| The Abortion question. | for everyone |
The ‘Abortion’ question.Abortion; this topic seems to be in the media again. This is something I posted elsewhere during the election period, thought I’d re-post it here now, partly because like I said………its back in the media again and partly because its far too long to stick as a comment at the end of someone else post. :-)
Abortion epitomises the polarization of American opinion, possibly at its most venomous. I’ve read a bit on the subject. I’ve read the religion led argument that says the sanctity of life is revered and protected from the nanosecond the sperm hits the egg. I’ve read the pro-choice argument that says government has no business in a womans body, EVER, and that abortion up to and including late term abortion with no time limit should be a right and a choice. Disability, the mothers health, viability of the pregnancy, pregnancy as a result of rape and/or incest, etc, etc, etc, have all become missiles in this war of opposing philosophies. Watching this unfold, it looks a bit like a couple of medieval armies facing each other across a muddy field, shields up, weapons at the ready and everyone absolute in the knowledge that every thing they believe is 100% right and every thing the ‘enemy’ believes is 100% wrong. No one misses an opportunity to ridicule and exaggerate what the opponent says; the tiniest flaw in perceived logic or consistency is exaggerated and exploited and nit-picking has become an art form.
If all this sounds rather harsh I apologise, I guess I’m lucky, I live in a country where health care, including access to family planning and well woman clinics, is readily available but; this debate widens the gulf in an already polarized society and that DOES affect me. Unfortunately what happens in America inevitably has a knock on effect around the world. Personally I would prefer both sides found some sort of middle ground that every one could, if not actually agree with, accept and live by. Which is why, I thought I’d share my thoughts on the subject.
First I’d like to say to those people who find abortion, the morning after pill etc, etc all completely abhorrent on religious grounds that I totally respect your religious belief and you have every right to believe what ever it is you believe. And please rest assured you will never, under any circumstances, under any administration, be forced into having an abortion against your will, and really, that’s the only assurance any one needs. Neither will any medical practitioner be forced into participating in abortion against their religious beliefs. In the UK there are many medical practitioners, doctors, nurses and therapists who all practice their faith AND work quite happily within the National Health Service. They just don’t work in areas that run into conflict with their beliefs. It’s so simple I can’t understand why I read scare tactics claiming people would be sacked from their jobs for refusing to perform abortions or give out the morning after pill, it doesn’t happen here why should it happen there? BUT; that doesn’t mean any one has the right to dictate and enforce that religious code onto others. There are other medical practitioners who are happy to perform these duties so why involve those who are not?
I have empathy with the argument that says life begins at conception, it’s something I’ve thought about and once you start thinking, it becomes impossible (for me) to pin down the exact start of life any where other than conception. I know there are various debates about when ‘consciousness’ kicks in but that’s another issue. But that’s all it is, a definition of when life begins. It’s not some sort of insurmountable mountain blocking forever all abortions under all circumstances. The definition of exactly when life begins and the rights and wrongs of abortion don’t have to be inextricably linked and the earliest flicker of life doesn’t automatically cancel out all other arguments in favour of abortion. That’s just a very easy opt out clause that saves some people the inconvenience of thinking.
And then there are those who proclaim as loudly, as often and as provocatively as possible that abortion is no concern of government, its a womans body and a womans choice to abort for what ever reason at what ever stage.
Well…………umm………no it isn’t. Every one needs to have some regard for the opinions of others and no one lives in complete isolation; living in a democracy means living by the wishes of the majority, which means looking for workable solutions which can at least be acceptable, if not agreeable, to every one. And proclaiming that a baby is not a baby in the very final stages of pregnancy just because it’s a couple of weeks either side of the due date flies in the face of any sort of logic or reason.
Abortion is legal in the UK up to the 24th week of pregnancy. To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, TWO doctors must give their consent, stating that to ‘’continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children’’. In reality this does often mean abortion on demand, but that was not the intent of the law. There is another clause that I’m not personally happy with and that is ‘’if there is a substantial risk to the woman's life or if there are foetal abnormalities there is no time limit’’. This is because the ‘foetal abnormalities’ are not defined and could be relatively minor, but when you live in a democracy I guess you need to accept you don’t always get everything your own way.
