cheating, almost."

I share your concern about the use of abortion as a form of birth control, but I wonder what sort of mother such a woman would make. For a woman who is capable of having multiple abortions without caring, maybe choosing to abort would constitute a responsible action on her part. If she knows that she has no interest in raising a baby, and since we can't force her to put the child up for adoption, perhaps we should accept her assessment of her own capabilities.

In your article you used the phrase "libertarian instincts" at least twice. You might want to check out http://www.l4l.org/

"I applied cold mathematics to morals, and decided that the 'balance of pain' gave the United States the authority to act. In short, I was perfectly comfortable with my country killing thousands of innocent people, so that others could have the opportunity for a better quality of life."

That should read in the end "...the opportunity to live." Period.
Just want to make one point. Your reasoning in Iraq was a much "easier" calculation: thousands of innocents might die in the war vs. thousands will surely die at the hands of Saddam and Sons. You prevent the certain deaths of many with the certain deaths of a few (or perhaps more than a few) and at the same time probably eliminate a risk to other countries that their innocents would be killed.
We justify it by saying a couple of things including :we save more lives than would be killed, we do not intend to kill any innocents, we will put forth some effort to prevent the killing of innocents, we must act to prevent a risk to ourselves.
If the war in Iraq were not about preventing death but making people live wealthier lives either with food or money or modern conveniences or technology or free speech, would you still have argued your calculus and to what line? How many are we willing to kill so that others live better (because there is no issue about the fact that they WILL live.)

Bill-

A thoughtful and courageous post: you didn't have to go into the fray like that ...Correct me if I am putting words in your mouth, but I guess you're saying that abortion can be a necessary murder, right? I understand the downward spiral (financial, emotional, pyschological) can be overwhelming, but is it worth it that a life be lost in the actual present (which can be controlled) for an hypothetical quality of life in the future (e.g., college degree, satisfying job).

Willow-

"But until it can survive on its own (i.e. like until the eigth month or so,) This is an iffy definition because a term baby or even a toddler cannot live on their own: they need somebody to feed them, clothe them, wash them ... Also what about 24-wk old preemies: they are considered a human life by their parents yet are less than 8-mo old. Technical prowess allows now to permit preemies to survive at a younger age: is that a bad thing? Is really a life defined simply by what the mother wants it to be?

MadMan - Yes. I used that description specifically. If I had the choice to possibly die free or live under torture and oppression, I'd take the chance at death. The calculus involves more than quantity, it also relies on qualitative judgements.

Willow - you express the distinction put forth in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood V Casey, except ... they've found that the fetus is viable outside the womb much earlier than expected - as early as 5 months. This is what shifted the focus from trimesters to a flexible continuum of "viability."

Sorry Jason - take the cliched version of libertarianism, if it helps you sleep at night. I'm sure that there is a group called "Democrats for actually defending Western Civ," though that seems to run contrary to the official party line.

Yann - I've watched a life basically ruined by extreme hardship because of unwanted pregnancy. I think that it is appropriate to make such judgements in some cases, yes.

Murder also represents a connotation above and beyond "killing." if I had a debilitating stroke and had a living will that instructed my family to put a bullet in my head, I would label that "killing" and not "murder."

In the same way, as Willow points out, if a woman decides that she no longer wants to support a supplemental being that is a physical part of her body that cannot survive on its own, I don't regard that as "murder."

It becomes trickier as the life becomes self-sufficient (as the courts mention).

Of course I understand that YOU'd rather die free than live under "Torture" or "oppression." But if there there were no danger to your life, just that you would be poor unless you killed someone, does that jusify the killing? (My question goes to quantity: on one side you have the death of a human being, on the other side you don't)

I don't consider the death of a 2 month old life that is still a part of another, controlling being, life or not, to be worth essentially consigning the mother to misery for her entire young adulthood. It goes beyond financial, though that is a big consideration - it also speaks to the family environment, the child's potential upbringing, etc.

Life for life's sake is a silly proposition, IMO.

