A secular debate about abortion

[Hermit]

This essentially becomes an exercise in choosing between "evils"; there are no guarantees.

I disagree that abortion is evil ... or even "evil".

Since I didn't claim that abortion is evil, I'd have to ask to whom you're speaking. I will say (again) that no matter which way you slice it, being faced with a decision to have an abortion or not is serious business, and there is unmistakably a degree of suffering that will be involved regardless.

So, which are the "evils" you say this is an exercise in choosing between?

[Thea]

Which is why in the end it is up for the woman - and man if still involved - to decide what is right for her.

Particularly in the current social context, I couldn't agree more--but this is because it is all too easy for weak understanding to take command where strong understanding is needed, with the potential for harrowingly disastrous results for everyone involved. We've all trashed "the moral majority," for instance, I'm sure, and with excellent reason.

But that isn't the question I'm asking. What I'm calling for is an examination of the overall social circumstances surrounding an unplanned pregnancy that lead to abortion as a reasonable solution. We have systems of belief systems that overlap and and swing wide of each other throughout the population. How do our beliefs contribute, or not, to the creation of a circumstance where an unplanned pregnancy my be reasonably resolved through abortion? What are our assumptions? What are our "givens?" For instance, what is the nature of gender discrimination in relation to the abortion subject? How do we actually view children in our culture? How do we shape our community ties? How do we decide who is responsible for what? Questions like that....

[Trolldor]

We don't "decide" who is in charge, we eliminate who isn't.
And "our beliefs" have nothing to do with the issue.

[Thea]

This essentially becomes an exercise in choosing between "evils"; there are no guarantees.

I disagree that abortion is evil ... or even "evil".

Since I didn't claim that abortion is evil, I'd have to ask to whom you're speaking. I will say (again) that no matter which way you slice it, being faced with a decision to have an abortion or not is serious business, and there is unmistakably a degree of suffering that will be involved regardless.

So, which are the "evils" you say this is an exercise in choosing between?

You can answer this question yourself. Imagine you are pregnant when you didn't plan it. How would you feel about your various options? Note, if you please, that I put "evil" in quotes to begin with precisely because I don't consider this a matter of evil. But it IS a human problem, with consequences either way, and people suffer for it. Suffering is something humans do, of course. Not all suffering is unavoidable, however, I don't think. If you wish to solve a problem, or more generically, resolve an issue, it helps if what you do ACTUALLY solves the problem or resolves the issue, and for this to happen, the problem or issue needs to be understood in rational terms that INCLUDE questions of emotion, physicality, spirituality, and intellect, as well as questions of how is it that the greater social context is contributing or not to the problem or issue. So far the discussion places the burden of pregnancy and the decisions about it squarely on the shoulders of the woman in question, mainly because in our culture there is a tremendous scarcity of resources available to women who get pregnant without having intended to do so. Are we stuck with this? Or can this situation be improved, and if so, how?

[Trolldor]

Then define what you meant through the use of the term 'evil'.

[hiyymer]

This debate should belong to the women and they should deal with it and do any operations, deal with the guilt etc. Mens brains are different. We don't have the cognitve resources to deal with the issue in question.

On a purely mechanistic level that may be valid. However, consider what happens when a couple try very hard to have a child and finally conceive and the mother gets cold feet and want to abort. Does the father have absolutely no say as in your suggestion?

That's right. Her body her call.

Two people made it, one person can flush it. Okay then.

As an aside, one interesting consequence is that a mother can abort a fetus without the sperm donor's permission, but it is much harder to put a child up for adoption without the sperm donor's permission.

[hadespussercats]

This essentially becomes an exercise in choosing between "evils"; there are no guarantees.

I disagree that abortion is evil ... or even "evil".

Since I didn't claim that abortion is evil, I'd have to ask to whom you're speaking. I will say (again) that no matter which way you slice it, being faced with a decision to have an abortion or not is serious business, and there is unmistakably a degree of suffering that will be involved regardless.

So, which are the "evils" you say this is an exercise in choosing between?

You can answer this question yourself. Imagine you are pregnant when you didn't plan it. How would you feel about your various options? Note, if you please, that I put "evil" in quotes to begin with precisely because I don't consider this a matter of evil. But it IS a human problem, with consequences either way, and people suffer for it. Suffering is something humans do, of course. Not all suffering is unavoidable, however, I don't think. If you wish to solve a problem, or more generically, resolve an issue, it helps if what you do ACTUALLY solves the problem or resolves the issue, and for this to happen, the problem or issue needs to be understood in rational terms that INCLUDE questions of emotion, physicality, spirituality, and intellect, as well as questions of how is it that the greater social context is contributing or not to the problem or issue. So far the discussion places the burden of pregnancy and the decisions about it squarely on the shoulders of the woman in question, mainly because in our culture there is a tremendous scarcity of resources available to women who get pregnant without having intended to do so. Are we stuck with this? Or can this situation be improved, and if so, how?