At least we don’t allow the …UGH…..DNX method which as far as I can see is infanticide in another guise, I would get really upset if that were practiced here. I didn’t know what this entailed and so I made it my business to find out, seems it can and often does involve a full term baby or almost full term baby being delivered face down feet first up until the point where the head remains inside the mother. At this point the child is alive, often kicking and ready to enter the world. The ‘doctor’, inserts a sharp instrument up into the babies head via the neck and mashes the babies brains, at which point ( in most cases) the baby dies and can be delivered. This is too sick to contemplate, the fact that the head remains inside the mother is a technicality which I think that takes advantage of a peculiarity of law which doesn’t recognise a child as a child until the birthing process is complete. No amount of ….’it was rape’… ‘it was incest’… the baby will be disabled’….. etc etc justifies infanticide.
But this method of ‘abortion’ is extreme and not the norm. I’ve known women who have had abortions; I’ve known women who have taken themselves off to the hospital to get the ‘morning after pill (just in case) and I personally know two little girls who were born at 23 and 24 weeks gestation. Both children are happy, healthy and have no brain damage or other disabilities. What I’ve learnt from this is that abortion is ALWAYS a tragedy, the woman will always grieve and mourn what may have been but at the same time they don’t regret their decision. No woman plans an abortion, women don’t think …’hey I’ll go get myself pregnant and then abort that sounds like a fun thing to do’’……….nope, no one does that. The decision to abort is always sad and always difficult, the women involved always need support, what they don’t need some bible bashing, fire and brimstone breathing, fundamentalist zealot condemning them to a life of eternal damnation. That’s not really helpful or particularly therapeutic.
I suppose if I were asked I would have to say that abortion is often the least wrong thing to do. There is no point in arguing that abortion is somehow good, of course it isn’t but we are human, we live messy lives and sometimes in our lives there isn’t a ‘good’ option so we need to do the best we can, sometimes the ‘least bad’ is the best we can do. There are so many reasons why women resort to abortion and although rape and/ or incest are the most often quoted, they make up a tiny proportion of real cases. If I were asked for a time limit I guess I would say about 20 weeks because up until that point there is no viable baby and 20 weeks is actually 5 months which seems like plenty of time to make arrangements. If I were asked about criteria, I guess I would say if a woman feels she wants an abortion there is usually a pretty sound reason and she needs to be listened too. Not that what I think maters, what does matter is that the people who make these decisions agree to talk openly and honestly about it.
What I would really like to see is genuine discussion on this, not extremists from either side, both entrenched and immovable in their belief, trotting out the same old well rehearsed rhetoric, but genuine discussion where those involved are willing to negotiate. Those who oppose abortion need to realise they don’t have the right to impose their morality onto others and those who advocate abortion on demand need to realise they don’t live in isolation, they are part of a community and for the sake of the community as a whole, they need to negotiate. They also need to recognise that at some point an unborn child becomes an actual child. Everyone needs to want solutions more than they want victory. Every one needs to listen more and stop jumping down the throat of any one who says anything that doesn’t completely echo their own beliefs. Somehow some sort of workable negotiation needs to be found, cos the alternative is accelerated polarization of the whole dam country. And that’s scary.
19 Comments
Add a Comment
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 22, '11
Thank
you for your honesty............the whole subject is so difficult but
to have people who support one stance and don't judge others for
thinking differently is a giant step in the right direction.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 22, '11
acousticeagle said
 A
recent news report didn't say what trimester, but the report was about a
couple who recently aborted twin boys because they so desperately
wanted a girl. 
Thank
you for the link and its so sad but I think, in this particular case,
the couple are not going to find happiness, with or without a daughter,
untill they come to terms with their grief.
|
astranavigo08 wrote on Jan 22, '11
Frank, thank you for a well-thought-out response, complete with facts and numbers.
|
astranavigo08 wrote on Jan 22, '11
This
is the fundamental difference between people like you and the far
Right, which believes that they collectively are 'bound' to transform
American society into a theocracy.