And to be more pointed, I would certainly risk my life to get out of poverty and miserable dysfunction. People do it all the time.

Yann,
"Is really a life defined simply by what the mother wants it to be?"

To an extent, yes. Considering that a woman who newly finds herself pregnant is looking at playing exclusive host to a being for its very survival for at least the first five months, it certainly is her right to determine if she wants it there at all. The demarcation line I use in the concept of a child surviving on its own is very clear and does not submit well to fuzzy logic: does the child have the physiological capabilities to sustain life on its own? I'm not talking about whether or not it can make itself a peanut butter sandwich; I'm talking about 'can it breathe?' 'has its organs developed fully so that metabolic processes can sustain the organism?' If you are not the one sustaining those metabolic processes, as is a pregnant female, how can you presume choose the fate of that life?

The simple answer is: you can't. Only she can. Women have always been in control of that (less so in some eras) and we always will be.

And that technology that allows us to sustain the lives of preemies? Fabulous stuff, though it does not fit within the context of this argument; it pertains to a technology that saves the lives of preemies of parents who aren't thinking about aborting them, anyway.

I agree with Bill that this becomes tricker as gestation progresses.

(Again I'm sure that you have every right to put your life at risk to achieve a better quality of life... and for now we'll even grant you that bullet as a last request.)

I don't think however, that you would allow that poor, downward spiraling mother to accept a million dollar contract killing job and morally justify it.
It seems in the end that all other calculations are irrelevant because the focus is on two things: the inability for the fetus to survive on its own, and its dependancy solely on the mother. Both of them factors in a unique situation.
But that brings us to the question about what kind of burden will we put on the mother when she has to face these consequencec of her own making (I am excluding cases of danger to health/well being of mother to carry to term and cases of rape/incest).
Now we are balancing killing this lower level almost parasitic life, but one with enormous potential vs. making the mother carry to term then giving up for adoption?
Maybe the (relatively) short term discomfort of a pregnancy is worth forcing her to endure if we gain the potential human life as a result?

I think the question is, is it okay to risk someone else's life to get out of poverty and miserable dysfunction?

Speaking of abuse, there are those who are forced to have abortions, in the same coercive manner that you mentioned your friend was forced to bear and keep her child. So... what, exactly? Abortion being illegal or not will not exactly solve the problem of people controlling other people's lives and choices. Abortion being legal did not help your friend. Adoption being available did not help your friend.

In a like manner, I know many people who had children in marriage, at a relatively adult age, and ended up in poverty with the kids as a result of divorce... so what should we learn from this? Both my grandmothers had their first children at age 18 and all ended up thriving -- but they were married, and were married until death or widowed. Perhaps the issue to consider is how we treat mothers and children in this country - too often men don't feel they owe anything to the women they get pregnant (money, I suppose, if they're =forced= to give it, but that's not nearly the same thing) and people expect mothers to do everything.

MadMan,

"Maybe the (relatively) short term discomfort of a pregnancy is worth forcing her to endure if we gain the potential human life as a result?"

"worth forcing her to endure"??

And maybe, since you're not a woman and will therefore never actually know what kind of "discomfort" a woman goes through in pregnancy, if you force a watermelon through your asshole YOU might gain a little perspective that would render you useful to the conversation. I can assure you, the discomfort caused by that event would be (relatively) short-term.

FOAD.

Bill, if you ever wanted to know causal events for rabid feminism, look no further than the shit spewed forth by MadMan.

"Force her to endure" pain for your gain, indeed.

Fuck off, asshole.

Meep:
"Abortion being legal did not help your friend. Adoption being available did not help your friend."

She's just an example - my goal is to protect the right of responsible people to have this choice that are in similar situations.

MadMan -
Your "million dollars" example makes me laugh. We aren't talking about the financial difference between a three bedroom house and a mansion, rather hand-to-mouth living, tethered to the support of a dysfunctional and destructive family environment. Big diff.

And the "short term discomfort" of pregnancy is ... much more encompassing and permanent than you may realize. It does things to a woman's body that are not easily dismissed or tolerated, especially at a very young age. I can only imagine.

