RE: Is "Pro-Life" an Accurate Label?
It is a tough topic, but I don't think it's so because there's a lack of information. Rather, there is an agenda, like with so many things in life.
Simply from the perspective of not harming another being, abortion is wrong. If one adheres to the NAP, it's clearly a violation. Some will argue, as you've postulated, that life does not begin until late term, at least. Others claim that it's when the unborn is viable, meaning that it can survive outside the womb. Yet others claim that it's as soon as the initial cell splits into two, because it is a distinct life at that moment, no longer carrying the exact DNA of any other individual.
It has been irrefutably proven that the unborn feels pain. They have been observed pulling away from the needle during abortions. IMO, that seems clear enough. Even if one were a skeptic, which side of the fence is the side of caution? If you were to err in your assessment (and the accompanying consequences), would you rather err in assuring the unborn had the opportunity to live, even against the wishes of his/her mother, or on the side of murdering an innocent unborn?
I wrote an article on this that I posted a couple of months ago. It was polemic, in response to another article that was, IMO very poorly thought out. Perhaps it would have some insight that's helpful. I don't know.
It does seem more than a little ironic that the mother of an unborn child will fight for her choice in how her life is affected, but will not even give the life unmistakably growing within her the right to make any choice whatsoever regarding their very existence. Is that pro-choice, narcissistic or something else?
You're always respectful and thoughtful, Luke. I appreciate that about you. And I'm generally willing to have discussions about just about anything, as long as it's civil and courteous. I probably will not engage in debate on this thread though, since my position is so rigid and it's an incredibly emotional topic where horrible things are often said with disdain.
You offered a very respectful thought process and asked others to engage with the same consideration. I've attempted to honor that, and hope your mother's influence asserts itself on your perspective.
Thank you so much, @anotherjoe. This is truly a beautiful reply and I greatly appreciate it. I don't intend to change you mind directly (that rarely works anyway), but I do like asking challenging questions so I can better understand other's views and more carefully craft my own as well.
The "exact DNA" part is quite interesting. For me, it begs the question as to whether or not human DNA is more sacred than non-human DNA. We don't care about killing viruses or bacterias and such (they are also "alive" in some sense) nor do we care about killing mosquitos or gnats or ants. When we think about the value of "life" we do take into account their consciousness. At least, I've yet to see many consistent moral frameworks that don't.
But again, at the earliest stages, the capacity for choice doesn't exist. At that point, it's not a fully functional human, just the potential for one. That's what trips me up.
Definitely, and during a time period where they could be aborted which, to me, is truly sad. That's closer to murder than a very early term abortion. That said, during the very early stages, there is no functioning nervous system. There is no pain. How does that change our moral calculus and if it doesn't, why not?
Excellent question and one I've been thinking about often.
This, I think, gets to the crux of the discussion. This is advanced trolly-problem type ethical philosophy stuff. Do we lower the well being of a woman, her family, and possibly her community for the sake of a single child who has not yet been born? Maybe, from a strictly ethical stance, we say yes, because it's the right thing to do and the veil of ignorance allows us to imagine that could have been us. We could have been the one chosen for abortion. The conversation gets even more difficult when we consider the child never "chose" to be born in the first place. Some would argue they have no real rights (yet) because they can't argue for or defend them which is why parents have such an important responsibility to steward young humans until they reach adulthood with fully-developed brains to maintain their own rights.
Again, thank you for your comment. I do greatly appreciate it.
Thanks Luke,
I've been around this track more times than I can count.
No worry of that happening. There are multiple reasons for my position, including my understanding of libertarianism and even economics, which I find indissolubly linked. As a fellow ancap/Austrian/libertarian, we probably agree with that much.
Our view on the DNA will be influenced by our worldview. If we consider ourselves created beings, then DNA is indeed divine. On the other side of the spectrum, if we consider ourselves to be some sort of cosmic accidents, then it really doesn't matter, IMO. In the former instance, we identify with our creator. In the latter, any sense of morality is subjective.
IMO, this is not a good question.
1 - The well-being of the woman is very rarely a concern. Pregnancy is normal and few women are in a situation where their well-being is threatened by pregnancy. If they are, then perhaps it would be wiser to take steps to assure that pregnancy is impossible.
2 - The birth of a child threatens the well-being of her family and community?
In my eyes, a child is a blessing. The terminology used would seem to indicate that a baby is a curse. That is not an accusation. However, it is something to consider if we can propose a thought process that includes it.
Finally, it is the responsibility of the strong to defend the weak, including those who have no voice. There are plenty of people who cannot defend themselves or speak on their own behalves. Where do we put anyone of any age who "can't argue for or defend them(selves)"? This goes far beyond the womb, including your own family if they become or are even born infirm. It is this kind of reasoning, IMO, that sends the mute in the wheelchair to the gas chamber.
Be blessed.
I am enjoying reading this. So far it is indeed a thought provoking and rational discussion. I appreciate you @averagejoe being up front about your position and potential for becoming emotional and thus feel compelled to limit your responses.
I on the other hand I too have my biases of course, but don't feel particularly emotional about this topic. Yes, I do have great compassion for the unborn lives so callously discarded, but I also have compassion for those who find themselves in a difficult position where they must make a decision on whether to bring a potential life into the world.