Thank you for being a 'thinker'. |
acousticeagle wrote on Jan 22, '11
A
recent news report didn't say what trimester, but the report was about a
couple who recently aborted twin boys because they so desperately
wanted a girl. This was on Australian radio last week.
After I heard it, I felt a bit ill as what they had done seemed so unconcionable. My second thought was that so desperate for their happiness 'dream' that they might be tempting fate. Put it this way, they get a girl, and that girl ends up not being the child of their dreams. So who can guarantee happiness via children - and the wanted gender of children. I could put it this way, from personal experience. I've got two girls, would have liked a boy, but wouldn't swap those girls for the world. http://www.news.com.au/national/desperate-couple-abort-twin-boys-in-desperate-bid-for-ivf-girl/story-e6frfkvr-1225983907853 I'm just talking about this specific incident, but on the abortion issue, I would rather look at it as case-by-case. It's such a sensitive and emotive issue. |
I
am against abortion past the first few weeks of gestation. After much
consideration, I came to believe this is a religious belief of mine, or,
a personal moral belief. I will not foist my beliefs onto others and,
because people of good will generally believe differently from me, I
vote pro-choice. Women need to have control over their bodies. I do
not judge others who believe differently from me - we should be a
society that respects differences and the right of people to make their
own choices.
|
forgetmenot525 said
I think one day I would like to know more of these 'people issues' as you put it.
It's
not complicated, they are many of the same issues that you raise, being
up-to-date and dealing with today's world, i.e. health care, human
rights social programs, etc.
I believe that our problem is the two party system, with the conservative/republican side hanging on every word of the Constitution, interpreting it as if were written for today's world. Of course that is a ploy to keep their constituency in line. That constituency would rather listen to rhetoric and TV evangelicals, then actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights for themselves. In fact, if they read them, they would realize that the documents do not support their positions on many things. "The right to bear arms..." was written when muskets were the guns of the times, not 31 bullet magazine automatic rifles that are designed to kill people with rapid fire. So we have people using documents, that they have never read, 'in name only', to support their positions and then turning to the Bible to validate 'human behavior', ignoring that the Bible specifically dictates death for many of the things that they themselves do everyday. Hipocracy comes to mind, quite often. On the other hand the left/democrats won't call the conservatives' spins and bluffs. I would give them gun rights, I'd pass a law legalizing a musket for every household and ban all weapons developed since 1776. Nor will they stand up and be counted and counter the misinformation that is rampant in this country. Since the name of the game is politics, votes, reelection and winning over the majority, the liberals think that they 'take the high road', thus rising above the opposition. When in fact, they end up straddling the fence and walking on eggshells. A breath of fresh air would be a legitimate and creditable third party. One that addresses that we are not living in the 18th or 19th centuries, tells it like it is and values the human condition as well as the material condition of this country. We have had third parties emerge before, but they are all fixed on a specific issue, e.g. a greener America, anti-government, etc. Unfortunately, third parties always become spoilers during an election, because they have been traditionally out of step with national issues. They support a limited agenda and take just enough votes away from someone who may be good for the country and hand the election to the guy who has no business being in the White House. Once politics becomes a business, the people get screwed. |
 |
"The
anti-abortion/pro-life people in the US are most often the same people
who want Government out of their lives, yet they would impose their
religious beliefs and definitions of moral standards on Government and
the rest of the country. The reason for the great divide in this country
is because of the double-standard thinking that comes from those
groups. They would overturn laws permitting abortion, but oppose laws
that would fund health care and education for those unwanted children,
calling those laws socialism. In allowing such selfish and limited
thinking to influence the law of the land is much like having the tail
wag the dog."
This is because the Repulican party had to sell their souls to the religious right to stay alive. |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 22, '11
veryfrank said
I
agree that the American situation is different than the European.
Europe is more progressive than the US with institutionalizing 'people
issues'
Thank you Frank,... for taking the time to do this.