Final word i have on this for now - the child's ability to survive without assistance is a pivotal distinction. Until that point, the entity is not a fully functional human being, rather a subordinate part of the host. The well-being of the mother, given a variety of factors, is more important in my opinion.

Touchy, touchy weeping willow.
I thought we were going to keep this civilized.
When I said force I meant through the power of "the State" by enacting laws against abortion not whatever picture you got about some pregnant woman strapped to a gurney a gunpoint with leering men drooling around her.

Look, Bill was making a point about the fact that a woman's life was ruined and that was too high a price to pay for the potential life, my point was well what if her life wont be ruined because she has viable choices and the ability to give her baby to others... instead the calculus is do we "force" the woman to carry to term or allow the "killing."

Willow is a spirited woman that "Whomps." It is why we love her.

...good people make a mistake that they shouldn't have to pay for for the rest of their life.

Why not? Would you apply that same argument toward the sadistic jailers in Iraq? How about a one-time rage murder...? One of the biggest problems I have with liberals is they are forever trying to use the government to eliminate/reduce the natural negative consequences of bad decisions. I see little difference between that and what you are arguing here.

...being trapped in a lifelong spiral of dysfunction and poverty.
This is a difficult one to prove. Every girl who gets pregnant is trapped?!? And there are enough raped girls getting pregnant that NARAL has to push to force NY med students to do abortions as part of their training even if they don't want to?
See, I'm not convinced your ex-'s life would have been all sunlight and roses if she just hadn't gotten pregnant that one time... If she made a bad decision once, she certainly could have made one again. Or again, or again, or again. Heck, if she is in a family that coercive, I have significant doubts her life would have been smooth and happy no matter what.

...I really wish we could do an "It's a Wonderful Life" scenario and temporarily make everyone disappear who might have been aborted (and all their descendents) if abortion had been legalized 100 years earlier. I wonder who would be missing loved ones, and if that would have any impact on views...?

On the other hand, I would like abortion to remain legal, but would prefer to implement much tighter restrictions.
1) if you aren't responsible enough to get an abortion within the 1st trimester, you lose the right to choose. Don't tell me you can't tell if you are pregnant in the 1st 3 months. Every single woman I know knew she was pregnant within the 1st two weeks.
2) the main forms allowable would be the "morning after dosage" and RU-486. I advocate this because of my beliefs: with the pills, you and you alone are acting to end the baby's life, and so it truly can be between you and God, and the side effects might make you act more responsibly in the future. When you hire a doctor, even a willing one, to perform a procedure on you, you are involving someone else in your decision.
And I sort of like the automatic birth control idea...except that most forms of birth control have the potential for uncomfortable side effects. My wife particularly reacted badly to Depo Prevara (sp?)...

Bill-
I didnt think she lived in a three bedroom house... and you would be suprised at the kind of improvement in quality of life that a million bucks could bring.

As to your final word, I respect that, I just wanted to "push" you on your Iraq calculus which, in my opinion, did not stand up to the intellectual rigor needed to make the moral calculus that you can kill SOMEONE ELSE to simply improve your "quality of life" when your life is not at risk.

I applaud your courage in wading into what is obviously a volitile subject.

Nathan -

No every girl is not trapped - but the ones that are should have an option. And re: "forever trying to use the government to eliminate/reduce the natural negative consequences of bad decisions."

The idea here is LESS government.

And my point, MadMan, is that when you say you wonder if it would be worth it to "force a woman to endure" the pain of childbirth, regardless of if by enacting laws against abortion or strapping a woman down to a gurney at gunpoint, you give yourself away as someone who doesn't really give a shit about the mother's intention in all this or what happens to her during that event. I feel no remorse whatsoever at calling you on it, or using uncivil language to do so. And if you seriously think I was weeping while I was doing that you are also suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.

mad -

one last thing (sorry) - I guess the distinction is that while I do regard it as ending a life, I don't regard it as "killing someone" else, by virtue of that someone else's inability to survive on it's own. When the mother kills the fetus, she kills part of herself. Believe that this is right or not, up to a certain point, it's her choice - that is where you and I differ.