Are you trying to address the question of why a woman would get pregnant if she didn't want to be? i.e.-- poor sexual education/access to reliable contraception, marginalization of women/girls in ways that might lead them to be passive sexually or unwilling/unable to make good choices about sex or contraception (not wanting to insist men use condoms, etc.)

Or, when you talk about the options available to women who get pregnant without wanting to be, are you referring to expanding adoption services, or increasing aid to women who are worried about their ability to survive financially if they have a child? (I tend to think these sorts of questions are important and useful, but don't really address the issue of a woman not wanting to go through with a pregnancy in the first place.)

Or... ?

You've been painting in rather broad strokes-- I'd like to have a better idea of what you're trying to discuss before getting into it more thoroughly. I'm interested, though...

[hadespussercats]

This debate should belong to the women and they should deal with it and do any operations, deal with the guilt etc. Mens brains are different. We don't have the cognitve resources to deal with the issue in question.

On a purely mechanistic level that may be valid. However, consider what happens when a couple try very hard to have a child and finally conceive and the mother gets cold feet and want to abort. Does the father have absolutely no say as in your suggestion?

That's right. Her body her call.

Two people made it, one person can flush it. Okay then.

As an aside, one interesting consequence is that a mother can abort a fetus without the sperm donor's permission, but it is much harder to put a child up for adoption without the sperm donor's permission.

Gawdzilla, you're right-- the circumstance you're describing is unfair to men who want to be fathers. But how else can the fact that a pregnant woman puts her body and life through tremendous risk carrying a child to term be balanced against the wishes and emotional investment of the man involved, considering he cannot take that risk for her?

Is this an argument for finding ways of enabling men to become pregnant themselves? It would take serious medical intervention, but it's theoretically possible, isn't it? (at least, if you believe really terrible Arnold Schwartzeneggar movies...)

I'm also intrigued by the suggestion that men should have the right to choose to become fathers-- i.e., not be held responsible financially or otherwise for a child they never wanted. How would that sort of thing be enforced, though? Would all men register with the state that they are unwilling to be fathers, or specify women they are willing to procreate with? How long would a man have to make up his mind about a potential child? Is a three-month period fair? Or would he have to know his mind and have proof of that in writing before the sex/potential conception takes place, in order to avoid scenarios of dastardly or mindless men pulling a bait and switch on women who want to have children with them? It's a valid question, male choice. Definitely worth some serious thought...

[Trolldor]

Essentially, a father signs a legal form resigning all his parental rights to the child. An 'unadoption', so to speak, leaving the mother with the full decision making etc - but to be fair it can only be done so long as the fetus can be aborted.

[hadespussercats]

Essentially, a father signs a legal form resigning all his parental rights to the child. An 'unadoption', so to speak, leaving the mother with the full decision making etc - but to be fair it can only be done so long as the fetus can be aborted.

Does he pay for the abortion and related medical care? Also, an abortion can be painful, and in rare cases can lead to other health complications-- should a woman be subjected to the risk of that, if a man knows he doesn't want to have a child before he has sex with her? That's what made me think of some sort of register of consent, that at least in theory might help people make better choices about who they have sex with (this register could include women too, for reasons of equity.)

The idea of that kind of register does feel sort of creepy/big brother/brave new world-ish. I'm just trying to figure out how to deal with the potential abuse of an unadoption policy...

[Trolldor]

No register.

[nellikin]

Register - yeah I can just imagine all the drunk one-night-standers quickly checking their iphones for details...

Thea, from what I've seen abortions rarely bring "suffering". It's the pregnancies that lead to the abortions that cause the suffering (at least on an emotional level), not the abortions themselves.

[charlou]

Thea, from what I've seen abortions rarely bring "suffering". It's the pregnancies that lead to the abortions that cause the suffering (at least on an emotional level), not the abortions themselves.

I think the emotional suffering surrounding a pragmatic decision about abortion is in large part due to the cultural fetishisation of pregnancy, motherhood (the 'maternal instinct'), babies (including the erroneous notion of "baby" in the initial stages of pregnancy) etc ... women are socially expected to feel guilt and suffering and remorse over this decision (and often for being in the position of unwanted pregnancy in the first place), so much of the psychology is culturally imposed.

[Trolldor]

I don't think it is.

From what I've read, a woman's reaction to abortion is proportionate to her reason for the abortion, but that was a while ago I read that so *shrug*

[charlou]

This essentially becomes an exercise in choosing between "evils"; there are no guarantees.

I disagree that abortion is evil ... or even "evil".

Since I didn't claim that abortion is evil, I'd have to ask to whom you're speaking. I will say (again) that no matter which way you slice it, being faced with a decision to have an abortion or not is serious business, and there is unmistakably a degree of suffering that will be involved regardless.

Evil/"evil" is a value laden term that imposes the moral judgement of the person who uses it onto the situation the person is applying it too. By doing so the person is assuming their value judgement is a given (which it isn't). I prefer to leave out emotive, value laden terms during discussions like this if at all possible.