I think one day I would like to know more of these 'people issues' as you put it. I do understand the theory of American secularisation but in practice, in reality, I don't see America as acting like a secular society. In reality America seems (to me) to be a pretty fundamentalist Christian country with the religious beliefs of the majority dictating to rest of the non-christian population, all endorsed by Government. I guess I base this on things like the anti gay sentiment, the rise in so called islamophobia etc...There seems to be plenty of people who will tell you America was formed as a Christian country and that's the way it should stay. Plenty of people seem to want some sort of fundamentalist christian Government imposing their beliefs on every one else, not exactly what you would expect of a 'secular' society. I think what bothers me the most when I hear people debating this sort of topic is a lack of original thinking, It seems most people are content to quote; religious text, or the foundling fathers, or this amendment, or that amendment, or the constitution etc etc.............and never the rights or wrongs of a situation. I don't understand how progress can be made on any issue if all any one ever does is quote these things and attempt to make their point of view fit. What I would really like is to witness a totally free discussion where people THINK about what is right or wrong in todays society, what is best for every one not BECAUSE of what the Constitution says or the Foundling Fathers said, but regardless of them. I begin to feel as if no American is able to think outside of these things. I have to admit to being exasperated at all discussion being centered around these things and not centered around the issue. All of which I am sure you realise is in no way a criticism of you, or anything you have said, cos you DO 'think outside the box' :-) |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 22, '11
hedgewitch9 said
For
anyone who says ALL abortions are ''evil'' etc, try telling that to my
friend who was happily pregnant, and then at 4 months they discovered
she was carrying twins who were so entwined and twisted together, one
with no brain and both severely ill, that to go full term they would
have died in the womb and possibly transferred infection to the mother
Oh Emma that is so sad, my heart goes out to your friend.
|
I
agree that the American situation is different than the European.
Europe is more progressive than the US with institutionalizing 'people
issues'. That's another thought for another time.
The USA is a secular country. Secularizing a country typically involves granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, stopping public funds to be used for a religion, freeing the legal system from religious control, freeing up the education system, tolerating citizens who change religion or abstain from religion, and allowing political leadership to come to power regardless of religious beliefs. Abortion is one of our most controversial issues; it is a political, religious, legal, and moral issue. Yet despite its global reach, developed secular free societies such as the United States are the most divided on the issue of abortion. Abortion is being used as a tool for political manipulation. The US was founded on the premise that personal freedom is an essential human right. As a result, many believe the idea of allowing government to restrict a woman's right to choose what to do with her body contradicts this intrinsically American value. Abortion issues also involve elements of morality and religion, and thus force us to question the importance of morality versus our right to freedom thus causing dilemmas in passing legislation on an issue that clearly includes aspects that are both secular and non-secular. Furthermore, the US was founded on the belief that church and state should remain separate. The anti-abortion/pro-life people in the US are most often the same people who want Government out of their lives, yet they would impose their religious beliefs and definitions of moral standards on Government and the rest of the country. The reason for the great divide in this country is because of the double-standard thinking that comes from those groups. They would overturn laws permitting abortion, but oppose laws that would fund health care and education for those unwanted children, calling those laws socialism. In allowing such selfish and limited thinking to influence the law of the land is much like having the tail wag the dog. I have my opinions and dilemmas like everyone else. I agree with the many who support pro-choice and a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. My dilemma is where does that end and the right of the unborn begin? Consequently, I support regulating third trimester abortions. On the surface, even that appears to be unconstitutional, based on the premise that personal freedom is an essential/fundamental human right, yet it is the law in many States. USA poll - abortion: Third trimester abortion support: Yes: 10% - No: 84% Second trimester abortion support: Yes: 25% - No: 68% First trimester abortion support: Yes: 66% - No: 29% I don't see this being resolved for several generations. There are still too many who still think thoughts born of the Victorian age, a time that influenced much American thinking. Our youth seem to be the progressives, the current generations in power have not only missed the boat, but fell off the pier. "I have said that no man thinking thoughts born out of time can succeed in leading his generation, and that successful leadership is a product of sympathy, not of antagonism." - Woodrow Wilson, 28th US President, (1913 to 1921) |
hedgewitch9 wrote on Jan 22, '11, edited on Jan 22, '11
For
anyone who says ALL abortions are ''evil'' etc, try telling that to my
friend who was happily pregnant, and then at 4 months they discovered
she was carrying twins who were so entwined and twisted together, one
with no brain and both severely ill, that to go full term they would
have died in the womb and possibly transferred infection to the mother -
well, there was no option but to put the poor little things out of
their misery and prevent further trauma and possible injury to the
mother. The only people who would ever have an abortion ''carelessly''
are those with insufficient reason and understanding, all other mothers
so do in a sad, resigned manner, at a last resort. And therefore
abortion must be allowed to be permitted, and it may not be perfect, but
as you say Loretta, neither is life.