"you give yourself away as someone who doesn't really give a shit about the mother's intention in all this or what happens to her during that event."

Hmmmmmmm, so by asking the question and weighing the pain and suffering of pregnancy on one side vs. the potential human life on the other it shows that I don't really "give a shit?"
Or maybe, see... just maybe it means I am in fact taking into account the nine months of pregnancy plus labor and suggesting that because the potential interest in that human life is so strong the State would be morally justified in saying you must go through all of it because the potential life has a stronger moral weight. Just because I can come to a different conclusion doesn't mean I completely disregarded one side of the equation. I just might think in the end the other side is worth more. And in fact, I think that on an indidvidual level, many women make the choice to "endure" pregnancy over and over because they value the end result.

So keep up your self-congratulatory bullshit about calling me on positions that I never held and the maintain that vanity necessary to believe that anyone even asked for your "remorse" when they were simply pointing out you devolved into name calling instead of addressing a point of view.

Now I remember...isn't the "Whomping Willow" that tree in Harry Potter that brainlessly hacks away at anything that goes near it?
Right, well, if you're still going its only because your "Beau" obviously can't find the right "knot."

But Bill, Bill, "the child's ability to survive without assistance" is equally an argument for open and honest infanticide. As someone in NR wrote about the "viability" buzzword in the Supreme Court ukase, someone who is stripped naked and dumped in Antarctica will rapidly lose "viability". And a newborn is not "able to survive without assistance".

And don't say "unthinkable" or "everybody agrees that is wrong" unless you are holding the assumptions of your particular culture as an absolute. Those wonderful civilized Greeks and Romans took the exposure of "unwanted" (by the paterfamilias) children for granted, until those nasty intolerant Christians came along and Imposed Their Religious Belief that it was wrong. Read Tertullian. Or the Didache.

"killing" "ending life" "murder"

I wasn't trying to get you on semantics, just to see your true position and again I respect it. We don't necessarily disagree.
I agree there are degrees of life that have a different moral weight on the one side of the equation vs. whatever the options on the other side.

"But objectively, was it worth sacrificing her youth, her chance to get an education, her ability to achieve anything resembling financial stability at any time during her life, or her chance to establish new, positive relationships free from the destructive dependence on her dysfunctional family? No, no, no and no."

What answer would she give to these questions? The 'was it worth it' questions?

Just wondering.

MadMan,

"Right, well, if you're still going its only because your "Beau" obviously can't find the right "knot.""

Wow. Just...wow.

Right, well, since you're obviously resorting to an ad hominem attack to defend your position (hilarious though it is) I have nothing left to say. You've pissed me off with that comment about 'forcing' a woman to have a baby (in a nice way though, not like strapping her down on a gurney and pointing a gun at her head). I've made my point, and if I don't understand your position completely, I apologize, but after that comment it occurs to me that further conversation would be futile. Congratulations, you have effectively ended the argument.

It was funny though. Like insisting a lesbian wouldn't be a lesbian if only she knew what a real man was like.

Heh.

Like insisting a lesbian wouldn't be a lesbian if only she knew what a real man was like.

...or like insisting that only a woman can understand the "horror" of pregnancy and childbirth, so only women and pro-choice men are allowed to hold an opinion on abortion.

...or like insisting that only women can understand what it is like to have the range of later choices limited by earlier ones. Welcome to life, sister. Enjoy your enforced immaturity (not having to experience the consequences of decisions) as long as you can get the government to subsidize it! [grin]

What's the matter? Can't take a little Harry Potter joke?

And who blames lesbians for liking women over men? Not me, heck If I were a woman I'd definitely be a lesbian.

It just seems that your lame attempts at stereotyping and humor miss the mark every time.

So please woman, you called me an "asshole" and told me to "Fuck Off" about 20 posts ago so stop crying about ad hominem attacks.

