This is a tough discussion and an emotional one as well :-) I personally feel very threatened by the direction 'we' are going as a society and I'm holding my breath for what is going to happen in the EU elections.
I always try to understand all points of this discussion but in the end I can only clarify mine:
- My right to decide what's happening to my body is bigger than anyone's right to force their beliefs/convictions on me.
- I'm not pro-abortion and would rather not have this discussion framed as 'pro/anti' abortion in general. I'd probably never take an abortion except in very rare cases but I do want to protect the right for women to make that decision. This makes me pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
- I personally believe that we should have our definitions straight: there's an embryo, a foetus and a baby. Babies can survive outside a mom's body. A foetus... maybe with heavy care. Embryo's are not 'tiny babies' as they are often portrayed and don't look like babies. This is a nasty way to evoke emotional feelings towards a bunch of cells that grow from conception. Educating people on the (biological) differences between the three will make the discussion a lot less emotional. The 'heartbeat' is a 'beat' but it's more ore less cells moving at the same time but there's not yet a 'heart' with 4 heart valves or anything. It's not a heartbeat.
Many people say 'this is a life' and should be protected. And from a certain point in the pregnancy I agree. But let's not pretend that we value a life in a mother's womb the same as one outside of it. There is a difference. There's a few famous philosophical cases that if posed to non-philosophers are generally answered the same.
Example:
Mom has a kid of 7 years old and a baby in her womb. Somehow she gets into a situation where she has to choose: save 7 year old or save the baby in your womb. Most people from all sides of the argument agree that the kid of 7 holds 'more value' at this point and would chose to 'kill' the baby in the womb.
I'm not saying we should not protect a baby in the womb, I'm saying there's an enormous amount of 'grey' and although I appreciate it if someone defines 'life' from conception, I believe it's not that black and white and as long as there's room for interpretation we shouldn't make 'law' that forces what's wrong or right on women.
Lastly: Women do want abortions. That's a fact. For whatever reasons they have for centuries decided This sucks and I would've rather prevented this happening but it DID happen and now I have to choose my own health/life/whatever.
You can have an opinion about that choice but can't deny they have been made forever. And they forever will be. The only question is: do we value the life and personal decisions of a woman enough to let her do it safely? Are we going to force women back to going to butchers or buying illegal and unsafe pills from the street? Are we going to force the poorest women that can't travel towards a State that would help them to labour an unhealthy/underfed/underdeveloped child only to give it a false start when se puts if up for adoption?
I know this is controversial but this is how we tend to solve things in the Netherlands: if we can't beat it (weed, prostitution, abortion) let's at least make it safe.
I always doubt if I should get into these discussions because everything I've written above you've read before, I'm sure of it, so I'm not going to change your thoughts, like you won't be able to change mine via this medium. Also: written down in my non-native tongue it's way more black and white than I'd probably be able to express in a conversation. Let's hope we'll have the chance to drink a beer someday and have these conversations IRL ;-)
Thanks for the reply, I think these things need to be discussed in a civilized manner, and not the way the media tends to approach this, by vilifying one side as religious fundamentalists or any other forms of bias.
I completely agree that everyone should have the right to choose what happens to their own body, but at a certain point in regards to pregnancy the choice no longer affects just your body. At a certain point their is another life, and a different genetic code that needs to be considered, and the discussion is basically where that point is. And there seems to be extremist positions on both sides, on one end you have the argument that life begins at contraception and the other side you have people who think that choice can even be made after the baby is born, like the Virginia late term abortion bill. And that is what happens when you follow both arguments to their logical conclusion, either it is a life and should be preserved or it's not and it doesn't matter.
In regards to the framing of the term "pro-choice" it's intellectually dishonest in my opinion, because it's not actually about choice, it does not encompass the other choices like contraception, abstinence, adoption or birth, it's about one choice, to have an abortion. And it's framed this way to normalize it.
As to the biological argument, the fetus is considered life according to science which happens between 7- 9 weeks, that's why most countries around the world allow abortion up to2 to 3 months. The question then is at what stage can the fetus feel pain?
Then as to your question: "do we value the life and personal decisions of a woman enough to let her do it safely?" Yes we should, but not at the expense of another life, if we consider that a life. Just because something has been done for years does not justify it. Also no one is even suggesting that abortion be outlawed and the women go to butches to get abortions, they are delineating a cut off point where they view a life begins, biologically.
The question should be, when is the fetus or baby considered a life?
I am glad to read your well-considered opinion based on reason and understanding such facts as we can ferret out of our extant nescience regarding when our humanity begins.
I think it's a little simpler than that. People have rights. At some point a person is present in the womb, once the brain is organized and capable of generating whatever it is that we call a person. There are questions as to when a person is extant in the womb, and this leaves us unable to say with certainty when abortion becomes murder. Given that no one has a right to murder another person, however much more convenient it would be were the victim to die, it is critically important to human rights to ensure we do not cross this line. If we are to err, it is right and lawful we err on the side of caution, IMHO.
There are many opportunities prior to that formation of a human person to prevent potential liability for murder during abortion, and we are all responsible to undertake them fully before risking murder. There are various social problems that limit the practice of prudence in reality, and these should be better resolved long before we advocate murder to solve problems that unwanted pregnancies pose us. Men also should be accorded rights equivalent to the responsibilities we are charged with as well, and this is extremely neglected in this debate. Abortion and parenting are not matters affecting only women. It does indeed take two to tango, and parents of both sexes have rights as well as responsibilities equal to their roles.
Thanks!
I flag trash. You have received a flag.