Good blog, well done for addressing it. Blessings xx |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 22, '11
Thank
you Brenda, and yes I agree, in many ways the what happens in America
is so very different to what happens in Europe. I also think people in
Europe are more willing to find some middle ground where they can agree.
In America it seems as if you have to be staunchly on one side or the
other, its almost a crime to want to find some way of working together,
outright victory is far more important to the vast majority of
people..........or at least thats the ways it seems to me.
|
brendainmad wrote on Jan 22, '11
No
criticism meant and I don't discuss this subject or almost never, but
from my personal point of view the American situation is quite different
from what it is in Europe. The Americans are more puritanical, and,
whether they recognise it or not, what they are permitted to see or know
is at least a lot more censored than it is here in Spain. I'm used to
it now, but at first I was shocked by some of the ads on Spanish TV and
films too that were shown at times when I'm sure children were watching.
Of course, I find even more shocking how the American doctor, if he
can be called that, murdered those babies and I'll bet they were aborted
for none of the reasons some of us would say okay there's a good reason
or an explanation for this abortion. That said, I guess I respect life
too much to want to destroy it. Besides, there are many women who are
unable to have children and who would love to be able to adopt. They
have even gone to China to be able to adopt a child. I'm under the
impression that the majority of Americans are against Obama's health
plan that he so wants adopted, so many women given their economic or
social situation finds themselves obliged to go to butchers to terminate
a pregnancy for whatever reason they feel they must. As for the
anti-abortionists, forcing their opinion on others through violence is
not the solution.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 22, '11
astranavigo08 said
I'd
posit that the nation's churches, along with so many other of our
institutions, are collectively morally bankrupt - if they weren't,
they'd be protesting the dreadful impact of war and its bedfellows -
unemployment, homelessness, and the destruction of a generation, rather
than the religious-strawmen of abortion, gay-rights, and such.)
Someone
should be protesting the impact of war, torture, and the general mayhem
abound in the world today, and yes i agree.............I would expect
it to be the churches. Although I have to say in their defense some
churches DO frequently speak out against the horrors of war.
|
|
starfishred wrote on Jan 22, '11
astranavigo08 said
I, too, respect everyone's right to practice their chosen religion, no matter how off-the-wall and illogical. The difference comes when religious people try to make their religion the law, as we've seen with the anti-abortion crowd. The notion of "Don't want abortion? Don't have one" is logic which they just can't seem to grasp. (I'd posit that the nation's churches, along with so many other of our institutions, are collectively morally bankrupt - if they weren't, they'd be protesting the dreadful impact of war and its bedfellows - unemployment, homelessness, and the destruction of a generation, rather than the religious-strawmen of abortion, gay-rights, and such.)
agree :)
|
astranavigo08 wrote on Jan 22, '11
I, too, respect everyone's right to practice their chosen religion, no matter how off-the-wall and illogical.
The difference comes when religious people try to make their religion the law, as we've seen with the anti-abortion crowd. The notion of "Don't want abortion? Don't have one" is logic which they just can't seem to grasp. (I'd posit that the nation's churches, along with so many other of our institutions, are collectively morally bankrupt - if they weren't, they'd be protesting the dreadful impact of war and its bedfellows - unemployment, homelessness, and the destruction of a generation, rather than the religious-strawmen of abortion, gay-rights, and such.) |
No comments:
Post a Comment