"Oh- my- god! Like, that mean nasty man even suggested that a woman could be 'forced' to have a baby."

Hey! Welcome to the debate darlin'. See, that's what them there abortion laws would do. That's why there's this here discussion in the first place.

I honestly had no idea how easy it is to piss you off. I guess I can save the pussy jokes for next time, eh willow?

Ok, I'm ending the argument. No more responses between you guys, it won't get anywhere.

Will -
RE: But Bill, Bill, "the child's ability to survive without assistance" is equally an argument for open and honest infanticide.

No, no. They key is that the embryo, fetus, etc, is STILL dependent biologically on the body of the mother - at that point they arec still ne and the same, it can still be termed a physical extension of the host. No just the fact that it is helpless.

And jasonM -

What would she say? I haven't asked her lately or that I can ever recall. I suspect that she would want to say yes, that she wishes that she would have waited to have a child. But I can't say for sure.

Interesting, very rational post.

However... I do disagree with you, wholeheartedly. The crux of the problem is this: You insist that abortion should be the choice of a women, if her moral calculus permits it, and that the law should respect that.
But does the law respect my right to make a choice regarding whether or not I want to pay for something, or just steal it? The law is concerned, not with my personal moral choices, but with justice. As long as my choices do not run foul of justice, the law need have nothing to do with me.

However, abortion does cross that line. If you grant that fetuses are human beings, than you must grant that they have the same rights as all other human beings. The right to life being the first and greatest of these.

A human's right to privacy cannot trump that first and greatest right. Anytime there is a conflict of rights the less important must give way to the more crucial one: While it might be in a gang member's monetary interest to perpretrate another St. Valentine's Day Massacre, its not in the interest of the ordinary people, whose right to live trumps the gang member's right to earn money.

An abortion greatly infringes on the baby's right to life, while allowing those who desired the abortion their rights to privacy and/or freedom of lifestyle, etc. Those rights should be protected, but not at the cost of abusing the rights of the innocent. The innocent-lives-lost-through-war analogy is not fitting, since those innocent lives are a unintentional by-product of the war, not the desired result of the war.

RE:

If you grant that fetuses are human beings, than you must grant that they have the same rights as all other human beings. Those rights should be protected, but not at the cost of abusing the rights of the innocent.

My argument relies on the belief that the child's full status as a human being does not fully vest until it becomes a self-sufficient organism that is not inherently dependent on the mother's cooperation. Otherwise, negligent miscarriages could beg new and interesting legal questions regarding murder, no?

Until the point of "viability" outside the womb, she is exercising control over an extension of her own body, IMO.

Oh, yeah, that's another reason why I favor RU-486 and "morning after" dosages: they mimic the process by which a body spontaneously self-terminates a non-viable fertilized egg.

Most medical abortion procedures do nothing of the sort.

Also, many babies have survived being born after just 24 weeks...is there an abortion advocacy group that would accept an absolute restriction from abortions past that point? I doubt it.

And what would happen to your moral reasoning, Bill, if artificial wombs become a reality? Or placental transplants...?

But I absolutely agree it is a tough situation.

My advocacy is thus: allow all the information to reach the pregnant girl. Restrict all abortions to within the first trimester, and anything other than RU-486 or the "morning after" dosage of birth control pills would need a doctor's and/or judge's written order (not sure which I actually favor....maybe both). Stop forcing men to pay for children they don't want, but after an initial lump penalty payment, if they opt out (including by failing to make regular payments), they lose all fatherhood rights.
As a society, let's stop encouraging irresponsbility and start acknowledging that all choices have consequences, and many are not pleasant.

...oh yeah. Trial lawyers won't let us. Oh, well.

Artificial wombs and transplants would force a reevaluation of the issue and perhaps solve the problem on all fronts.

Bill:

Your internal debate seems to follow almost exactly the same as mine. I would probably be described, in fact, as the "secular humanist" to which you referred. I believe in the sanctity of *all* life, whether unborn American child or fully-grown Arab civilian. Yet at the same time, my libertarian side cries out that allowing the government to interfere so directly with a woman's biological processes would be a slippery slope 1984-like regulation of sexual activity.