Can you not see how this is possible? Granted the mother may or may not have been irresponsible regarding the conception, thus requiring her to bear the consequences of that. But not always. Birth control is not perfect, it can fail. Is it reasonable to expect celibacy unless the woman (or the man for that matter) is willing and able to bring a new life into the world? I don't have an answer for that.
Assuming for the sake of discussion an unexpected pregnancy occurs despite precautions, and the cost of giving birth and subsequent care would be financially devastating to the mother or her family, and nobody or organization is willing to assume those costs or responsibility. I know, that hypothetical is loaded with many assumptions, but it does occur, so don't be too quick to dismiss it. If people actually thought of the consequences of sex and viewed them as they would picking up a loaded revolver in a deadly game of Russian Roulette, perhaps celibacy wouldn't be such a difficult choice. We know that is not what's on the mind of the mother or father at the point of conception, now don't we. Yet the importance of the decision can be just as dire.
What if circumstances change from when the child was conceived? Both parents are involved in a traffic accident, father dies, mother is in a coma for months as the child grows in her womb. Neither parent has siblings or parents. Should the pregnancy be terminated? Who will be responsible for the child and their upbringing?
Howdy @Full-Steem-Ahead!
First, I don't know who this average guy is you refer to. ;)
Getting that out of the way, thanks for your thoughtful response. My response here is calm and collected, and please envision it in a thoughtful and polite tone. It will cut to the chase a bit though, so please forgive any perceived terseness. It's not intended.
My emotions are tied to what I consider the helpless victim. It's far easier to avoid emotional feelings if we don't view an unborn as a human. Interestingly, our legal system in the US does consider the unborn child to be a human, unless the mother wants to terminate it. And we use such terminology as "terminate the pregnancy" rather than "kill the unborn" in order to appease our consciences.
I didn't say that the question posed is impossible. You lay out a string of very possible, though quite narrow, possibilities. I don't think anyone would argue in regard to their potential. I was simply stating that I don't think it's a good question. Those that fall into the very narrow category where this might be an issue are the small minority. If we want to limit the discussion to this segment, then it is no longer simply a discussion about choice. But, today's argument is about the right of a woman to take the life of her unborn child, regardless of the circumstances. These particular circumstances, and other rarities, are brought up as a plea for a sweeping policy of choice for every woman, regardless of circumstances. I hope we can agree on that much.
In the US, at least, the cost of giving birth is negligible. There are exceptions, if complications arise. But the actual cost is almost nothing. In fact, I can't envision a circumstance of natural childbirth, without complications, that would be a financial hardship.
For the sake of argument, I'll grant the possibility. But there are plenty of answers to this, most notably the thousands of potential parents out there who would leap at the opportunity to pay for the mother's well-being as well as the child's, desiring to adopt him/her. That is most certainly not an issue in the US. And, of course, if a woman thinks she can't afford to raise a child or give him/her a nurturing home, adoption is always a viable alternative. There are even couples who would do so and still maintain a relationship with the biological mother.
As for the final paragraph, I have a hard time seeing this as a tenable argument. At what point might it be okay to kill a child you don't think you can care for? Is that not what you're asking, but attempting to limit it to the womb? Does it not become a person until it passes through the birth canal?
Ultimately, this is not an argument about choice or circumstances. It's an argument about whether or not the terminating of a life is murder. That is where the foundation lies. If it is not, then pro-life advocates have no argument. How can you be pro-life where a life does not yet exist? All the rest of our efforts to bring tertiary ideas distract us from the basis of the whole discussion. If the unborn child is a human, then abortion is murder just as much as killing a mute and dumb quadriplegic or an elderly person who has lost their mind to dementia. We must discern this accurately, for it helps define who we are as a race. In a sense, it's that simple. Abortion is either the murder of a human, or it is not.
Thanks again for your polite engagement, FSA. I appreciate you and what you do, as well as the ability to engage in a respectful dialogue on such a divisive topic.
Kind regards,
Joe
Thx joe for the equally polite reply, and sorry for the name confusion. No offense intended.
I suspect you're right about why politicians use that phrase, however that isn't why I did. I preferred to use it in this context as I feel it's less emotionally charged and yet still factual.
I'm not sure I can agree with you on that. I do agree the scenario I outlined is indeed a minority of cases. I also know that it's the minority examples are often held up as arguments for abortions, but again that wasn't my aim.
I used that as an example of how legislation is a one-size-fit-all solution that rarely is. What is needed is human judgement and unbiased compassion, especially in the case of unusual circumstances and considerations. You don't get that from the law.
I don't like the casual attitude and foregone conclusions see so frequently expressed on this topic. I see it on both sides. However this article has helped to bring focus and drill down into a core aspect of the debate, and IMO has done so respectfully and rationally.
Thank you Joe for contributing to the dialog. Namaste :)
Hi FSA,
No worries on the name. It was a fun opportunity to mess with ya though. :) And it lightens a heavy discussion, if only for a moment.
Thanks for your clarification. I think I understand, and get the impression we understand each other reasonably well.
Be blessed,
Joe