Even with that in mind, it is extremely difficult for me to reconcile the idea that there simply are no other options. In my view, the best option would be a 100% effective method of ensuring that all decisions with regard to sex would be carefully considered in advance and that prophylactics or other means of birth control would be used by all who were not ready for the immense responsibility of caring for children. But since no such method exists, nor is it likely to at any point in the forseeable future, a balance must be found. The only practical option in this vein seems to be education. Not just sex education, but an all-around raising of the level of consciousness and use of critical thinking faculties. People can be told what they *should* do, and many will follow that advice, but if individuals are given the tools to make informed, well-considered decisions on their own, it seems to me that the likelihood of being forced into an untenable situation such as those you describe will be greatly reduced.

This is of course not just applicable to the abortion debate, but to the full spectrum of political, social, and economic issues. An educated, critically attuned and fully aware populace would be ideal in a libertarian and liberal sense.

Finally, I just read the item about artificial wombs and transplants, and I think this is another excellent point. Technology, I believe, has the potential to eliminate many of the problems with which we are currently faced. Transplants especially would seem to be a nearly ideal way to cohere the needs of mothers in unwanted pregancies and women who, for one reason or another, desire to conceive but are unable.

I think it was certainly bold of you to enter into this debate, and while I disagree with you on many , I appreciate your logical, considered approach to what is often an extremely volatile debate.

The end there was supposed to be "while I disagree with you on many [issues],"

Thanks Mike - we may agree on more things than we disagree ...

We may, but I am on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from you with regard to the Iraq war, and probably the "war on terrorism" in general. I certainly don't think it's acceptable for our government to make a "pain calculus" decision to go to war against a sovereign nation, however horribly governed. The problem is not that I disagree with the concept, but rather that I simply don't trust the government to use the power to do so in good faith. Even supposing that everyone from Cheney to Wolfowitz was truly concerned at a personal level for the suffering of Iraqis to the degree that they just could not hold back on sending other peoples' children there to kill and be killed, then what about the next time? What if there's another Clinton? Republicans were perfectly willing to ascribe the absolute worst motivations to him (i.e. distracting the public from the Lewinsky thing), and yet will go to great lengths to give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I think they were both wrong. Clinton may have been preventing genocide, but why didn't he do it in Rwanda? By the same token, if the Bushies are so concerned about protecting civilians from evil dictators, why aren't we invading Zimbabwe?

I certainly wouldn't support those invasions either; I simply wished to make the point that I don't believe it's possible to trust governments with with the power of making war against another nation except in cases of imminent attack. I think the Bushies recognized that most people would probably see it this way, which is why their justification was built around WMDs rather than humanitarian appeals.

As much as it would be nice to save the world, I don't think military conquest is the way to do it. Dealing with other nations as equals might be one place to start. Investing in sustainable development would be another. By the way, have you ever read 1984? More importantly, did you read and remember the chapters from the Emmanuel Goldstein book? If not, you should check it out:

http://www.notbored.org/goldstein.html

This page includes the two original chapters that were a part of 1984, as well as three additional ones; I assume they were written by Orwell and not included in the book, but I'm not sure. Regardless, Chapters 1 and 3 are by far the most important. Please do read those if you are so inclined, and then analyze the similarities between the description of how the "primitive peoples" are used and our modern situation.

I think you are, and the rest of the country are horribly mistaken and horribly caught up in a black and white world. I am pro life because the killing of a fetus is the killing of a child. I see that we agree on that point. What I don't see that you understand is the concept of adoption. While I empathize with your friends particular dilemma, (there are circumstances where parents become involved in individuals lives to the point that decions are not made to the best interest of the children) I see SO many other circumstances where woman are faced with the decision to give up a chid for adoption to a family that could ultimately give them a stable, loving home and they selfishly or unknowingly keep the baby, to their own and the baby's own detriment. In that respect, two lives are sacrificed. In SOME cases a single unwed mother is able to raise a child, but she must have a support system. Tell me though--how are killing a baby, or keeping it the only two options... I mean, in some cases, the mother can have a family member legally adopt the child--ANY choice is superior to saying..."Oops, well, I screwed up, guess I'll just sweep this baby's body under the rug." I have friends who have had abortions--ALL of them willingly did this of their own volition-no one even coerced them--and WITHOUT EXCEPTION they are all suffering a post trauma from killing their own unborn children.
Don't tell me Pro-Choice is in the woman's best interest.

Mike -

You are opening up another can of worms that I don't have the energy to get into right now. To encapsulate though - regarding the war, you are letting your own personal distrust of government and sense of hypocrisy and selective enforcement influence what should be a cold analysis of what will realistically make the lives of 25 million people a whole lot better. It's an extremely jaded and self-absorbed methodology, IMO.

Societies, especially Democracies, only gather real strength from a core of belief that is occasionally altruistically naive. This confers real power.

emi-

pro-choice is in the woman's best interests because it offers a spectrum of options, many of which you describe. There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Wow, Bill.

Whereas I obviously disagree with you on this one, it is rare indeed for me to run into somebody on "your side" who can present an argument that I can truly agree to disagree with.

I could go into paragraph after paragraph on the extent of inconvenience to the mother, the viability of the child etc., but I'd only be reiterating what I and others have said over and over again.

What it all boils down to is that we CAN'T agree.

We can't agree because we disagree on the fundamental issue of when a life is a life.

And that's what it comes down to for me. It doesn't matter what kind of mental gymnastics about viability of fetuses we get into, to me life begins at conception and that's it. And once that is clear, it is equally clear that I cannot possibly condone what is a killing (or murdering) a child, no matter how much we hypothesize about the consequences to the mother's future lifestyle of carrying to term.

To convince me, you'd have to convince me first that the consequences of giving birth to the child was worse than killing it and, whereas I CAN imagine scenarios in which that might be the case, a missed opportunity to go to school or getting a promotion as quickly as you MIGHT otherwise have been able to doesn't qualify.

If you think about it, I'm more than sure that you can see where I'm coming from. To me, killing the unborn to avoid having to deal with giving birth (and adoption IS an option. Not an easy one, but nobody ever told us that life should be easy, nor that we are free to kill other people to make it easier) is no different from shooting your neighbor because his refusal to clean the rusty old cars out of his yard is bringing your property value down.

But again, it all comes down to how you define life and when it becomes one. When we disagree on that point, debating all of the other points becomes an exercise in futility.

So we disagree and probably always will, but I still want to thank you for a good post on the subject.

Thanks - you have of course hit upon the fundamental distinction that makes agreement impossible. I understand it completely.

A well thought out position. Amazing. I for one enjoyed it immensely.

I am late to the party, as usual, but I did appreciate the depth of discussion allowed by your posting.

and I keep returning to your pivot-points, of the pain of the women you captured in pictures. this issue is a lose-lose-lose proposition because the baby, the woman, and society lose when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. there is no way for the woman to have no regret, either for aborting or giving her baby to others [we will leave the mentally ill or terminally selfish aside for now].

you made the corolation between a society (the US) sacrificing for others (Iraqis) in whom it can have only peripheral benefit from their well-being; who has sacrificed for the girl? or for her baby? I don't think those questions are so silly, I think they are the hidden foundation of this issue.

unwanted pregnancies leave the baby and the young woman, and perhaps the male responsible, vulnerable to the subsequent choice of the young woman. socially, what got the three of them in this situation? who was looking out for whom?

then, the aftermath. a baby? a future? a death? again, who will be looking out for whom? yeah, I do have a point: we want to deal with a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. and the solution of abortion, every reasonable person must conclude, is heinous.

you can argue many points, but why not consider what may be done in your own experience of supporting people to make the right decisions? hey, don't date that guy [and for heaven's sake DON'T sleep with him!]. and you don't have to be sexually active if you aren't ready for the risks it may include. and if you have a problem, I will hold your hand through it -- for nine months or for nineteen years.

the trip to the clinic is a short obligation; the trip through life isn't.

Bill-
a difference between pro-choice and pro abortion...pro-choice has always seemed an ironic "choice" of words...I mean, what "choice" does the baby have? It's kind of like saying molestation is somehow consentual or murder somehow a suicidal act. In what way or in what manner of rationale does a child aborted have a "choice" in the matter? You have put yourself in a lofty place, haven't you? And so has ANYONE who believes it is their "choice" to euthanize an infant simply for their own convenience or "welfare." Isn't that how the Nazi thinking began? "Survival of the fittest," eh?

Once again, my argument relies on the concept that the baby is not a separate being until it has the viability to survive without the mother as host. Until that point, the life is not an independent one that i "murdered," rather a hybrid of the mother and another being. When she makes the choice to kill the life, she is killing a part of herself. Right or wrong, it is her decision, otherwise you would need to set up a whole set of laws to prosecute pregnant women that don't take care of themselves and miscarry. Think of that slippery slope.

tee bee -

Neither here nor there - people have horrible families, horrible support structures. Bringing additional children into this world - MORE of them in situations like this, where the mother hasn't made wise decisions about sex in the first place, is counter-intuitive. Dysfunction and misery begets dysfunction and misery.

the cause is always germane, Bill. and dysfunction and misery do not always beget themselves. a short trip through history reveals that we learn from these things in order to thrive; we fail to learn from them at our own peril. do you need examples?

I have plenty of examples from both perspectives. I guess my larger point would be - you cannot draw a pattern of thought from either setting - some folks will rise from dysfunction and some will be pulled under by it.

In the case of abortion, my focus is on individual choice - I think that a rational individual should have the opportunity to make the choice that best suits them, as long as the life growing inside them is part of them and is dependent on their cooperation in the matter. if you think that abortion is immoral, don't have one. Teach your children the same values. You cannot make that value judgment for everyone else in society as long as it is such a divisive issue.

The taboo and laws against murder have strength and credibility because 99% of the population is unified in the belief that it is wrong. This is not the case with abortion.

As far as making an argument that "we need to teach people to make more responsible decisions," well that's all well and good, but it's a vague sentiment that will never achieve the specific results that would eliminate the desire or situational "need" for abortion. Fight poverty all you want - you may make a dent - but there will always be more.

It's a soundbite, not realistically applied to the argument.

Incidentally, I do have a comment or two about abortion. If you don't want to revive the issue, let me know -- but I've just been reading the comments to part III of the "March for Women's Lives" report, and I want to disagree with you on one point.

You said that the baby is not a separate being until it can survive outside the mother's womb. I can't agree on this point. Even seconds after conception, the DNA of that single cell that was produced by the egg & sperm joining is not the same as the DNA of the mother. At every stage of development, it is a separate organism. It is dependant on the mother's body for survival, that much is true; but to say that "[w]hen she makes the choice to kill the life, she is killing a part of herself" is not justified by the biological facts.

BTW, so you know where I'm coming from: I believe that abortion is morally wrong. I reach that conclusion as follows:

1. From the moment of conception, when sperm and egg join, that fertilized egg is a human being.

2. Abortion is therefore the killing of a human being.

3. There are some circumstances (self-defense against a violent attack, for example) where killing a human being is not morally wrong. In the absence of such circumstances, though, killing a human being is morally wrong.

4. Abortion does not fall under the circumstances such as self-defense that would justify killing a human being.

5. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Reasonable people may disagree on some of these points, especially point #1 and point #4. (Also on point #3, although there the disagreement would most often be towards more restrictions on when killing is wrong, rather than less -- which wouldn't invalidate this particular argument). I think #2 and #5 follow logically from the premises, although if there's a flaw in my logic, I'd love to hear it.

If you'd rather not get into this debate right now, just let me know. But I'd love to hear your thoughts.